Legislature(2007 - 2008)HOUSE FINANCE 519
07/26/2008 10:00 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB4003 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB4002 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB4003 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 4002
"An Act establishing the Alaska resource rebate program
and relating to the program; and providing for an
effective date."
10:11:01 AM
RANDALL RUARO, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR,
provided information on the legislation. He observed that
the legislation is based on sharing the resource wealth of
the state among residents through a one-time $1,200 payment.
He emphasized that the principle of sharing resources with
all residents of the state is fixed in the Constitution,
Article 8. He thought HB 4002 would build a good foundation
since it benefits all Alaskans and provides an efficient way
to distribute the needed checks. He acknowledged the next
step would be a long term plan. He observed that CSHB 4002
(CRA) made four significant changes. The payment method was
changed from a separate check to a separate line item on the
permanent fund dividend (PFD) check, which changes the
timing from the first week of August to the first week of
October. The potential pool of eligible Alaskans was
narrowed to those found eligible by the Department of
Revenue for the 2008 PFD. Overall the changes reduced the
fiscal impact from $800 to $745 million and eliminated most
of the administrative costs. He observed that both versions
allow a significant one-time payment to 620,000 Alaskans to
be made quickly.
10:15:34 AM
Co-Chair Meyer asked Mr. Ruaro if he supported the changes
made in the bill. Mr. Ruaro replied that the administration
does support the changes while acknowledging additional work
that needs to be done.
Co-Chair Meyer asked Mr. Ruaro if he supported the basic
premise of attaching the payment to the permanent fund
dividend, instead of a separate distribution. Mr. Ruaro
affirmed his support.
Co-Chair Meyer asked why the governor did not propose those
changes initially. Mr. Ruaro replied that the goal was to
get checks out as soon as possible, and that option was
available if unattached.
Co-Chair Meyer specified that it was a valid choice because
in order to get the payment out quickly, it would incur some
administrative costs. Mr. Ruaro agreed.
10:16:51 AM
Representative Thomas asked if people could apply in the
circumstance that they were philosophically opposed to
receiving permanent fund checks, but wanted energy
assistance.
Mr. Ruaro replied that the administration would like to
broaden the pool of people who would receive the resource
rebate check who do not receive permanent fund checks. He
observed that there are approximately 400 veterans and their
spouses that do not apply for their permanent fund dividends
since it only offsets their veterans benefits.
Vice-Chair Stoltze had questions regarding the hold harmless
provision and its impact on the possible reduction of
dividends.
10:19:10 AM
JON SHERWOOD, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PROGRAM REVIEW, DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, provided information
regarding the hold harmless statute. Hold harmless statutes
protect people who receive public assistance if they get the
permanent fund dividend. He explained that the state makes
up the difference in any federally required reductions in
their public assistance benefits. He elaborated that any
hold harmless benefits the state would pay as a result of
the CRA version would be funded through the permanent fund
dividend distribution account. Hold harmless payments under
the original legislation would have been made through the
Department of Health and Social Services' general assistance
program. He added that the CRA version recalculated the hold
harmless costs because the payments will occur when people
are already receiving permanent fund dividends that are
already going into hold harmless for public assistance
benefits. He estimated a current projection at $400,000,
which is a substantial reduction from the original version.
10:22:25 AM
Vice-Chair Stoltze clarified that the dividend recipients
pay the hold harmless costs after the state takes out its
administration costs. He estimated that each Alaskan's
permanent fund dividend would be reduced by 80 cents - 90
cents. Mr. Sherwood acknowledged the assessment to the best
of his knowledge.
Representative Gara asked if the hold harmless would come
out of the $1,200 payment as opposed to the permanent fund
dividend.
10:23:58 AM
JERRY BURNETT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, explained that hold
harmless funds reduce the amount from which permanent fund
dividends are paid. In the original bill, the hold harmless
was directed at the resource rebate and there was a general
fund appropriation of approximately $10,600,000. With the
change, he wasn't sure how the difference between the hold
harmless results would be distinguished from the permanent
fund distribution and the resource rebate if they are on the
same check.
Representative Gara asked how the energy rebate was
attached.
Mr. Burnett answered that if calculated from the hold
harmless it would reduce the permanent fund dividend around
70 cents. The alternative was to appropriate additional
general fund dollars to the hold harmless program, and not
reduce the permanent fund dividend. He continued that it
was an appropriation choice the committee and legislature
could make.
10:26:57 AM
Representative Gara reported that he had learned about
seniors at the pioneer's home who get subsidized rent, but
they don't get their senior benefits. One of the hold
harmless effects would be that residents of the pioneers
home would get to keep the $1,200 checks. He stated concerns
about people possibly unable to keep the $1,200 if there was
no hold harmless provision. He explained further that with
out hold harmless the potential exists for people to be left
out of senior and public housing assistance.
Mr. Burnett replied that as the bill is written the rebate
is separate from the permanent fund dividend. The resource
rebate would not be counted for public housing purposes and
probably not for child support calculations since it is a
one-time check.
Representative Gara asked about garnishment. Mr. Burnett
replied that because of the mechanism being used the
resource rebate would be garnished the same as the permanent
fund dividend.
10:30:11 AM
Co-Chair Chenault observed that the resource rebate would
not have been garnished under the original proposal. Mr.
Burnett agreed that the resource rebate was exempt from
garnishment in the original proposal.
Representative Hawker asked if the resource rebate would be
subject to garnishment or other legal attachment if the
checks were administered more quickly.
Mr. Ruaro said his understanding was that garnishment could
not occur at an administrative level; checks would be
subject to garnishment once they were received and
deposited.
Representative Hawker furthered there was no exemption for
garnishing this payment. Mr. Ruaro agreed.
10:32:01 AM
In response to a question by Vice-Chair Stoltze, Mr. Burnett
explained that the equivalent of what incarcerated felons
would receive is now taken out of the permanent dividend
fund and transferred to corrections and public safety. He
clarified that this money would not be part of the permanent
fund dividend at any time, so would not increase that pool
for those purposes.
Co-Chair Chenault thought the Department of Health and
Social Services might know what would be lost if the hold
harmless was not funded.
Mr. Sherwood clarified that under the permanent fund hold
harmless statute, state and local programs are directed to
disregard the permanent fund dividend unless required by
federal law. The programs that require that the dividend be
counted are: Medicaid, Food Stamp Program, Supplemental
Security Income, and the Adult Public assistance program.
10:35:10 AM
Co-Chair Chenault asked if there was federal income tax paid
on any of the benefits. Mr. Sherwood answered that public
assistance benefits are not taxable.
Co-Chair Chenault noted that others will pay at least 25% of
their check to the federal government.
Mr. Sherwood explained that the dividend itself is subject
to taxation, but typically needs-based benefits are not
taxable, so the recipients of the hold harmless check are
not taxed.
Co-Chair Meyer asked what is the average taxation rate for
Alaskans. Mr. Ruaro offered to find the requested
information.
Co-Chair Meyer surmised that the $1,200 payment came out of
the governor's initial proposal for a $100 per month debit
account. Mr. Ruaro agreed.
10:37:18 AM
Co-Chair Meyer cited the feedback he had heard about kids
not having the energy costs adults would have and the
suggestion that the $1,200 should go to adults only. Mr.
Ruaro agreed that it could be done as a policy matter,
through the permanent fund dividend process.
Representative Hawker asked about consequences to people in
prison. Currently, permanent fund dividend checks for
incarcerated felons are kept by the state and used to
subsidize the Department of Corrections. Mr. Burnett
clarified that the resource rebate would not be paid to
inmates. The resource rebate does not go into the Permanent
Fund Dividend Fund from which the money comes for the
Incarcerated Felon Fund. Funds that would have been paid to
felons would remain in the general fund.
Representative Hawker requested guidance through the legal
argument behind Mr. Burnett's statement.
Mr. Burnett explained that since this is not a permanent
fund dividend check, but instead added to the permanent fund
dividend check as an energy resource rebate, it does not go
into the fund from which the money comes for incarcerated
felon funds. He stated that money was simply not
appropriated for them.
Representative Hawker argued that the wording "the amount of
the permanent fund dividend shall be increased" suggests
that it is part of the dividend.
Mr. Burnett thought some clarifying language would be good.
Representative Hawker requested itemization of the
additional work needed for the bill.
10:40:57 AM
Mr. Ruaro responded that the additional work included the
scope of the pool to try and capture or allow veterans over
65 years of age, making less than $13,000 per year to
receive pension payments. He would also like to see
disabled veterans in the pool. In addition, he wanted to add
language to allow persons to choose not to receive the
rebate if they are philosophically opposed. If there is some
federal benefit that the state has not accounted for, that
would make them ineligible for those benefits, and he wanted
to give them a way out.
Representative Hawker asked if there was an inventory of
those programs where there is an anticipated federal benefit
loss.
Mr. Ruaro had identified some of the possible programs, but
wanted to further review them. He elaborated that they were
captured in the initial drafting of the bill, as hold
harmless.
10:43:21 AM
Representative Hawker asked how to rationalize the issues of
energy policy being efficient, equitable and effective. He
asked if he thought this was efficient.
Mr. Ruaro agreed that there was no doubt that the benefits
being taxable were a down side. He argued that there were a
number of ways that the income could be used that would be
beneficial to recipients, for example, a more efficient
heating system. He suggested that this is an opportunity for
individuals to make those kinds of long-term changes in
their homes.
Representative Hawker detailed that eligible Alaskans could
spend all but 25% on those mentioned beneficial changes,
because at least that amount would be going to federal
taxes. Mr. Ruaro agreed.
Representative Hawker asked about mechanisms other than the
direct cash handout. He suggested that this might be done
through local governments or local utilities. Regarding
property tax, he suggested a revenue sharing approach that
would result in direct property tax relief. He stated "we
could get literally 100% value without taxable transaction."
He asked if anything like that had been considered.
Mr. Ruaro replied that he looked at a number of ways to get
benefits to people and avoid tax consequences. The catch was
that all Alaskans were not reached with those hypothetical
cases.
Representative Hawker remarked that his understanding is
that because there was no readily identifiable solution, a
compromise, including giving one third of the money to the
federal government, was agreed upon.
10:47:37 AM
Mr. Ruaro explained that the issue of taxation was not seen
as and either/or type of situation, as there were other
components considered such as Power Cost Equalization (PCE)
and Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) that
are nontaxable.
Co-Chair Meyer added that his approach was that the net $900
could be used toward motor fuel, electric and/or gas heat.
He agreed that it could also be used toward weatherization.
Representative Joule asked about obligations towards
children even if a person did not apply.
Mr. Burnett clarified that the bill Representative Joule
referred to was HB 366. He pointed out that it concerned
felon funds, the money otherwise paid to incarcerated felons
for children of incarcerated who owed child support. This
bill would not have an effect on that.
10:50:29 AM
Vice-Chair Stoltze clarified the differentiation is in the
derivation of the money, since it comes from general fund.
Mr. Burnett acknowledged that could be one of the
differentiations. He observed that clarifying language to
separately identify resource rebates and permanent fund
dividends may be needed.
Vice-Chair Stoltze wished to clarify that the resource
rebate funds have not entered the permanent fund dividend
stream.
Mr. Burnett explained that the money from the Permanent Fund
is identified. The department then calculates: the number of
people who will not receive dividends, the appropriations
for hold harmless; the balance from the previous year; and
the number of qualifying individuals to determine the amount
of the permanent fund dividend. The money allocated for
incarcerated felons is set aside at this time, after which
the additional general fund appropriation for the resource
rebate is added.
10:53:25 AM
Representative Nelson asked about benefits for military
families. She questioned the possibility of military
personnel absent from Alaska, and therefore not in need of
energy assistance.
Mr. Burnett answered that military families and others on
allowable absences would receive the resource rebate just as
they receive permanent fund dividends. He divulged there
were approximately 14,000 people living outside of Alaska
who received permanent fund dividends last year and
estimated that this year will likely be similar.
Representative Nelson expressed concerns about equality and
agreed that it could be defined in different ways. She did
not think energy rebates should be given to those who are
not incurring Alaska energy costs. Mr. Ruaro said that could
be done through the authority of the legislature
Representative Nelson clarified that family members that are
here should be eligible, but she did not think the intent of
the legislation was to fund those who were away and were not
paying energy costs. Co-Chair Meyer acknowledged the point.
10:56:03 AM
Representative Hawker asked what the intent of the proposal
was and questioned if it is to provide energy cost relief to
Alaska residents or is it to give away the resource derived
surplus.
Mr. Ruaro divulged the foundation and basis of the payment
is to share Alaska resource wealth with Alaskans. The
administration acknowledged that high energy costs are
impacting Alaskans, but the basis of the payment is the
sharing of Alaska's resource wealth.
Representative Hawker asked if Alaskans can use the rebate
to purchase luxury items. Mr. Ruaro affirmed there is no
restriction on the payment.
Representative Hawker spoke to the motive of the
administration. Mr. Ruaro reiterated the basis for the
payment was sharing the resource wealth.
10:58:33 AM
Representative Gara hoped to achieve the goals and to save
money at the same time. He contended that $700 million could
fund many needed programs. He thought limiting the checks to
adults would save $200 million, while achieving the same
goals. He wondered how many Alaskans were under 18 and how
much was saved if limited.
Mr. Burnett answered that he did not have the details for
2008, but in 2007 there were 451,022 adult applications and
177,873 child applications. Representative Gara estimated
that would save one third of the cost. Mr. Burnett agreed
with Representative Gara's estimate.
Representative Gara suggested the Permanent Fund Corporation
could figure out, by using the qualifying date, who is under
18.
11:02:33 AM
Mr. Ruaro said that the technical details regarding the
determination of those citizens under the age of 18 are
relatively simple.
Representative Gara questioned the determination of minors
who are emancipated and currently running households.
Mr. Ruaro believed that applications from emancipated minors
were already taken into account.
Co-Chair Meyer noted he had received the same feedback and
information. He argued that a family of five or six has
higher costs than a family of one.
11:04:23 AM
Mr. Burnett reminded the committee that it is a resource
rebate, and the concept is similar to the permanent fund,
where all Alaskans are included regardless of age.
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if there were a legal definition of
head of household. Mr. Rauro thought that there was a
definition in federal statute and offered research the
definitions.
Vice-Chair Stoltze referred to same sex couples and
questioned what constitutes a "household". Mr. Ruaro did not
know the answer.
11:06:56 AM
Representative Hawker asked if the appropriation is on an
annual basis. Mr. Ruaro answered that the intention is to
limit the appropriation to one time.
Representative Hawker asked if there is any assurance that
it is a one time program. Mr. Ruaro stated that he was not
aware of any intent to introduce a similar bill next year.
Representative Hawker requested assurance that the
administration would not renew this program this year. Mr.
Ruaro could not provide that assurance.
Representative Hawker commented on the difficulty of
removing a program once it is in place. Mr. Ruaro thought
the expectations might exist regardless of the bill.
Representative Hawker inquired if it would make a difference
if the price of oil was stable next year.
Mr. Ruaro said that they could possibly add findings and
intent language to the bill supporting a one time program.
He was not comfortable speculating about future language,
but he knew that there was no intent to file a bill next
year .
Representative Hawker summarized that there is not a nexus
between the legislation and increasing oil costs. He
suggested looking at a more durable program for the future.
He wondered if the administration would be interested in
such a program. Mr. Ruaro offered to discuss concepts with
Representative Hawker.
11:12:30 AM
Representative Hawker asked if the resource rebate is a one
year program, or if it should exist on a longer basis as
part of a long-range plan.
KAREN REHFELD, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
thought that the goal was to have a long-range plan. "This
particular package is meant to be one time." She emphasized
that the governor welcomed the ideas and discussions brought
forward by the legislature.
Representative Hawker pointed out that the focus is on high
oil prices. He stressed the need to also consider the
escalating oil production decline. He asked how soon the
state would be in a position of budget deficits.
Ms. Rehfeld thought that was a critical question. She noted
the importance of putting money into the constitutional
budget reserve. She offered to provide additional
information.
Representative Hawker reiterated the importance of a long-
range fiscal plan. Ms. Rehfeld opined that a tremendous
amount of work is needed first.
11:18:32 AM
Representative Joule expressed concerns regarding the bill
due to the differences in energy costs throughout the state.
He hoped to have a conversation about how best to provide
balance across the state.
11:21:13 AM
Representative Nelson thought that not including children in
the household count could have legal ramifications. She
specified that in a case of a family with a single parent or
a parent with poor participation, the money for children was
important.
11:22:21 AM
Representative Gara believed that there would be problems if
specific groups are excluded from the household definition.
He said there is already a statutory definition: "legally
emancipated". He agreed with Representative Nelson that
some families need the money more than others. He
questioned the expense of $250 million for families based on
their size. He had problems spending the money on a check
for everyone.
Representative Gara asked Ms. Rehfeld if it was the
administration's policy to spend $800 million on resource
rebate rather than fund eight years of early education.
Representative Nelson thought the question was inappropriate
under special session and the topic should be limited to
AGIA and an energy rebate.
11:25:59 AM
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out the topics before the committee.
He asked why the administration feels that this is a serious
use of the money. Representative Gara said he was serious
about his question, but offered to end the discussion.
11:27:10 AM
Co-Chair Chenault spoke about the disadvantages of not
allowing children to qualify.
Vice-Chair Stoltze took issue with Representative Gara's
restatement of his comment. He brought up the situation
where extended family members manage households.
11:29:03 AM
Mr. Burnett explained how dividends are held in trust when
an application process has not occurred for the mentioned
children. He stated that the children would then receive
the dividend money when they turned 18 years of age.
Representative Nelson asked if that should be in writing.
Mr. Burnett thought it would not be necessary due to the
current language in the bill.
11:30:06 AM
Representative Thomas pointed out that this bill touches
everyone equally.
HB 4002 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HB4002-RESOURCE REBATE PROGRAM FOR RESIDENTS
HB4003-APPROP: ENERGY RELIEF/REBATE/FUEL TAX
TIME SPEAKER DISCUSSION
1:08:37 PM JULIE KITKA, Provided members with written testimony
PRESIDENT, (copy on file). She related that this
ALASKA is a very historic period due to
FEDERATION OF financial problems in the U.S. economy,
NATIVES as well as to high energy costs. The
state has a responsibility to provide
affordable energy to Alaskans and to
provide energy to the Lower 48. Every
major institution in the Native
community is concerned about the energy
problem. The Native community is
interested in having the solutions
accountable, to incentivize
communities, and expand the private
sector. A new shift in thinking needs
to take place. Energy relief is a
first step. State resources must also
be invested for the future. She
cautioned that actions that are taken
do not create a backlash. She spoke in
favor of stabilizing energy costs, a
cash rebate, and a multi-year approach
to energy prices. She believed high
energy costs are here to stay. Ms.
Kitka looked at restructuring as an
opportunity and the need for smart
investing on behalf of state
government. She stressed providing
immediate relief. Ms. Kitka pointed
out that all cost-of-living prices have
increased. She spoke in support of
funding for Power Cost Equalization
(PCE). She recommended that rural
utilities be stabilized. She spoke in
behalf of the Denali Commission's
energy needs. She testified in support
of the family fuel subsidy and in favor
of funding alternative energy projects
in order to encourage economic
development. She also stated support
for funding higher education
institutions so that they can proceed
with research on energy issues. She
thanked the committee for their work.
1:31:38 PM Co-Chair Meyer Asked if those opinions were from the
Alaska Federation of Natives.
1:32:24 PM Ms. Kitka Explained where her statements came
from the Alaska Federation of Natives
(AFN) energy group.
1:32:46 PM Vice-Chair Talked about the need for an early
Stoltze energy relief payment.
1:33:49 PM JERRY BURNETT, Explained the recommendations for
DIRECTOR, payment of the rebate and the
DIVISION OF possibility for an earlier payment.
ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE
1:35:04 PM Vice-Chair Thought there might be a way to
Stoltze facilitate an earlier payment.
1:35:42 PM Mr. Burnett Observed that it may be possible to
issue a separate resource rebate check
a few weeks before the permanent fund
dividend is issued.
1:35:58 PM Representative Thanked Ms. Kitka for her testimony and
Gara invited her to return often.
1:36:22 PM Ms. Kitka Complimented the legislators for their
accessibility.
1:37:05 PM ROBERT KEITH, Spoke to the "urban/rural divide"
CHAIR, comment. He recalled past use of that
KAWERAK, INC., term. He complimented the legislature
NOME on their welcoming attitude. He
described problems related to rising
costs in his Native village of Elim. He
noted a problem with the economic
impact of a $1200 rebate. He suggested
using excess funds to mitigate fuel
costs. He described energy summits in
his area, wind generators, the SITCO
program, and federal grant programs. He
suggested having a technical clearing
house for energy issues. He spoke in
favor of PCE.
1:49:18 PM Representative Inquired about the use of solar panels
Joule in the region.
1:49:57 PM Mr. Keith Reported that Bering Strait Native
Corporation has installed a large solar
panel, as have several other
corporations.
1:52:18 PM BARB NICKELS, Reported that the Bering Strait
DIRECTOR, Development Council supports SB 4002
BERING STRAIT and SB 4003. She spoke of rising fuel
DEVELOPMENT costs in the Bering Strait region and
COUNCIL the hardships that creates for
(ARDOR) community members. She referred to the
relationship between fuel costs and
migration out of villages and the
resulting implications on educational
systems. She spoke in favor of a state
economic development plan. She
concluded that rural Alaskans want to
help themselves, yet need the state's
immediate assistance.
1:59:48 PM Representative Thanked Ms. Nickels for her testimony.
Gara
2:00:23 PM DAVID PELTO, Testified against the bills, as
PALMER written. He maintained that long-term
investments are needed and the state
should help only those in need. He
spoke against the sense of entitlement
many Alaskans have.
2:03:03 PM JUDITH Testified against funds for individuals
ANDEREGG, in the form of an energy assistance
PALMER rebate using PFD qualifications to
determine residency.
2:07:24 PM HOWARD DORSEY, Testified in support of the resource
KENAI rebate program for residents. He spoke
of ways that he could benefit from the
rebate in home improvements and
weatherization. He suggested that the
money be dispersed sooner than later,
as the fuel barges leave for remote
villages in near future.
2:11:41 PM MARGARET Discussed documents she submitted on
MANOUSOFF, behalf of Alaska Conservation Solutions
ALASKA (copy on file.) She testified in
CONSERVATION opposition to the resource rebate
SOLUTIONS, program for several reasons;
ANCHORAGE entitlement, tax, and equity issues,
and social consequences. She maintained
that common resources ought to be used
for the common good. She suggested
possible solutions to energy problems.
She urged the state to make long-
lasting investments.
2:21:50 PM Representative Asked for more information about Ms.
Hawker Manousoff's organization.
2:22:53 PM Ms. Manousoff Explained her organization's history
and focus on education about causes of
global warming, including possible
solutions.
2:24:02 PM JERRY Suggested using the energy assistance
MCCUTCHEON, program qualifications (LIHEAP) to
ANCHORAGE determine eligibility for energy
relief. He requested that the money be
paid to the individual rather than the
vendor. He testified against fuel tax
suspension.
2:27:34 PM PAUL D. Complimented Ms. Kitka's presentation.
KENDALL, Testified against the Resource Rebate
ANCHORAGE program for residents. He emphasized
the need to stay focused on the issues.
He suggested a daily television program
by the Alaska Energy Authority. He
stressed the need for clean air,
alternative methods of electricity, and
transportation.
2:40:19 PM BI JERREL, Testified in support of the Resource
KENAI Rebate program for residents.
2:43:44 PM EUGENE Testified in support of the Resource
BOBLETT, Rebate program for residents. He
SOLDOTNA stressed his difficult economic
situation as a senior with the rising
cost of propane.
2:59:46 PM TOM LOKOSH Questioned the nexus between the rebate
bill and the Governor's budget and how
funds are allocated. He pointed out
that none of the rebates allow for the
person who rents. He thought that the
LIHEAP formula should be used to
determine qualification for the rebate.
He suggested finding less expensive
alternative energy sources rather than
subsidizing in the form of PCE.
3:13:18 PM Representative Clarified a previous conversation with
Nelson Representative Gara regarding the
resource rebate.
3:14:40 PM Mr. Lakosh Commented on dispersing natural
resources in the state.
3:15:32 PM Representative Explained the purpose of the special
Nelson session and the allowable topics of
discussion.
3:16:28 PM GEORGIA Shared her personal experience with
WESTFALL high fuel costs "off the grid". She
testified in favor of the resource
rebate.
3:20:58 PM LAURA Testified in favor of the resource
SCHAEVITZ, rebate. She spoke of the high cost of
ANCHORAGE living. She opposed using the rebate to
garnish wages.
3:28:28 PM JUDITH MAGNUS, Shared her experiences with higher cost
ANCHORAGE of living expenses. She testified in
favor of the resource rebate.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:34 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|