Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
04/16/2024 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
HB307 | |
HB393 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ | HB 393 | TELECONFERENCED | |
*+ | HB 307 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 393 "An Act relating to oil and gas leases and royalty shares; and providing for an effective date." 2:30:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE TOM MCKAY, SPONSOR, explained that the bill related to Cook Inlet and Middle Earth gas royalties. He mentioned recent discussions regarding gas storage. He related that he had introduced a package of energy bills that roughly formed an energy plan. He reminded the committee that Cook Inlet was an isolated and mature basin with a "hybrid closed market and a limited amount of consumption at 70 Billion Cubic Feet (BCF) per year." Any amount higher than 70 bcf needed to be stored. He added that importing LNG was not anticipated until 2030, and it would need storage as well. He believed that gas that was not developed did not benefit anyone and HB 393 was meant to incentivize more gas production. He read the sponsor statement (copy on file): In the coming years, Southcentral Alaska faces a critical challenge: a projected shortage and ever- increasing decline in Cook Inlet gas production. This looming shortage poses a significant threat to the energy security of our state, with the potential to lead to drastic increases in energy prices for the residents and businesses of Southcentral Alaska. The prospect of diminishing in-state gas supplies and a reliance on liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports not only threatens our economic stability but also our way of life. Due to the nature of this issue, bold and decisive action is required. HB 393 makes a significant change to the Cook Inlet royalty structure based on the idea that the Inlet is not attracting enough investment dollars and activity for development and exploration drilling. At this critical juncture, royalties on Cook Inlet gas which decrease drilling activity, increase the cost of gas, or lead to costly LNG imports represent a tax on southcentral ratepayers in addition to jeopardizing the energy security of our state. This legislation seeks to address the anticipated gas production shortfall by decreasing royalty rates on new wells for gas used by Alaskans to 0%, with the goal of fostering an environment which will lead to increased drilling and exploration activities in the Cook Inlet region. This bill also reduces the base royalty on wells currently producing to 5%, which will extend the life of those wells leading to more gas production. HB 393 extends incentives to "middle earth" and allows drilling and development costs to be deducted against royalty burdens. The rationale behind HB 393 is straightforward: by enhancing project economics, we can attract more investment into natural gas exploration and production. This increased investment will not only mitigate the risk of a gas shortage but also has the potential to stabilize energy prices for Southcentral Alaskans. HB 393 is an acknowledgment of the critical role that affordable and reliable energy plays in our lives and a recognition of the need for immediate action to secure our energy future. I urge my colleagues in the rd 33 Alaska State Legislature to join me in supporting HB 393. 2:36:33 PM TREVOR JEPSEN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY, introduced the PowerPoint presentation HB 393 Cook Inlet/Middle Earth Gas Royalties" dated April 16, 2024 (copy on file). He began on slide 1 titled "Cook Inlet Production Shortage • State is facing a looming and increasing shortage of Cook Inlet natural gas production. • Legislature has tools at its disposal via legislation to address Cook Inlet gas production. • No "silver-bullet" solution. The slide also contained a bar graph depicting proved developed and proved undeveloped Cook Inlet Gas through 2041. Mr. Jepsen elaborated that declining Cook Inlet gas production was expected to lead to a supply shortage from the 70 bcf standard necessary for Southcentral Alaska. He pointed out that the blue section of bar graph represented proven reserves and the orange portion was expected proved undeveloped reserves. The shortage was anticipated to begin in 2027. However, the shortage would develop over a period of 15 to 20 years. The impacts of importing LNG would significantly increase energy costs affecting the cost of living beyond Southcentral Alaska and possibly increase outmigration from the state. He believed that current decreasing worker retention rates would be exacerbated, and state and municipal government budgets would increase due to increased fuel costs. He voiced that royalty relief was the "most immediate and impactful tool at the legislature's disposal and passage of the bill was "crucial." Mr. Jepsen continued on slide 2 titled "Poll Results: What Do Alaskans Want:" • High level of support (59%) for state incentives to private companies and utilities to identify and pursue projects to ensure energy deliverability. • Same support (59%) for creating financial incentives for oil and gas companies to find and produce more Cook Inlet gas. • Significant opposition to importing natural gas (72%) with 44% having "strong" opposition. Most common reason for opposition: "there is plenty of gas, we're a resources state, we just need to get the gas." (46%) "Importing gas is more expensive" only cited by 18% of respondents. • If residents were convinced imports are the cheapest option could be a sizeable shift in support, up to 60%. • 87% of residents support the construction of a natural gas pipeline for in-state use and export ; evenly divided on the idea of reducing the PFD to help fund a gas line (40 percent support/49 percent oppose. Mr. Jepsen expounded that HB 393 responded to the "high level of support for financial incentives regarding Cook Inlet gas production." He indicated that the bill was predicated on the idea that gas produced in Cook Inlet was used by Alaskans and high royalties acting as a disincentive or leaving gas undeveloped leading to importing LNG acted as a "tax on Alaskans." Mr. Jepsen continued on slide 3 titled "Market Dynamics" that contained a graphic depicting a hypothetical scenario that did not represent exact volumes and prices. He explained that proven developed reserves were the least expensive gas to produce and the least costly to the consumer. Moving right on the graphic to discovered but undeveloped gas was more costly and drove up gas prices. He moved further to the right that depicted undiscovered reserves where production was significantly more expensive due to exploration and development costs. He shared that according to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) there were hundreds of bcf of discovered and undiscovered gas in Cook Inlet. He offered that changes to royalties lowered net costs to the producers and pass through costs to the consumers and increased project economics. However, the royalty relief must be sufficient to produce desired results. 2:42:26 PM Representative Hannan inquired about the poll on slide 2. She asked for the date the poll was conducted, the poll size, and poll geography; statewide or Railbelt only. Mr. Jepsen responded that the number of participants was 402 resulting in a 95 percent confidence interval of 5 percent plus or minus a margin of error. The population size was representative of the share of the population in Southcentral. He offered to provide the exact geographic distribution of poll respondents. The poll was taken the prior summer. Representative Hannan remarked that the poll seemed broader She asked who paid for the poll. Mr. Jepsen affirmed that the poll was broad based. He added that it was conducted by Dittman Research and paid for by Enstar. Representative Stapp cited Mr. Jepsen's statement that the royalty represented a tax on all Alaskans. He asked what the current royalty on North Slope gas was. Mr. Jepsen replied that it was 12.5 percent. Representative Stapp asked who paid for the royalty on North Slope gas. Mr. Jepsen was uncertain. Representative Stapp explained that the Interior Gas Utility (IGU), in Fairbanks had a contract with Hilcorp through a Hilcorp subsidiary called "Harvest" to truck Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) to the Interior beginning in October [2024]. He noted that it was full royalty gas. He asked if Mr. Jepsen considered that "a tax on all Alaskans paying for royalty on gas for domestic use." Mr. Jepsen answered that he considered it a tax on Fairbanks residents and "probably should not be assessed either." He shared that Rep. McKay was of the opinion that royalty on gas used by Alaskans represented a tax. Representative Stapp asked for Mr. Jepsen to elaborate on the following bullet point from slide 2, "If residents were convinced imports are the cheapest option could be a sizeable shift in support, up to 60 percent." Mr. Jepsen responded that it was related to the question of support for importing natural gas that had 72 percent opposition unless it was the cheapest option. 2:46:02 PM Representative Josephson understood that one way to incentive production was to reduce royalties. He cited the statement that royalties were "a tax on the consumer by implication." He deduced that it [royalties] was a contributor to costs but was "the ownership share." He asked if he was correct. Mr. Jepsen replied in the affirmative. Representative Josephson stated that it [royalties] was "linked to the Permanent Fund (PF) corpus." He recalled that during "the oil tax debates over the previous decade" the slogan "it's our oil" was displayed by some who wanted "a more progressive tax" structure with greater benefits to state treasury. He countered that the only part that remained the state's share was the 12.5 percent royalty and believed that it was "effectively our remaining mineral right." He asked whether his assessment was correct. Mr. Jepsen answered in the affirmative. Representative McKay interjected that "only if the hydrocarbon gets produced." He added that it contributed nothing to the PF if it was never produced. Representative Josephson offered that in a range of options as a solution it [royalty relief] "would be on the list." However, it was not a guarantee. He asked if the governor's version [HB 276-Reduce Royalty on Cook Inlet Oil and Gas] was comparable. Representative McKay responded that nothing was guaranteed. He offered that the provision acted as an incentive for the private sector to produce. He had multiple discussions with the private sector partners and concluded that HB 393 would result in increased gas production in Cook Inlet. He believed that when oil taxes increased projects were cancelled, and industry jobs were cut. He intuited that the opposite effect would happen if taxes were lowered. Representative Josephson was troubled by contradictory statements regarding the importance of the state's "mineral interests and that it was the people money" who were entitled to it versus viewing royalties as an imposition on the people and a penalty on them" and was viewed negatively. He could not reconcile the two arguments. Mr. Jepsen interjected that he viewed the issue as significantly different than the oil on the North Slope, which he characterized as a "global commodity" that was not typically utilized in the state. Conversely, Cook Inlet gas was used solely by Alaskans. He was not advocating for a royalty reduction of North Slope oil. Representative Josephson asked how the bill differed from the governor's version. Mr. Jepsen responded that the governor's bill was rolled into HB 223-Oil/Gas Royalty Rates; Cook Inlet Develop, sponsored by Representatives Rauscher as a compromise between the two bills royalty package. The legislation confined the royalty reduction to "new pools" that were either never produced or had stopped production. House Bill 393 made no distinction but offered a zero royalty rate for all new gas pools drilled. 2:51:16 PM Representative Josephson deduced that the governor's proposal was less "generous" as to previous developments. He asked for affirmation. Representative McKay responded in the affirmative and added that his legislation was easier to administer. He believed that it would be difficult to measure old gas and new gas and apply different royalties. His legislation applied a zero royalty to all gas produced. Representative Josephson understood that DNR assessed different royalty rates on different fields all the time on the North Slope. Representative McKay agreed but would need to defer to the Department of Revenue (DNR) for an exact answer. 2:53:02 PM DAN STICKEL, CHIEF ECONOMIST, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, TAX DIVISION (via teleconference), confirmed that the question pertained to royalty and how DNR accounted for varying royalties on the North Slope. He acknowledged that there were different leases with different royalties within an existing field. He reported that DNR had a robust methodology on how it was calculated. He explained that DOR applied the tax to the oil and gas that was left over after accounting for the royalties. The department's role was simpler than DNR's process. He disclosed that some areas of the tax code distinguished between old and new oil and those provisions were on a field specific basis. Representative Josephson surmised that DNR had the capacity to make the differentiation. Representative Galvin wondered why the bill would propose a royalty give away if gas was already being produced. Representative McKay answered that he did not like the word "give away" and believed that it implied a "sinister motive." He reiterated that the bill was an attempt to incentives all gas production in Cook Inlet from new and existing wells. He characterized HB 393 as aggressive and said that all gas production would be incentivized. Mr. Jepsen added that the reason for the royalty reduction for producing wells was that the cost of operating the well exceeded the cost of production and was "shut in" at some point in time. He indicated that some Cook Inlet wells were shut in too early because the royalty rate was too high. Representative Galvin understood the economic justification and thought it "made sense." She relayed from a prior committee hearing on the importance of incentivizing heavier on the early years of production as companies drilled new oil or gas fields. She asked how many years royalty would be dropped. Mr. Jepsen responded that there was no sunset provision. Representative Galvin asked why there would not be a sunset clause if the goal was to incentivize new gas development. 2:58:40 PM Representative McKay responded that he would be open to a sunset. He explained that gas wells often declined more rapidly than oil wells and most gas wells would need more economic help within 10 years. He determined that a future legislature could revisit a sunset date if it was added. He relayed that he had been asked why the problem reappeared after a solution was implemented 10 years prior. He discerned from his experience that it would not be unusual to reevaluate and adjust as necessary every ten years as the life of a gas field changed over time. Representative Galvin inquired as to who evaluated the wells. Representative McKay explained what stripper wells were (wells making 5 barrels a day for 20 years or more or wells with significantly reduced production but were still in operation) as an analogy to Cook Inlet. He believed that as long as the economics of Cook Inlet gas fields was monitored, Cook Inlet gas could keep producing for "a very long time." Representative Galvin understood that royalty was a contractual term in the lease and could not be changed by future legislators. She asked whether she was correct. Representative McKay responded in the negative and commented that a future legislature could take any action regarding royalties. He reiterated that his goal was to extend the life of Cook Inlet. 3:03:25 PM Representative Josephson believed that it was prohibited to increase a royalty rate and that it could only be adjusted downward temporarily. He referred to Mr. Jepsen's comment that Cook Inlet wells were shut in because the royalty rate was too high. He countered that there were many reasons why shut ins occurred and the royalty rate being too high was only one reason. Representative McKay responded that the situation was referred to as a "lifting cost." He explained that lifting costs was the cost it took to pump the oil and gas out of the ground and get it to market. He hypothesized that if gas prices collapsed reducing the profit margin, it could eventually cause shut in wells due to economic conditions. In addition, any scenario where labor costs increased or shipping tariffs increased, etc. added to lifting costs. He acknowledged that there were many cost factors that affected lifting costs and when lifting costs exceeded the price the wells could be shut in. Representative Josephson inquired whether the producers could request royalty relief under existing law. Mr. Jepsen answered in the affirmative. Representative Josephson asked whether any Cook Inlet producers asked for a royalty reduction. He recalled that Cook Inlet provided the state $40 million annually in royalties. He asked how the state would deal with the foregone revenue and provide agreed upon services with less revenue. Representative McKay replied that there would be an impact on the General Fund (GF) and the PF. He noted that the [revenue] impact on the budget and PF from Cook Inlet was "minimal" compared to the North Slope. He relayed that he received an analysis about what would happen to consumer energy rates based on increases in natural gas prices, which had a "significant impact" on consumer energy costs. He asked Mr. Jepsen to relay the data. Mr. Jepsen maintained that the impact on the rate payer was significantly higher than the $40 million in lost revenue to the state. Co-Chair Foster interjected that the discussion touched on many different policy areas, and he wanted to finish the presentation before further policy debate. 3:09:02 PM Mr. Jepsen continued on slide 4 titled "Considerations for Energy Policy:" • Short Term vs. Long Term. • Risk vs. Cost State needs to decide what level of risk is acceptable. • Higher-Cost energy = Lower Risk Options. • Lower-Cost Energy = Higher Risk Options. • How policies interact. Mr. Jepsen elaborated that risk to the state referred to revenues to the state via royalties. A higher cost of energy via importing LNG was a lower risk option because the state was not losing royalties. In addition, the state had the capability to store LNG in Cook Inlet. It was highly likely the state would be ready to import and store LNG before a gas shortfall. The higher risk option to the state in terms of foregoing royalties was focused on lower cost energy for residents and increasing the supply of Cook Inlet gas. Increased imports of LNG meant higher energy prices for residents for years to come. He suggested considering how policies interacted with one another and whether policies were complimentary. He concluded that HB 393 represented a high risk option which resulted in an immediate decrease in royalty revenues to the state but with the goal of increasing production and the supply of low cost energy to residents that works in conjunction with other legislation incentivizing Cook Inlet investment. Mr. Jepsen continued to slide 5 (untitled): The Case for Aggressive Royalty Reduction •Cook Inlet represents a small share of the state's oil and gas revenues. •Energy prices likely to double or triple in the next 15 years if mass LNG imports are the solution. •An increase of this magnitude would result in rate payers paying 100's of millions to billions more in energy costs every year. Mr. Jepsen reported that the slide also included a table of oil and gas revenue by type and geographic area, FY 2020 to FY 2023. Mr. Jepsen explained that the slide represented a rough fiscal impact on the state from royalty relief. He elucidated that the chart illustrated that the state made billions from the North Slope compared to tens of millions from Cook Inlet in a given fiscal year. The state would lose approximately $45 to $60 million per year. He noted that if the state did nothing Cook Inlet royalties would decrease over two decades as production dropped. Southcentral utilities made roughly over $1 billion in the prior year with $250 million of Enstar's profits derived from gas sales while 70 to 80 percent of other utilities profits came from gas power electricity. He surmised that the risk from lost state revenue was worth the reward. The impact on the rate payer was not capped like royalties of $45 million to $60 million per year on Cook Inlet gas, which carried the specter of very large rate increases. 3:13:10 PM Mr. Jepsen continued on slide 6 titled "Royalty Structure Modifications Market has spoken: Cook Inlet under current royalty structure is not ideal for investment Time Value of Money What does the state want to incentivize? Royalty and tax decreases on producing wells • Extend the life of existing wells. Royalty and tax decreases on new wells • Increase the number of wells drilled. Mr. Jepsen voiced that the rates of return on gas was "significantly" lower than oil." He summarized that by greatly reducing royalties, it boosted the rates of return for producers that made projects more viable. He disclosed that an additional policy included in the bill was not accessing royalties until payout, which was the recuperation of costs for oil and gas development, both in Cook Inlet and Middle Earth, defined as south of 68 degrees latitude (excludes the North Slope). He expounded that allowing investors or companies to recoup its costs more quickly was another way to quickly recover its initial investment costs. Mr. Jepsen continued to slide 7 titled "HB 393 Overview • Changes royalty structure for Cook Inlet: 0% for gas produced from new wells drilled starting in FY 25. 5% for oil produced from new wells drilled starting FY 25. 5% on oil and gas produced from wells drilled prior to FY 25. • Capital expenditures associated with development of oil or gas can be deducted from royalty burden; Excludes North Slope. • Requires commissioner to enter into lease negotiations to comply with these terms. 3:16:21 PM Representative Stapp pointed to the second bullet point and asked whether it included Cook Inlet and Middle Earth. Mr. Jepsen responded in the affirmative. Representative Stapp asked if the royalty is zero and the production tax was near zero, what was being deducted from taxes. Mr. Jepsen responded that there would nothing to be deducted and it could not be deducted below zero. Representative Stapp asked what capital lease expenditures were being deducted against since essentially royalties and taxes were not being paid. Mr. Jepsen replied if there was zero royalty and no tax burden there would be nothing to deduct. Representative Stapp asked whether new wells would be drilled in Cook Inlet in FY 25 regardless of passage of the bill. Mr. Jepsen responded in the affirmative. Representative Stapp asked if it was a fair assessment that zeroing out the royalties on new wells that would be drilled regardless of the bill and applying that across the board would incentivize new production. Mr. Jepsen answered in the affirmative. He restated that it was not possible to target wells individually that were being drilled regardless of the bill's passage. He voiced that by decreasing royalties to zero for all wells the sponsor hoped to attract new players to the Inlet. He expounded that there were only 3 producers in Cook Inlet, with one producing the vast majority of gas. Representative Stapp wondered whether there would be an influx of new producers if royalty rates were reduced to zero. Representative McKay would not make the promise, but anything over zero was good. Representative Stapp explained that few people had been able to convince him that the policy was needed to pursue new development. He reasoned that the bill implied that producers did not have the margin in the market space to recoup its profits. The natural inclination was to assume that Cook Inlet gas producers sell its gas to consumers at increased rates to make up the lack of revenue. He wondered why it was not a market demand problem. 3:20:45 PM Representative McKay deemed that Representative Stapp wanted the state to do nothing and allow the price of gas to increase, which spurred more production as would happen in a free market. He reported that he had consulted with an economist regarding that scenario. However, the problem was that economists did not have constituents and it was important that Cook Inlet and the Railbelt had affordable and reliable energy. He agreed that the legislature could do nothing and let costs increase, however, if they were wrong, the problem would get worse. He believed that by acting there would be some degree of confidence the problem would be solved. Representative Stapp inquired what the current oil royalty was for Cook Inlet gas. Mr. Jepsen responded that it varied but was mostly 12.5 percent. Representative Stapp understood the gas concept but was unsure what happened with Cook Inlet oil. Mr. Jepsen responded that the majority went to the Marathon Oil refinery. 3:23:59 PM DEREK NOTTINGHAM, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF OIL AND GAS (via teleconference), responded that the majority of oil went to the Marathon refinery and believed the volume of Cook Inlet oil exported was very low. Representative Stapp relayed a prior a dispute in Fairbanks where the refinery there was refining the state's royalty share of the oil. He referred to Representative Josephson's statement that royalty oil was the state's share of the oil. He wondered what would happen if the state was taking our oil royalty share and giving it to Marathon for domestic refining and consumption of gas. He asked "what does that actually do if we cut the royalty on our own state oil." Mr. Jepsen answered that gas wells produced an associated amount of oil. The bill was focused on gas, but if the royalty rate was decreased on the associated oil the project economics rate of return was further increased. Representative McKay interjected that some oil wells only produced oil and some gas wells that only produced gas and some that produced both. Representative Stapp understood that gas producers had contracts with companies and when they sell the gas to power producers some of the existing contracts had state royalty provisions inside contracts in general. He asked how many contracts for Cook Inlet oil and gas there were and if they included royalty provisions. He inquired whether change in the royalty structure would change the existing contract terms of the contract. Mr. Jepsen deferred the answer to Mr. Nottingham. Mr. Nottingham replied that he was not aware of any provision in the contracts regarding royalties. He expanded that there were statutes that allowed DNR to account for the royalty value to be at the contracted price. Therefore, the contracted price that the gas was sold at to the utilities was what the royalty value was based on opposed to market value indicators that was normally used for North Slope royalties. 3:28:27 PM Representative Stapp asked how many wells or if exploration on state land was taking place in Middle Earth. Representative McKay responded that he was unsure of how many wells but knew of two developments. Representative Stapp reported that the fiscal note stated that currently there was no Middle earth exploration or developments on state lands or even expected soon. 3:29:27 PM Representative Hannan referred to Section 2 of the bill and deduced that no royalties would be assessed in perpetuity on any oil or gas developments anywhere in the state other than on the North Slope. She asked if she was reading the provision correctly. Mr. Jepsen answered that the zero royalty on gas was for Cook Inlet and the capital expenditure portion of the bill was for Middle Earth. In addition, the royalty for oil was 5 percent and not zero. Representative Hannan ascertained that the royalties were still charged but just the lease expenditures were deductible as an offset. Representative McKay affirmed and clarified that it applied to Middle Earth. Representative Hannan emphasized that the bill specified it applied anywhere south of the North Slope and not only Cook Inlet or Middle Earth. She inquired that if oil was discovered in Juneau in 20 years no oil or gas royalty would be applicable. Representative McKay responded that he was trying to help Fairbanks develop its own natural gas field. Mr. Jepsen interjected that the oil royalty would be 5 percent and the gas rate would be zero for Cook Inlet. Representative Hannan was confused because it was not clear in the bill, but she would accept Mr. Jepsen's interpretation. 3:32:00 PM Representative Josephson referenced two prior major oil and gas bills. He noted that HB 247 (Tax; Credits; Interest; Refunds; O & G - Chapter 4 4SSLA 16 - 06/28/2016) ended Cook Inlet credits and HB 111 (Oil & Gas Production Tax; Payments; Credits Chapter - 3 SSSLA 17 - 07/27/2017), which ended credits and limited carry forward lease expenditures. He remarked that HB 393's royalty reduction went in perpetuity and asked if there was a failure to produce, could the producers draw down capital costs way out into the future. He asked what would incentivize production if capital cost credits could be earned at any time. Representative McKay answered that almost all bills he proposed in the current session would not require cash out of the treasury like the previous cash credit programs in the past. The legislation attempted to front load proposals Mr. Jepsen replied that it did not make sense that a producer would make an investment and not try to recoup the investment. However, he saw a scenario of price decreases as a possible scenario where producers would not want to sell and wait to produce. He offered that Representative McKay was open to a sunset but noted that a ten year sunset would not be long enough. Representative McKay exemplified that the Pika oil development took 13 years from discovery to first oil. He emphasized that the clock starts when the legislation was passed. Representative Josephson asked if the legislature and the administration had done a thorough enough analysis on rates of return and project economics and whether or not current leaseholders were merely refusing to produce even though their projects were economic. Representative McKay responded that he had many conversations with DNR and directly asked whether Hilcorp was meeting its lease obligations and drilling its required number of wells per year. He reported that the answer to the question was in the affirmative. He added that it was widely understood that the rate of return on projects in Cook Inlet was much less than on the North Slope. 3:37:53 PM Co-Chair Foster asked for closing comments. Representative McKay thanked the committee and offered to answer all the committee members questions in order to thoroughly vet the bill. HB 393 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration. Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda for the following day's meeting.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|---|---|
HB393 Presentation ver. R 4.12.24.pdf |
HFIN 4/16/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 393 |
HB393 Sponsor Statement ver. R 4.12.24.pdf |
HFIN 4/16/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 393 |
HB393 Sectional Analysis ver. R 4.12.24.pdf |
HFIN 4/16/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 393 |
HB 307 Public Testimony Rec'd by 041524.pdf |
HFIN 4/16/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 307 |
HB307 PowerPoint Presentation to HFIN 4.16.24.pdf |
HFIN 4/16/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 307 |