Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
02/09/2022 01:00 PM House 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 | |
| HB287 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 287 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 287-A: OIL & GAS TAX CREDIT FUND APPROP.
1:10:23 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 287, "An Act making an appropriation for oil
and gas tax credits; and providing for an effective date."
1:11:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, as prime sponsor, introduced HB 287.
He explained that HB 287 provides $60 million dollars still owed
to certain companies for oil tax credit that was overlooked in
the 2022 state budget. An oversight by legislators occurred in
2021 while trying to decide the proper funding source for the
oil tax credit amount of $60 million, and HB 287 provides that
funding from the undesignated general fund. Hundreds of
millions of dollars are still owed certain companies in Alaska
for their portion of these oil tax credits. The state has an
agreement to repay them by making annual installments from the
budget. Paying what is owed to the state's business partners by
statute will protect the state's credit rating and put
confidence back into the state's investors. Last year the state
was $60 million short of that requirement and by rights is
behind in its payment; this bill reverses that by paying the
overdue note.
1:13:37 PM
RYAN MCKEE, Staff, Representative Rauscher, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Rauscher, prime sponsor
of HB 287, provided a sectional analysis of the bill. He
explained that Section 1 appropriates $60 million from the
general fund to the oil and gas tax credit fund (AS 43.55.028).
Section 2 specifies that the appropriation made in Section 1 is
for the capitalization of a fund and does not lapse. Section 3
provides that this act takes effect immediately under AS
01.10.070(c).
1:15:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK inquired about success stories that have
come from these tax credits.
CHAIR PATKOTAK stated that an answer could be provided after
public testimony.
1:15:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN referenced "sweeps" and asked whether
information is available from Legislative Legal Services or the
Department of Law (DOL) regarding line 7 which states that the
fund does not lapse.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER deferred to state agency representatives
to provide an answer.
CHAIR PATKOTAK suggested the answer be provided during invited
testimony.
1:17:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PATKOTAK announced the committee would hear
invited testimony on HB 287.
1:17:30 PM
KARA MORIARTY, President/CEO, Alaska Oil and Gas Association
(AOGA), provided invited testimony in support of HB 287. She
stated that AOGA is the professional trade association for the
oil and gas industry, representing most of the companies
exploring, producing, refining, and transporting in Alaska. An
AOGA priority is to maintain fiscal stability and consistency,
which includes a long-term solution for the payment of over $600
million in outstanding liability for the refundable tax credit
program, sometimes called cashable credits, a program that has
ended but the payments remain.
MS. MORIARTY recounted that the legislature created the oil and
gas tax credit program over a decade ago to incentivize and
encourage small producers with less than 50,000 barrels per day
of production to come to Alaska and explore. Companies like
ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and BP were never eligible and never
received any of these cashable credits, and they would not
receive any of the $60 million appropriation in HB 287.
Originally the credits were not cashable, but the legislature
allowed for direct cash payments after the program started.
Numerous small companies came to Alaska and other existing small
companies and refineries invested money in exploration projects,
production enhancements, and refinery upgrades and expansions.
The state also benefitted because, to ensure that the credit
would be approved, the companies had to provide proprietary data
that they would not normally provide to the state. However,
companies have yet to be fully paid.
MS. MORIARTY further recounted that when the credit program was
no longer feasible due to the state's fiscal position several
years ago, all these cashable credits, which were investment-
based production tax credits for the North Slope and Cook Inlet,
were completely phased out with the passage of House Bill 247 in
2016 and House Bill 111 in 2017. The gas storage facility and
refinery credits have also now sunset. This means the state no
longer offers refundable or cashable oil and gas tax credits.
MS. MORIARTY related that nearly half of AOGA's membership is
impacted by this outstanding liability. These include Petro
Star, an in-state refinery and wholly owned subsidiary of Arctic
Slope Regional Corporation; explorers like Repsol, which has a
49 percent stake in the Pikka Project; and small producers like
BlueCrest Energy, Eni, Furie-Hex, and Glacier Oil and Gas. They
all earned these credits by investing in Alaska to explore and
hopefully develop resources under the letter of the law.
1:20:32 PM
MS. MORIARTY said today's question is not whether the state
should have offered this oil and gas tax credit program.
Rather, today's question with HB 287 is, "Should the state pay
the minimum statutory payment as outlined in AS 43.55.028 for
the credit they have already earned?" Statewide, hundreds of
millions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of
natural gas sit in the ground waiting to be developed by many of
the very same companies that were influenced to invest in Alaska
by the state's credit programs. Even strictly Alaska focused
companies rely on owners and investors from all over the world.
While prices are higher today than a year ago, the industry has
not fully recovered from the pandemic. There are currently 30
percent less workers in Alaska than in September 2019, the
highest percentage of any industry in the state. Competition
for capital has never been greater and payment for the pending
cashable credits is a key consideration for some companies
evaluating their current and future investments in Alaska
compared with investment opportunities elsewhere.
MS. MORIARTY recounted that in 2018 the legislature attempted to
pay down this outstanding debt by passing House Bill 331, a
subject-to-appropriation bond program. However, in September
2020 the Alaska Supreme Court found this program
unconstitutional. While the state waited for the court to
decide the fate of the bonding program, there was zero funding
for these credits during fiscal years 2020 and 2021. In fiscal
year 2022 (FY 22) the legislature funded a portion of the
minimum payment, and HB 287 would fund the remaining portion for
the current fiscal year. The governor has included the minimum
statutory payment in his proposed budget for FY 23, which the
legislature will vote on later this session.
1:24:13 PM
MS. MORIARTY said AOGA recognizes the structural fiscal
challenges faced by the State of Alaska. Therefore, AOGA is not
advocating for a full immediate payout of the more than $600
million for the credits, nor is AOGA advocating for the program
to return. Also, AOGA does not support any notion to tax others
to cover this tab. What AOGA does support is that the state
fund the minimum statutory payment and HB 287 would true-up this
fiscal year to the statutory minimum amount. Providing funding
for this statutory minimum payment is very important as it would
send a message to investors, producing companies, explorers,
refineries, and financial institutions that Alaska has a stable
and attractive business environment and is a trusted partner.
1:25:57 PM
CONOR BELL, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Finance Division,
Legislative Agencies and Offices, provided invited testimony on
the technical aspects of HB 287. He stated that the ability to
cash out these credits was phased out in 2016 and 2017 and that
large producers are ineligible, although for large producers the
credits are transferable. If a smaller producer has cashable
tax credits but is unable to use them in its own production tax
payments, the small producer can sell those credits to a major
producer that can then apply them against its tax liability.
The Department of Revenue (DOR) estimates that there will be
$587 million remaining in cashable tax credits at the end of FY
22. That could change depending on if major producers have a
large tax liability and decide it is worthwhile to purchase
credits from smaller producers that they can then use against
their own tax liability.
MR. BELL, regarding the appropriation, related that historically
10-15 percent of the amount of production taxes levied has been
appropriated. The percentage is based on the production tax
calculation before factoring in credits, he explained, so it is
an amount larger than looking at the total production tax
revenue forecasted and dividing by 10. It is 10 percent when
oil prices are forecasted to be above $60 per barrel and 15
percent when oil prices are forecasted to be below $60 per
barrel. Statute doesn't specify, but DOR typically uses the
spring forecast. Also, instead of basing the appropriation on
the actual revenue in a fiscal year, the division bases the
appropriation on the spring projection in DOR's forecast. There
is some ambiguity in the statute as to how to interpret both of
those things, and there is ambiguity as to whether the
appropriation should be made on the gross before taking out
credits or should be made after credits, but [the Legislative
Finance Division] uses the interpretation the Department of
Revenue applies and that is what is being spoken to here. Based
on DOR's forecasted oil price and production, DOR's forecast of
production tax credits was $114 million. Originally, $114
million was in the FY 22 budget, with $60 million of that coming
from the constitutional budget reserve (CBR). Since the CBR
vote was not achieved, the $54 million from the general fund was
distributed into the oil and gas tax credit fund, and the $60
million was not appropriated. So, HB 287 would make up that $60
million to get to that $114 million forecasted in DOR's spring
forecast.
MR. BELL, regarding Representative Hannan's question, said he
doesn't foresee [sweeps] being an issue here since these
appropriations will be made to the oil and gas tax credit fund
and distributed to producers and companies before the end of the
fiscal year. By the end of the year the balance would be zero
again, so no sweep would occur.
1:31:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN sought to understand the mechanics. She
asked whether the oil and gas tax credit fund must be
capitalized annually for any tax credits to be paid out.
MR. BELL replied that he isn't sure if it is required, but
historically it has. He explained that a complicated set of
factors determines who gets paid first, but since there are
plenty of firms waiting for that money, there would be no issue
in distributing that money before the end of the fiscal year.
1:32:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN addressed the terms "capitalization" and
"does not lapse" [in Section 2 of the bill] and asked whether
this is an unusual way to do an appropriation. She said she
does not dispute that the state owes tax credits, but she is
questioning the mechanism of this payment. She offered her
understanding that a bill cannot be passed which binds a future
legislature but noted that HB 287 would establish a one-time
appropriation and speaks about it not lapsing.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER responded that he would speak with the
drafters at Legislative Legal Services and provide the committee
with an answer for why the language is drafted this way.
1:33:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK requested that Ms. Moriarty share some
success stories from the tax credit.
MS. MORIARTY answered that there are many success stories. She
said there are companies that came to Alaska that were eligible
for the credits, such as Hilcorp. Hilcorp was eligible for the
credits because its production at the time was under 50,000
barrels a day while it was solely in Cook Inlet. Hilcorp was
successful and purchased some assets on the North Slope prior to
purchasing Prudhoe Bay. Once Hilcorp purchased those assets it
was no longer qualified for cashable credits.
1:35:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked whether he is correct in recalling
that the legislature voted to appropriate funds but didn't have
enough votes for a super majority to appropriate the funds from
the CBR.
MR. BELL confirmed that is correct. He said $54 million was
appropriated from the general fund and $60 million would have
been appropriated from the constitutional budget reserve, but
there was no draw from the CBR.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS noted that Representative Wool has a bill
to backfill other programs that were swept, which relates to the
same failure to achieve a super majority. He asked that HB 287
be contextualized with Representative Wool's bill.
MR. BELL responded that he cannot speak to Representative Wool's
bill offhand, but he will investigate that and get back to the
committee with an answer.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS expressed his frustration, as he voted to
fund these. Every year, he opined, the administration has tried
to leverage legislators' votes on the budget as a way of
achieving an overdraw of the permanent fund for which the
administration does not have the votes. When there aren't the
votes for an overdraw, then here things are. It is frustrating
for industry and many other programs.
1:37:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER offered his understanding that many
companies that had credits coming to them had to sell their
interest for pennies on the dollar, and some of those companies
no longer exist for a variety of reasons, including this.
MS. MORIARTY confirmed that some companies which had qualified
for and generated a lot of credits have left Alaska, Caelus
Energy being one. Caelus sold its only asset, the Oooguruk
[offshore oil field in the Beaufort Sea], and Caelus was a major
lease holder as well. Caelus is no longer in Alaska partly
because it was not getting paid on a consistent basis. Other
companies that are still in Alaska have had to either sell their
credits for much less value or refinance their loans for a much
higher interest rate. Some contractors were also impacted when
companies didn't have the ability to pay their bills. So, there
have been good stories as well as challenging stories.
1:39:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether a company must be actively
in business in Alaska to receive the tax credits that it is
owed. For example, whether a company would still be eligible to
receive the tax credits that it is owed if it didn't sell its
credits and didn't go bankrupt but is no longer in Alaska.
MS. MORIARTY offered her understanding that many of the
companies which are no longer in Alaska sold their assets to
somebody else, who now holds that tax credit certificate. She
deferred to Ms. Colleen Glover to confirm whether her
understanding is correct.
1:40:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN offered her understanding that the credit
is with the lease, so if a company no longer holds the lease, it
can no longer get the credit, so it is the same as selling off
the asset in some other way.
MS. MORIARTY answered "potentially," but qualified that she is
only speaking to those examples that she is aware of. She
deferred to Ms. Glover for further clarification.
1:41:03 PM
COLLEEN GLOVER, Director, Tax Division, Department of Revenue
(DOR), specified that there are tax credits and then there is
the cash provision, which is limited to small producers or
explorers. They are transferable to other entities and those
entities don't have to be major oil producers, they can be
transferred to any oil and gas production taxpayer that has a
tax liability. So, they can be sold and used by another oil and
gas production taxpayer.
MS. GLOVER explained that as far as the tax credit, there are
some limitations when a company changes or leases change. If
the company fails, much of it is based on tax identification and
how the company is structured, so it depends on what the
business transaction is. If a company goes out of business and
sells things, sometimes those credits go with the new company,
but there are many factors in play, not just one. It is
situational, and there are some instances wherein interests in
leases can be sold to somebody else and those tax credits don't
go with that lease interest. The entity can transfer the tax
credit to the new lessee, but the new lessee doesn't qualify for
cash.
MS. GLOVER addressed the question of whether it must be a
business in Alaska. She stated that if [an entity] is still a
business and received tax credit while doing business in Alaska,
that entity can still qualify for the cash if it is still
entitled to it, even if the entity has left Alaska.
1:43:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN requested a breakdown of how much is owed
in cashable credits versus tax credits.
MS. GLOVER replied that by law [DOR] must issue an annual report
of who got cash disbursements. A report was issued yesterday
and is available on DOR's website; it shows who received the $54
million that was disbursed late last year. The report also
shows that $565 million is the balance remaining as of the end
of last year.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether the $565 million is owed in
cash credits versus the tax credit.
MS. GLOVER responded that [the $565 million] is the tax credits
that are eligible for cash. She explained that the $565 million
figure is dynamic in that someone wanting to transfer or sell
their tax credits can do that at any time and then withdraw
their application for cash. Also, the certificate holder can
use it against their own tax liability.
1:45:38 PM
MS. GLOVER addressed the oil and gas tax credit fund. She said
the money that goes into the oil and gas tax credit fund remains
in the fund. Sometimes there are small balances and then the
fund can earn interest that can be used for disbursement. It is
difficult to do a distribution that equals exactly $50 million
to the penny when disbursing to 20 plus people. So, sometimes
it will be rounded up if there is enough money or rounded down.
For example, the actual disbursement was $54,197,896 because
there were some other monies in the fund.
1:46:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN explained she wants to ensure that this
legislation is constructed in a way that achieves its goal. She
asked whether the oil and gas tax credit fund is subject to a
sweep or has ever been subject to a sweep and, if not, whether
the bill's phrase "does not lapse" suffices to keep it from
being a "sweepable" fund.
MS. GLOVER qualified she is not a budget expert and cannot talk
about sweeping and lapsing. However, she said, based on her own
history over the past five years it has not been swept. The oil
and gas tax credit fund is within the tax statute, it is
appropriated into the fund, it is only used to disburse money on
these tax credits, and it can earn money as well.
MR. BELL stated that Ms. Glover's clarification is helpful
because he was unaware of the small balances that may be carried
forward. He said he does not know if the oil and gas tax credit
fund can be swept and will research it and get an answer back to
the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS offered his appreciation for the line of
questions from Representative Hannan. He said his interest is
in fulfilling an obligation as well as in preventing cascading
problems from the lack of a sweep, and that he doesn't want this
program or other programs to face uncertainty and instability.
1:48:59 PM
MS. MORIARTY addressed Representative Hannan's question on
whether these credits could be going to companies no longer in
Alaska. She said the answer is yes. But, she continued, even
if a company is no longer in Alaska, under the credit program a
company had to spend money in Alaska first, then apply for the
credit, and then get paid the credit.
1:49:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked whether it is accurate to tell
constituents that when the State of Alaska is paying out these
tax credits, it is following resource development or exploration
activity in Alaska only; it is not a random payment to a bank.
MS. GLOVER suggested that constituents be directed to DOR's
website to look at the oil and gas production report, which is
public, and which shows the entities that received money and how
much money they received. It is local companies primarily. She
said she can attest to whom the money is given but she cannot
attest to what these companies do with the money once it is
received. Some companies may have loans against the credit, so
they could be assigned to a financial institution because the
company borrowed against these credits; but in that case, it is
still an obligation that these companies owed the money.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS remarked that the payment follows the
investment.
1:52:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN clarified she was not asserting that the
state shouldn't be paying tax credits owed if a company was no
longer in Alaska. Rather, she was asking whether there is a
requirement that a company must still be doing business in
Alaska.
1:53:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY said he senses that the committee is
generally supportive of HB 287. He related that he retired from
ConocoPhillips in 2015 and his first project after that was for
the Native corporation Ahtna, Incorporated. Ahtna drilled an
exploratory gas well at Tolsona at a cost of about $25 million,
which was a dry hole, and which shows the risk involved with
drilling oil and gas wells. He next worked for BlueCrest which
drilled several oil and gas wells from the beach at Anchor Point
that are still producing. That oil is being sold and refined in
Alaska and the natural gas is heating homes in the Anchorage
area. This program helped him and many others, he added, and
these credits need to be paid because investment needs to be
attracted to Alaska.
1:55:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said he appreciates the committee's
questions and looks forward to the public testimony.
1:56:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PATKOTAK opened public testimony on HB 287.
1:57:06 PM
BENJAMIN JOHNSON, President/CEO, BlueCrest Energy, Inc.,
specified that BlueCrest is a Cook Inlet developer in the
Cosmopolitan Unit. He encouraged committee members to look
forward at the positive benefits of honoring prior commitments
and bringing new investments into Alaska. He related that he
grew up in Kenai and has worked in the industry in Alaska and
around the country. BlueCrest was formed in 2012 to invest in
Alaska, and a major factor of that was Alaska's tax credit
program. After joining with some individual investors, a
discovery was made in 2013 in a huge new gas field and oil zone
in Cosmopolitan. Discovery, however, was just the start and now
BlueCrest must develop and produce it. Based on the laws that
were in effect at the time, BlueCrest's development budget
relied on the state bridge share of the investments under the
tax credit program. Upon starting and investing over $300
million, with the state owing BlueCrest about $100 million in
tax credits at the time, the law was changed to stop the program
and the state also stopped paying the credits already earned.
MR. JOHNSON explained that BlueCrest's investors continued as
much as they could, but BlueCrest has been unable to raise new
investment now for several years. Development of BlueCrest's
large oil field has just started and the huge, proved gas field
is completely undeveloped. All this oil and gas would be used
by Alaska residents, none of it would be exported, and future
state royalties alone would likely be over $500 million.
BlueCrest has talked with every major investment bank and large
private equity group in the world, but it is afraid to invest in
Alaska. By starting to honor the statutory tax credit payments,
Alaska can have a tremendous future ahead. Making this payment
under HB 287 would bring last year's payments up to the
statutory minimum and would be a great start.
1:59:34 PM
TOM WALSH, Managing Partner, Petrotechnical Resources of Alaska
(PRA), noted that PRA is a 25-year-old integrated oil and gas
consulting company that works for most everyone involved in the
energy industry in Alaska. He stated that PRA has clients who
earned these cashable credits in the past, and these credits
have helped tremendously in discovering and developing new gas
and oil opportunities. Many of these companies and PRA clients
have been harmed by the delay in receiving payments and some
have gone bankrupt. In addition to those who are directly
impacted, the trickledown has been significant, including lost
revenue to PRA because some of these companies have been unable
to pay for PRA's consulting services.
MR. WALSH stated that the ability to finance projects has been
impacted. He related that PRA has done due diligence projects
for some investors in Alaska and they are clearly concerned
about the state not appropriating funds to pay these past
credits, which damages [the state's] credibility. It is time to
clean that up, and HB 287 is a critical piece of business for
the state. He offered his appreciation to Representative
Rauscher for putting forth HB 287.
2:02:39 PM
REBECCA LOGAN, CEO, Alaska Support Industry Alliance, noted that
the alliance is a 43-year-old trade association whose members
provide support to the companies doing the exploration,
development, and production of Alaska's resources. She thanked
the sponsor for bringing forward HB 287. She addressed the
impact of nonpayment on investment and on other companies. She
pointed out that when the tax credits were first vetoed in 2015,
it wasn't just the companies that weren't paid, it was also many
small businesses in Alaska, including the contractors that the
alliance represents. Some alliance members received a delayed
payment, some received a greatly reduced payment, and some have
received no payment, all of which are a tough thing for a small
contractor. One aspect of this is that contractors in Alaska
have been unwilling to invest capital that keeps their
businesses going and thriving so that when there is increased
activity, they are ready to take that on. Paying these credits
and getting back on a regular payment schedule will do a lot to
increase the confidence in Alaska's businesses to support the
industry.
2:04:21 PM
ED MARTIN, JR., stated he is a 56-year resident of Alaska who
worked on the Alaska pipeline when he was 19 years old. He
expressed his frustration with the legislature for failing to
honor the contracts into which it has entered. This statutory
law was created by the legislature and should be honored. These
credits should be paid because it affects many families within
the state and because these companies came to Alaska to invest,
explore, and take the risk. He urged that HB 287 be passed.
2:06:44 PM
JOHN HENDRIX, President & CEO, Furie Operating Alaska, LLC,
noted that he started on the North Slope in 1980 as a newly
graduated engineer, and he has worked on six continents in oil
and gas but is a resident of Alaska. He stated that HB 287 is a
step in the right direction to regain Alaska's reputation and to
regain trust in the state. He pointed out that the state not
paying tax credits was a major factor in the past owners of
Furie being forced out by creditors and they are who he bought
the company from. These are major investors whom he must still
deal with today and they are due the credits.
MR. HENDRIX noted that since 2020 Furie is the only 100 percent
Alaska-family-owned oil and gas company in the state. Furie
employs Alaskans and is up 800 percent in Alaska hire in less
than two years and wants to continue this. All of Furie's gas
serves Alaskans at prices at the home comparable to Texas and
less than Mississippi. To rebuild this company, he must be able
to attract money. He has a good stake in the Cook Inlet, but he
must bring money in, and it is very difficult. The State of
Alaska's reputation is one that everyone bears, and it hurts
Furie because tax credits is the big one.
MR. HENDRIX pointed out that Furie must pay royalties at 25
percent off the top. The talk is always about taxes, he said,
but the state makes a lot of money from royalties. He further
stated that Furie pays unjust property tax of four times what
the IRS enterprise value is on his company. It must be
remembered that 10-15 percent of those taxes that oil and gas
companies pay were designated by statute to pay this bill. When
oil is over $60/barrel, 10 percent goes into the fund to pay
this, and when oil is under $60/barrel, it is 15 percent. The
problem now is that [the state is] working in arrears and having
to make all these different allocations.
MR. HENDRIX stated that Alaska must honor her obligation and pay
the remaining 53 percent like HB 287 designates, and for future
years. If not, Alaska's reputation [will scare away] investors
for years to come, which will hurt more than just oil and gas
companies. He needs to raise capital to pay for his future work
and to employ Alaskans. If he raises capital he has jobs and
pays increased royalties and taxes to the state, but first
legislators must fix the state's reputation. He urged the
committee to support HB 287.
2:10:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PATKOTAK ascertained that no one else wished to
testify and closed public testimony on HB 287.
2:11:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether HB 287 is a one-year
appropriation.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER replied that HB 287 provides a one-time
payment. He stated that he would accept clarifying amendments
to the bill's language, but he would like any amendments to be
prepared by the drafters at Legislative Legal Services to
prevent any problems going forward.
2:12:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE clarified that this is coming from the
general fund, not the earnings reserve.
2:12:36 PM
MS. GLOVER specified that the lapsing language for this fund can
be found in AS 43.55.028(f), which states that money in the oil
and gas tax credit fund remaining at the end of a fiscal year
does not lapse and remains available for expenditure in
successive fiscal years.
2:13:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE stated that it still needs to be
clarified whether the lapse is different from the sweep.
REPRESENTATIVE PATKOTAK said he looks forward to working with
the sponsor to get this and other information that has been
requested today.
2:14:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PATKOTAK announced that HB 287 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 287 Sectional Analysis 2.9.2022.pdf |
HRES 2/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 287 |
| HB 287 Sponsor Statement 2.9.2022.pdf |
HRES 2/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 287 |
| HB 287 Testimony Received as of 2.9.2022.pdf |
HRES 2/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 287 |
| HB 287 Testimony Provided by ASRC and PetroStar 2.9.2022.pdf |
HRES 2/9/2022 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/11/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 287 |