Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124

02/24/2017 01:00 PM 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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
01:01:09 PM Start
01:01:52 PM HB111
03:09:11 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Heard & Held
-- Testimony <Invitation Only> --
Oil & Gas Industry Testimony:
Scott Jepson, VP External Affairs & Transp.
ConocoPhillips, AK
Dan Seckers, Tax Council, ExxonMobil
Pat Galvin, Chief Commercial Officer
Great Bear Petroleum
Paul Rusch, VP of Finance, ConocoPhillips
**Streamed live on AKL.tv**
        HB 111-OIL & GAS PRODUCTION TAX;PAYMENTS;CREDITS                                                                    
1:01:52 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the  only order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE  BILL  NO.  111,  "An  Act relating  to  the  oil  and  gas                                                               
production tax,  tax payments, and credits;  relating to interest                                                               
applicable  to  delinquent  oil   and  gas  production  tax;  and                                                               
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
1:02:56 PM                                                                                                                    
SCOTT    JEPSEN,   Vice    President,   External    Affairs   and                                                               
Transportation,   ConocoPhillips   Alaska,   Inc.,   provided   a                                                               
PowerPoint  presentation entitled,  "House Resources  Committee,"                                                               
dated 2/24/17.   Mr. Jepsen  informed the  committee HB 111  is a                                                               
tax increase that increases the  cost of doing business in Alaska                                                               
for   ConocoPhillips  Alaska,   Inc.  (ConocoPhillips);   because                                                               
ConocoPhillips  does  not  get  cashable  credits,  and  has  not                                                               
accrued   net   operating   losses   (NOLs),   the   impacts   to                                                               
ConocoPhillips are the  increases to the base  tax structure such                                                               
as the  increase in severance tax,  the change in the  per barrel                                                               
credits, the  interest change, and the  theoretical migrating tax                                                               
credits [slide 2].  Slide 3  was a graph that illustrated the tax                                                               
increase  brought by  HB 111  at  Alaska North  Slope (ANS)  West                                                               
Coast oil prices from $30 to $120  per barrel.  He noted at lower                                                               
prices,  there is  an  increase  of 25  percent  at  a time  when                                                               
investors are typically  losing money, and at  higher prices, the                                                               
per barrel  credit declines  from $8 to  $5, which  increases the                                                               
tax rate  in the "mid-price range."   Mr. Jepsen pointed  out one                                                               
of the key tenets of Senate  Bill 21 [passed in the Twenty-Eighth                                                               
Alaska State Legislature] was to level  the tax rate over a broad                                                               
range of  prices, which  is undone  by the  proposed legislation.                                                               
He referred to his previous  testimony [on 2/1/17] that under all                                                               
oil prices the state currently  has the largest share of revenue.                                                               
Using  data  from  the  2016  Revenue  Sources  Book  (RSB),  Tax                                                               
Division,  Department of  Revenue (DOR),  he said  when investors                                                               
are profitable,  the state  takes 41-46  percent of  net revenue,                                                               
and when  the investment is negative,  the cash flow goes  to the                                                               
state.   Referring  to previous  testimony by  the Tax  Division,                                                               
DOR, related to a hypothetical  field under Senate Bill 21, total                                                               
state take  is about  46 percent,  and under HB  111 is  about 50                                                               
percent.  Although  the state is always getting  the most revenue                                                               
of all parties, HB 111 is  a tax increase that increases the cost                                                               
of  doing   business  in  Alaska,  which   decreases  investment,                                                               
decreases  production,  hurts  state  revenue,  and  costs  jobs.                                                               
Turning  to  Alaska's  competition  for  investment,  Mr.  Jepsen                                                               
directed   attention   to   slide  4,   which   illustrated   the                                                               
opportunities  for  investment  that ConocoPhillips  has  in  its                                                               
portfolio related to the cost of  supply, and a map indicated the                                                               
location of  emerging and  in-production unconventional  plays in                                                               
Canada and the Lower  48.  A graph showed the  cost of supply and                                                               
the potential resource  development at a certain  cost.  Although                                                               
specific opportunities  were not  identified, Mr. Jepsen  said in                                                               
Alaska the  cost of supply  is in  the $40-$50 per  barrel range,                                                               
which  is the  top-end.   ConocoPhillips  has made  an effort  to                                                               
reduce costs in Alaska in  order to remain competitive with other                                                               
investment opportunities.   In  fact, ConocoPhillips  has reduced                                                               
its cost  of supply at its  CD5 [drill site] investment  from $60                                                               
to about $40.   Reducing costs of supply in  Alaska is an intense                                                               
focus for  the company, and the  state can help by  maintaining a                                                               
stable tax policy.   He stressed that a key  factor in investment                                                               
decisions  is  total  cost  of  supply,  including  the  cost  of                                                               
royalty, severance tax, income  tax, capital expenditure (CAPEX),                                                               
and  operating expenditures  (OPEX),  thus debate  on tax  policy                                                               
should not focus  on one element of cost, but  how an increase to                                                               
severance   tax  in   Alaska,  which   is  already   a  high-cost                                                               
environment, "drive[s]  us further and  further out of  the money                                                               
in terms  of being able to  drive investments to the  state."  He                                                               
clarified that the  information on slide 4  was representative of                                                               
opportunities  for  the  industry  as   a  whole,  not  only  for                                                               
1:10:09 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. JEPSEN continued  to explain that although profit  is "on the                                                               
margin,"  ConocoPhillips continues  to invest  in Alaska  because                                                               
Alaska  oilfields  have  rates  of lower  decline  and  there  is                                                               
exploration  potential  at  reasonable   oil  prices.    However,                                                               
increased cost will move Alaska  out of competition for continued                                                               
investment, and as  a partner with the industry,  the state needs                                                               
to maintain  a stable  tax environment  with a  reasonable fiscal                                                               
1:11:42 PM                                                                                                                    
PAUL  RUSCH,  Vice  President,  Finance,  ConocoPhillips  Alaska,                                                               
Inc., addressed migrating  tax credits.  In  2014, DOR identified                                                               
companies that were  moving per barrel credits  to certain months                                                               
to  reduce their  tax obligations.   ConocoPhillips  believes tax                                                               
law is  clear that production tax  is an annual tax  with monthly                                                               
estimated installment  payments, and  for the calculation  of the                                                               
final  annual  tax liability,  in  2014,  companies utilized  the                                                               
amount of annual per barrel  credits to determine their full year                                                               
tax obligation.   He said the  changes proposed in HB  111 appear                                                               
to be  a simple change  to fix what  DOR perceives as  a problem;                                                               
however, ConocoPhillips  is concerned the  change is a  move from                                                               
an annual  tax to a  monthly tax, which increases  complexity and                                                               
"opens the door to even further  changes in that direction."  Mr.                                                               
Rusch cautioned the state and  industry are already challenged to                                                               
complete  audits on  the current  annual tax  in a  timely manner                                                               
[slide 5].                                                                                                                      
CO-CHAIR  TARR observed  oil prices  can be  higher and  lower in                                                               
different months, and when prices  are higher, the state does not                                                               
have the  opportunity to take  advantage of higher  prices, which                                                               
is  necessary in  order for  the  state to  maintain credits  and                                                               
incentives during periods of lower prices.                                                                                      
MR. RUSCH  restated that  this is  an annual  tax, and  the state                                                               
will  capitalize on  the  higher  prices in  any  month when  the                                                               
annual tax is recalculated at the end of the year.                                                                              
1:15:21 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  BIRCH  observed  the most  significant  share  of                                                               
state revenue is royalty, and asked  whether royalty is paid on a                                                               
monthly or daily basis.                                                                                                         
1:15:58 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  RUSCH  explained  ConocoPhillips makes  monthly  installment                                                               
payments of  production tax, with a  "true up" at the  end of the                                                               
year.  Mr. Rusch and Mr.  Jepsen affirmed that royalty is paid on                                                               
a  monthly   basis  as   well.    Mr.   Rusch  returned   to  the                                                               
presentation, and  recalled DOR testified that  applying interest                                                               
for  a three-year  period may  encourage taxpayers  to delay  the                                                               
audit settlement process.  However,  the timeline to complete and                                                               
finalize an  audit - and  the settlement process -  is controlled                                                               
mostly by the state,  and not the taxpayer.  Slide  6 was a chart                                                               
that  highlighted the  status of  tax  audits for  ConocoPhillips                                                               
from  2006  through  2011,  and  2006  was  the  only  tax  audit                                                               
finalized.   The  tax audit  for  the remaining  years are  still                                                               
open; for  example, in 2007,  the final  tax return was  filed in                                                               
March 2008,  followed by six years  taken by DOR to  complete the                                                               
audit  and issuance  of the  audit in  2014.   Also in  2014, the                                                               
audit was  appealed within sixty  days, DOR released  an informal                                                               
decision mid-2016, a  formal appeal was made  within thirty days,                                                               
and the  audit is now  in the Office of  Administrative Hearings,                                                               
Department  of Administration.    He concluded  there is  limited                                                               
ability  for  the  taxpayer  to   influence  the  timeline.    In                                                               
addition, the  lengthy schedule for  audits leads  to assessments                                                               
in which  the interest component  is greater than  the underlying                                                               
tax assessment,  which he  characterized as  not good  for either                                                               
side.   House Bill 247  [passed in the Twenty-Ninth  Alaska State                                                               
Legislature] recognized that a high  interest rate applied during                                                               
an  extended audit  period is  inappropriate, and  the three-year                                                               
limitation  put  in place  by  House  Bill  247 was  intended  to                                                               
address  the long  audit process  by also  doubling the  interest                                                               
rate, with  the expectation  that there would  be a  reduction in                                                               
the audit periods.                                                                                                              
1:21:53 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  JOSEPHSON   acknowledged  extended  state   audits  are                                                               
matters of  frequent discussion.   He pointed  out slide  6 shows                                                               
the 2007  return is in  a hearing, thus there  is a dispute.   He                                                               
recalled other  hard fought oil  tax and oil revenue  issues, and                                                               
opined  there would  be  no  incentive for  industry  to reach  a                                                               
settlement after three years.                                                                                                   
MR. RUSCH  said ConocoPhillips' decision to  appeal an assessment                                                               
is not  based on the interest  rate but on the  underlying issue;                                                               
in  fact,  ConocoPhillips' incentive  is  to  reach certainty  on                                                               
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON expressed his  surprise that the company would                                                               
consider the cost of interest irrelevant.                                                                                       
MR.  RUSCH said  ConocoPhillips  does not  make  its decision  on                                                               
whether to appeal an item based on the interest rate.                                                                           
MR.  JEPSEN added  that  if that  were  the case,  ConocoPhillips                                                               
would have  settled the  2006 audit  in 2010;  however, sometimes                                                               
the  courts uphold  ConocoPhillips'  positions.   He pointed  out                                                               
Alaska's  Clear  and  Equitable  Share  (ACES),  [passed  in  the                                                               
Twenty-Fifth  Alaska  State  Legislature]  regulations  were  not                                                               
finalized  until  2010, thus  the  regulations  were unknown  and                                                               
remain without precedent.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE  PARISH  observed  members  of  the  oil  and  gas                                                               
industry have underpaid  billions of dollars in  taxes, and asked                                                               
how to avoid  a similar situation in the future.   In response to                                                               
Mr. Jepsen,  he clarified his  reference was to  the Trans-Alaska                                                               
Pipeline System (TAPS) tariff settlement in the state's favor.                                                                  
1:27:17 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. JEPSEN cautioned the present  court decision may not prevail.                                                               
It is assumed  TAPS will have a long life  and variables include:                                                               
increasing costs,  increasing state  take, low oil  prices, older                                                               
fields, and mature fields.    The assumption by the court may not                                                               
be what actually happens.                                                                                                       
CO-CHAIR TARR has  heard suggestions that the  state's tax system                                                               
is too complicated to administer,  which is validated by slide 6.                                                               
In 2006, moving to a  net profits system raised questions related                                                               
to deductions  and led to  only one tax audit  for ConocoPhillips                                                               
completed in ten  years.  She asked whether  the presenters agree                                                               
there is  a reason to simplify  the tax system, so  the state can                                                               
better administer the severance tax program.                                                                                    
MR. JEPSEN cautioned  against starting with a new  tax system but                                                               
urged  for  the state  to  make  the  existing system  work;  for                                                               
example, the federal  government has a net tax  system and audits                                                               
three to five years of tax returns in one year.                                                                                 
MR.  RUSCH  urged for  the  state  to  reach resolutions  on  the                                                               
outstanding  audits  in order  to  establish  precedent and  find                                                               
common issues;  in addition, audits should  focus on consistency,                                                               
protocol, and the materiality of  issues, as other fiscal regimes                                                               
CO-CHAIR TARR requested additional information in this regard.                                                                  
1:31:17 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. JEPSEN  summarized HB 111  is a significant tax  increase for                                                               
ConocoPhillips in base  tax structure.  The bill  moves Alaska in                                                               
the wrong  direction and increases the  cost of supply at  a time                                                               
when the state has a lot of  competition.  The changes to the per                                                               
barrel credits  do not represent  a reasonable  government share,                                                               
and changes  to the interest time  period add to costs.   Another                                                               
element of  HB 111 is hardening  the floor, which is  another tax                                                               
increase.   ConocoPhillips does not  get NOLs, but  is interested                                                               
in gross value  reduction (GVR) oil because its  new projects may                                                               
qualify for GVR.  Furthermore, Senate  Bill 21 is a key component                                                               
in increased  investment, more jobs,  production, and  revenue to                                                               
the  state.   Mr.  Jepsen  stressed that  tax  policy matters  to                                                               
industry  and  increased cost  of  supply  to the  industry  will                                                               
impact investment.                                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH agreed Senate Bill  21 is working.  He asked                                                               
how the  per barrel tax credit  reduction affects rates.   The HB
111 fiscal note  indicates by 2025, the state will  realize a net                                                               
gain of an additional $300  million in revenue, and he questioned                                                               
how tax credits play a role in the tax scenario.                                                                                
MR. JEPSEN  said ConocoPhillips generates revenue  for the state;                                                               
in 2016,  ConocoPhillips' net income  was about $230  million and                                                               
the  company  paid  the  state about  $500  million  in  royalty,                                                               
severance tax, property  tax, and income tax, thus  the state has                                                               
positive  oil tax  revenue, and  can choose  where to  spend that                                                               
revenue.   Regarding the  per barrel credit,  the 35  percent tax                                                               
rate on the  net was implemented as part of  a combination of per                                                               
barrel credits  and base tax rate.   When the per  barrel credits                                                               
are  eliminated,  the tax  rate  is  increased by  a  substantial                                                               
amount.   He restated that  these factors  are in place  to level                                                               
the regressive nature of the tax rate at low oil prices.                                                                        
1:36:39 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  PARISH noted  ConocoPhillips  is concerned  about                                                               
the increase in the minimum tax  rate from 4 percent to 5 percent                                                               
and to  hardening the  floor.  He  asked what  percent production                                                               
tax rate ConocoPhillips currently pays.                                                                                         
MR.  JEPSEN said  approximately 4  percent, on  average for  last                                                               
CO-CHAIR TARR remarked:                                                                                                         
     Talking about  the per barrel  credit ... the  way that                                                                    
     is  applied ...  it's  transportation cost  deductions,                                                                    
     and  then lease  expenditure deductions,  and then  the                                                                    
     production tax value,  then the tax at  35 percent, and                                                                    
     then the  per barrel  credit is added  on, and  so even                                                                    
     though  ... the  tax calculation  is already  done, and                                                                    
     then  you  add  the  per barrel  credit  to  that,  you                                                                    
     include the  per barrel  credit in  your base  tax rate                                                                    
MR. JEPSEN responded:                                                                                                           
     ... I  think the actual  way you do  it is:   take your                                                                    
     revenue,  gross  revenue,   less  transportation,  less                                                                    
     OPEX,  less   CAPEX,  less   the  per   barrel  credit,                                                                    
     calculate ... the 35 percent times that revenue ....                                                                       
CO-CHAIR TARR said, "It's the opposite way."                                                                                    
MR. RAUCH  stated Co-Chair Tarr's  calculation was correct.   The                                                               
tax credits  are a reduction  in the tax  amount as opposed  to a                                                               
tax deduction which would come before.   The overall rate, from a                                                               
calculation of the  net tax, is a function of  the 35 percent tax                                                               
rate  and  the  impact  of  the  per  barrel  credit.    Previous                                                               
testimony from  DOR has  stated that if  per barrel  credits were                                                               
not part  of the current tax  law, the 35 percent  tax rate would                                                               
be lower.                                                                                                                       
CO-CHAIR TARR suggested  if the state were going  to make changes                                                               
to  the  per barrel  credit,  ConocoPhillips'  response might  be                                                               
different if there were also adjustments to the base tax rate.                                                                  
MR. RUSCH said yes.                                                                                                             
CO-CHAIR TARR  observed that HB  111 does  not deal with  the GVR                                                               
issue  and   is  hardening  the  floor   against  NOLs;  however,                                                               
ConocoPhillips does not receive NOLs.                                                                                           
MR. JEPSEN remarked:                                                                                                            
      It's a matter of materiality.  We would hope that by                                                                      
       extension, we wouldn't continue to move down that                                                                        
1:39:59 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  BIRCH  has  heard  in West  Texas  wells  can  be                                                               
drilled  in  14 days  that  would  take significantly  longer  in                                                               
Alaska.  He  cautioned that as oil  prices go up there  will be a                                                               
point where  there will be  increased production in the  Lower 48                                                               
and Alaska will still have competition from the Lower 48.                                                                       
MR. JEPSEN restated  that Alaska production comes  at higher cost                                                               
and  thus it  is  harder  to attract  investment  from a  limited                                                               
capital environment; in addition,  also working against Alaska is                                                               
timing, as  there are a limited  number of rigs available  at any                                                               
time.   Alaska has  been slower  to "come  down," because  it has                                                               
been  a  good place  to  invest  under  the current  tax  system,                                                               
although prices have stayed low for a long time.                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said, "Tax stability helps."                                                                               
CO-CHAIR  TARR recalled  at the  time  the legislature  discussed                                                               
Senate Bill  21, the focus was  on an oil price  range of between                                                               
$60  and $100  per  barrel,  and thus  the  tax  system that  was                                                               
created does  not work well  in the new lower  price environment.                                                               
She inquired as  to whether those who have  testified that Senate                                                               
Bill 21  is working  had a  better idea of  its impacts  at lower                                                               
prices,  as the  legislature  did  not model  or  design the  tax                                                               
system for lower prices.                                                                                                        
MR.   JEPSEN  expressed   his  belief   that   low  prices   were                                                               
contemplated  because Senate  Bill  21  contains provisions  that                                                               
continue to "ratchet  down" the tax at increments of  $25 or $15;                                                               
in  fact, that  was the  purpose of  the provision  that below  a                                                               
certain level the industry would pay  a minimum tax.  He said all                                                               
parties  recognized that  low oil  prices  are not  good for  the                                                               
industry  and the  state would  have lower  revenue.   Mr. Jepsen                                                               
opined  the state  does not  need a  different system  because it                                                               
still has  a modicum of  revenue, and it  is not possible  to tax                                                               
the  industry to  get the  state  out of  a budget  deficit.   He                                                               
cautioned that creating  a system "anymore imbalanced  than it is                                                               
right now, you run the risk of losing investment."                                                                              
1:46:11 PM                                                                                                                    
DAN  SECKERS,  Tax  Counsel,  ExxonMobil  Corporation,  said  the                                                               
legislature is  once again increasing  taxes on the  oil industry                                                               
in troubling economic  times.  The proposed  legislation will not                                                               
only  increase industry  taxes and  change tax  policy, but  will                                                               
undermine  investor   confidence  and  weaken   Alaska's  overall                                                               
investment  climate.   In  order to  meet  the state's  long-term                                                               
goals, tax  policy must  provide confidence  that changes  in the                                                               
state's tax policy will not  adversely affect investments already                                                               
made.   Mr.  Seckers  said HB  111 is  purported  to establish  a                                                               
durable  tax  policy;  however, the  aspects  of  durability  and                                                               
certainty lose  their value if  their cost  is too high.   Senate                                                               
Bill 21  is working as intended,  and has been good  for Alaska's                                                               
economy,  jobs,  and  state  revenue,  and  for  Alaska's  global                                                               
competitiveness.   He expressed ExxonMobil  Corporation's support                                                               
for previous industry testimony that  HB 111 is a significant tax                                                               
increase; in  fact, many provisions  of HB 111 have  been carried                                                               
over from  debate last year  on House  Bill 247, and  the changes                                                               
within HB 111  will not improve the investment  climate, will not                                                               
lead to  jobs, more  oil and  gas in TAPS,  or help  the economy.                                                               
From a  tax policy  perspective, Section  2 is  a 25  percent tax                                                               
increase  for some  companies and  an infinite  tax increase  for                                                               
others, and is  not a long-term solution for  any fiscal problem.                                                               
Section  3  would  prevent  companies  from  realizing  the  true                                                               
economics  of  their investment  by  preventing  the use  of  all                                                               
critical tax  credits - not just  sliding scale credits -  and is                                                               
an  immediate  and significant  tax  increase.   Section  3  also                                                               
prevents companies  from utilizing available earned  credits from                                                               
one month  against their total  liability for the  year, referred                                                               
to  as migrating  credits.    He restated  the  provision is  not                                                               
justified  because  it  applies  to  all  credits,  and  requires                                                               
companies  to  file "perfect  monthly  estimates."   Mr.  Seckers                                                               
characterized  this provision  as "very  troubling ...  and would                                                               
change the  substance of the  law and migrate  the tax more  to a                                                               
monthly tax than the annual tax in which it currently is."                                                                      
1:54:25 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  SECKERS  continued to  Section  5,  which would  reduce  the                                                               
amount of NOL deductions or tax  credits a company can claim.  He                                                               
stressed that  no company wants  to lose money, and  Alaska's tax                                                               
structure is  modeled closely  after a  net-based tax  system and                                                               
allowing   the  matching   of  revenues   and  expenses   is  the                                                               
cornerstone  of a  net tax  system,  and allows  the recovery  of                                                               
critical investment.  The elimination  of 60 percent of NOLs will                                                               
change how investments  are viewed and is a tax  increase, and he                                                               
gave an example.  He questioned  whether the state wishes to have                                                               
a  policy that  will indefinitely  delay or  jeopardize projects.                                                               
He said, "So  from a practical point  of view and a  tax point of                                                               
view,  this   provision  would   penalize  companies   that  make                                                               
important decisions, those in the  past and those in the future."                                                               
Mr. Seckers said  Section 7 is not a tax  credit reform provision                                                               
because  sliding  scale tax  credits  are  in current  policy  to                                                               
mitigate the  increase in  the base  rate from  25 percent  to 35                                                               
percent,  and  were  carefully designed  to  allow  recovery  and                                                               
include  an element  of progressivity.    Furthermore, Section  7                                                               
targets legacy  fields, which  are the  backbone of  Alaska's oil                                                               
industry and provide almost 93  percent of oil revenue.  Finally,                                                               
he  explained  Section  10  adversely  affects  fields  that  are                                                               
located  a distance  from existing  infrastructure -  and thereby                                                               
are  more expensive  to develop  - by  not allowing  companies to                                                               
consolidate all  production for tax  purposes, so that  a company                                                               
with a  loss on one field  can consolidate with others  and "make                                                               
the project  economic."  However,  Section 10 would  "ring fence"                                                               
the field,  and the  costs of developing  certain fields  will be                                                               
lost.   The result would  make marginal and remote  fields harder                                                               
to get funding.                                                                                                                 
2:01:47 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. SECKERS concluded that raising  taxes at this time will force                                                               
all companies to reexamine short-  and long-term investments, and                                                               
is inconsistent with  the state's vison of promoting  oil and gas                                                               
development.   He recalled previous  tax increases  occurred when                                                               
oil prices rose;  however, enacting HB 111  indicates Alaska will                                                               
raise taxes  when prices  go up  or when  the industry  is losing                                                               
money,  despite the  benefits brought  to  the state  by the  oil                                                               
industry.    He  cautioned  that  if  Alaska  raises  its  costs,                                                               
ExxonMobil Corporation  will reexamine  its investments  and will                                                               
take  appropriate action,  and restated  that Senate  Bill 21  is                                                               
clearly  working and  has led  to increased  production and  more                                                               
jobs.   However, increasing  taxes on  companies that  are losing                                                               
money will not lead to more  jobs, production, or benefits to the                                                               
CO-CHAIR TARR returned attention to  past changes in Alaska's tax                                                               
policy, and  recalled some of  the changes were specific  to Cook                                                               
Inlet and  did not affect  ExxonMobil Corporation.   She inquired                                                               
as  to whether  all  of  the tax  changes  are "problematic"  for                                                               
ExxonMobil Corporation.                                                                                                         
MR. SECKERS said yes.                                                                                                           
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON questioned  why the state, as  a sovereign, is                                                               
not  entitled  to   "a  4  percent,  hard  floor   [tax]  in  all                                                               
circumstances, for the severing of a state resource?"                                                                           
MR. SECKERS  opined the  key issue is  whether the  policy change                                                               
will  hurt or  help industry,  especially smaller  companies that                                                               
need credit recovery  to reduce the minimum tax.   He pointed out                                                               
in  addition to  severance tax,  companies pay  royalty, property                                                               
taxes, and income taxes.                                                                                                        
2:06:41 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON remarked:                                                                                                    
     ...  the  35 percent  tax  rate  ... [has]  never  been                                                                    
     operative since, since its advent  ... it's come close,                                                                    
     maybe, but   ...  why  the NOL should be  at 35 percent                                                                    
     if it's to  be paired with a 35 percent  tax rate that,                                                                    
     that doesn't happen?  Shouldn't  it, if there was meant                                                                    
     to be  some reciprocity  or, or  parity there,  and one                                                                    
     could  question why  ....   ...   Basically I'm  asking                                                                    
     about  the  effective tax  rate  that  is really  being                                                                    
     paid, and  whether ... the NOL  shouldn't better mirror                                                                    
     that effective tax rate.                                                                                                   
MR. SECKERS  explained most  regimes don't  have tax  credits for                                                               
losses,  they  are  carried  as  losses,  and  are  tied  to  the                                                               
statutory tax  rate.  [In  Alaska] the  effective tax rate  is an                                                               
arbitrary judgement made by the state.   Alaska chose to make the                                                               
NOL a tax loss credit because  its tax system had a progressivity                                                               
surcharge  under   ACES.     However,  if   ACES  had   not  been                                                               
implemented, NOLs  would be  treated as  they are  in all  of the                                                               
other  net-based  regimes  in  the world:    carried  forward  as                                                               
losses.  He continued:                                                                                                          
     And if  that were  the case then  the losses  unique to                                                                    
     that taxpayer  and that's  beneficial to  that taxpayer                                                                    
     when  they  earn money  and  when  they made  a  profit                                                                    
     against their tax  rate, whatever it may  be.  Whereas,                                                                    
     the  disconnect that's  created  in  Alaska is  because                                                                    
     you've created  it as a  credit.  And there's  only one                                                                    
     way to  put that,  and that is  through some  tax rate.                                                                    
     And the  best one would  be the statutory  rate because                                                                    
     that's the  only fair rate  that's on the  books that's                                                                    
     applied to all taxpayers equally.                                                                                          
CO-CHAIR  TARR   reminded  the  committee  that   witnesses  have                                                               
referred to  testimony by DOR  provided at the  committee meeting                                                               
on  1/30/17, slide  24 [of  a  PowerPoint presentation  entitled,                                                               
"Alaska's Oil and  Gas Taxation - Status  Report, dated 1/30/17],                                                               
which indicated the effective tax rate  is at 35 percent when the                                                               
price  of  oil is  about  $140  per  barrel, when  combined  with                                                               
credits.  She said, "You saw  the reduction to 15 percent because                                                               
that was  more where ... the  effective tax rate would  be at the                                                               
more normal prices ...."                                                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE  JOHNSON  read  from  previous  testimony  by  Mr.                                                               
Ruggiero  of  Castle Gap  Advisors  provided  at the  hearing  on                                                               
2/20/17  [slide   5  of   a  PowerPoint   presentation  entitled,                                                               
"Developing Petroleum Fiscal Policy," dated 2/20/17] as follows:                                                                
     Working  from  a  common understanding  ...  will  help                                                                    
     everyone  better  understand  the input  that  will  be                                                                    
     received  from various  respondents  putting forth  ...                                                                    
     self-serving opinions.                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON continued [from slide 10] as follows:                                                                    
     Operators  routinely deploy  these top  three detractor                                                                    
     themes:     instability  ...  negatively   impacts  new                                                                    
     developments   and  investments;   competitions,  other                                                                    
     regimes  will be  more  attractive  in comparison;  and                                                                    
     jobs,  jobs   are  at  risk  due   to  potential  lower                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON  said these seem like  valid concerns, but                                                               
they  were   characterized  by  the  presenter   as  self-serving                                                               
statements, and  she asked  whether ExxonMobil  Corporation would                                                               
consider  the foregoing  as valid  business concerns  when making                                                               
its evaluations.                                                                                                                
2:12:09 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  SECKERS opined  the aforementioned  are not  themes but  are                                                               
facts; ExxonMobil Corporation and other  companies look at a wide                                                               
range of  variables, including the  stability of a regime  over a                                                               
long period of time, such as  whether the tax in Alaska next year                                                               
is known or unknown, which  adds uncertainty and unpredictability                                                               
to the investment  decision.  He assured the  committee these are                                                               
valid  concerns  in   the  business  world,  and   the  level  of                                                               
uncertainty  will be  compared to  that  of other  regimes.   Mr.                                                               
Seckers  gave several  examples of  the business  decision-making                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  PARISH  asked  what rate  ExxonMobil  Corporation                                                               
paid in severance tax last year.                                                                                                
MR.  SECKERS said  ExxonMobil Corporation's  taxpayer information                                                               
is confidential,  and it paid the  amount it was required  to pay                                                               
by  law.    Furthermore,  ExxonMobil Corporation  does  not  file                                                               
fraudulent  tax   returns,  and  its  returns   are  prepared  by                                                               
accountants, reviewed  by lawyers,  and are finally  reviewed and                                                               
audited by managers who complete a checks-and-balances process.                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE  PARISH  inquired as  to  what  Mr. Seckers  would                                                               
attribute the  major settlements that  have been paid by  the oil                                                               
industry to the state.                                                                                                          
MR. SECKERS  acknowledged any two reasonable  people can disagree                                                               
on  the  interpretation  of law.    ExxonMobil  Corporation  will                                                               
defend  its position  and will  also  honor settlement  decisions                                                               
made  by the  court.   Regarding production  tax settlements,  he                                                               
said challenges  are brought when necessary,  although he pointed                                                               
out that the percentage of taxes  in dispute is small relative to                                                               
the amount of taxes paid.                                                                                                       
CO-CHAIR  TARR   referred  to  the   court  case   that  required                                                               
development at Point Thomson and  that is believed to have caused                                                               
ExxonMobil Corporation  to earn net operating  losses, which "the                                                               
state is sort  of paying for."  She has  heard criticism that the                                                               
"duties  to produce"  concept, which  was litigated  in order  to                                                               
force  development  at  Point  Thomson,   should  not  result  in                                                               
ExxonMobil Corporation earning losses.                                                                                          
2:19:32 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. SECKERS  declined to  address Point  Thomson litigation.   He                                                               
said Point  Thomson is a  very challenged resource;  however, the                                                               
state  will   benefit  whenever   the  Point  Thomson   field  is                                                               
developed, and  the treatment under  the law would have  been the                                                               
same.   Although ExxonMobil Corporation  is the operator,  it has                                                               
partners   in  the   development,   and   penalizing  a   certain                                                               
development because it "took longer" is poor tax policy.                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE  JOHNSON  asked  how Alaska  compares  with  other                                                               
governments as far as stability and tax changes.                                                                                
MR. SECKERS  advised Alaska is close  to the top of  regimes that                                                               
repeatedly reexamine  their tax  systems; in fact,  research that                                                               
has  been previously  provided to  the committee  showed that  in                                                               
2016,  regimes were  lowering  taxes to  keep  investment and  to                                                               
prevent  companies from  relocating.   Alaska  is  "going in  the                                                               
other  direction," and  he expressed  his  understanding that  in                                                               
this  price environment,  most regimes  want to  spur investment,                                                               
and thereby retain jobs, royalty, property taxes, and benefits.                                                                 
CO-CHAIR TARR  observed utilizing  NOLs are generally  a function                                                               
of a corporate  income tax provision, but in  Alaska also applies                                                               
to  severance tax.   She  asked whether  other regimes  offer NOL                                                               
deductions as a  credit, and also as a function  of the severance                                                               
tax calculation, rather than corporate income tax.                                                                              
MR. SECKERS  was not aware  of any region or  taxing jurisdiction                                                               
that offers  NOLs as a  credit.   He offered that  this provision                                                               
was intended to  "capture the high end of prices  every month, so                                                               
that's why it was put in as a  credit."  For example, if there is                                                               
a  loss, under  the  progressivity of  ACES,  the production  tax                                                               
value upon which the progressivity is  based would come down.  As                                                               
a  credit,  it didn't,  thus  Alaska  got  the highest  tax  rate                                                               
possible.   Furthermore,  he  said he  has not  seen  a tax  loss                                                               
carry-forward applied to production tax,  and as far as he knows,                                                               
Alaska has a unique system.                                                                                                     
2:25:41 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  TARR  acknowledged  Alaska has  marginal,  economically                                                               
challenged,  and remote  fields that  need to  be developed;  the                                                               
state seeks  to support challenged fields  without assuming undue                                                               
risk.  She asked how the state would assess such fields.                                                                        
MR.  SECKERS cautioned  against ring  fencing fields.   Oilfields                                                               
are  consolidated   for  tax  filing  purposes,   and  separating                                                               
challenged fields invites complexity  and puts additional burdens                                                               
on  challenged resources.   In  order  to incentivize  challenged                                                               
resources at less cost to  the state, he suggested continuing the                                                               
gross revenue exclusions, which apply  once a field is producing.                                                               
Remote fields  need to  be developed,  and he  questioned whether                                                               
the state  seeks to limit the  geographic search for oil  and gas                                                               
to close to  existing fields.  The gross  revenue exclusions help                                                               
remote  fields,  although challenged  fields  may  not yield  the                                                               
highest amount of severance tax;  however, there would be revenue                                                               
from property tax,  income tax, jobs, and royalty.   He urged for                                                               
the committee to look at tax policy in its entirety.                                                                            
CO-CHAIR  TARR  inquired as  to  an  approval process  to  better                                                               
scrutinize challenged fields and developments.                                                                                  
MR.  SECKERS  said  Norway  and  others  have  advanced  approval                                                               
processes;  however,  this   raises  concerns  about  information                                                               
disclosed to  competitors, perhaps in violation  of federal anti-                                                               
trust law, and the unwanted sharing of proprietary information.                                                                 
2:30:46 PM                                                                                                                    
PAT GALVIN, Chief Commercial  Officer/General Counsel, Great Bear                                                               
Petroleum,  provided a  PowerPoint presentation  entitled, "House                                                               
Resources  HB  111," dated  2/24/17.    Mr. Galvin  informed  the                                                               
committee  Great Bear  Petroleum is  an exploration  company that                                                               
seeks  to  become  a  production  company,  and  after  extensive                                                               
investment  in   its  exploration  phase,  hopes   to  move  into                                                               
production  through  discovery  or  acquisition.   As  such,  the                                                               
provisions  of the  tax code  affect his  company in  a different                                                               
way.   He  suggested  there  may be  other  ways  to address  the                                                               
objectives of  HB 111 such  as how the  state will afford  to pay                                                               
the  tax  credits,   and  how  to  balance   state  revenue  with                                                               
attracting new investment  [slide 1].  To address  the tax credit                                                               
payments, he provided a DOR graph  from last year and stated most                                                               
of the  Cook Inlet credits  were eliminated by House  Bill [247].                                                               
Further, exploration incentive credits  (EICs) have expired, thus                                                               
the  state's  cash  outlay   looks  significantly  different  now                                                               
[slides 2-4].   In addition, DOR information related  to the size                                                               
of individual payments to companies  - in relation to the overall                                                               
payment - has changed in that  very large payments now have a cap                                                               
to limit  how much will  be available  to each company  per year.                                                               
For example,  $3 billion was paid  over a nine-year period:   one                                                               
taxpayer  received  a payment  greater  than  $200 million  in  a                                                               
single  year, five  times one  company received  payments between                                                               
$100 million and $200 million in  a single year; eleven times one                                                               
company received  payments between  $50 million and  $100 million                                                               
in a  single year.  Mr.  Galvin pointed out between  $1.3 billion                                                               
and $2.3  billion were  paid out  in large  payments that  are no                                                               
longer going  to be made,  but payments now  will be made  over a                                                               
period of years and the drain  on the state's budget is no longer                                                               
the same  problem [slides 5 and  6].  Therefore, most  of the tax                                                               
credits  have  been  eliminated,  and  the  state's  annual  cash                                                               
exposure has been  largely mitigated.  He said  the remaining NOL                                                               
tax credits are  intended to level the playing  field between new                                                               
companies coming into  the state and existing  incumbents who are                                                               
able to  get a  tax benefit  for their  expenditures immediately.                                                               
The reason  for this policy still  exists, and is just  as strong                                                               
today  as before  [slides 7  and 8].   He  stressed the  need for                                                               
credits to  provide benefits  to new  entrants remains,  and many                                                               
provisions in  HB 111 are  detrimental solely to new  entrants in                                                               
the  state.   He opined  the changes  made by  [House Bill  247],                                                               
"tilted the scale towards the  incumbents, this will further tilt                                                               
it  in  favor   of  the  incumbents  even   more."    Detrimental                                                               
provisions in  HB 111 include:   lowering  NOL credit rate  to 15                                                               
percent; eliminating the "refundability"  of NOL tax credits; not                                                               
having a  production threshold  for a  minimum tax  floor affects                                                               
small producers disproportionately [slide 9].                                                                                   
2:40:39 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  GALVIN  turned attention  to  how  the tax  program  affects                                                               
investments by  incumbents versus  investments by  new companies.                                                               
For example, an  incumbent with a $1 billion investment  in a new                                                               
project  is able  to immediately  deduct  its investment  against                                                               
current revenue.   Further, the per barrel  exclusion affects the                                                               
35 percent tax rate; in fact,  the effective tax rate will differ                                                               
for  each taxpayer,  understanding  that DOR  projections of  tax                                                               
rates  at  a  certain  price   are  "a  gross  simplification  of                                                               
basically  aggregating every  taxpayer  and showing  you if  they                                                               
were  all  either  all  similarly  situated or  it  was  all  one                                                               
taxpayer,  this is  what they'd  be  paying."   In reality,  each                                                               
taxpayer  is in  a very  different  position in  regard to  their                                                               
effective tax rate.  For this  presentation, Mr. Galvin used a 25                                                               
percent  effective   tax  rate,  which  he   characterized  as  a                                                               
reasonable  approximation; however,  there is  no single  number.                                                               
In the example, a 25  percent tax rate taxpayer would immediately                                                               
save $250  million on their tax  payment, so the project  cost is                                                               
$750 million,  not $1  billion [slides  10 and  11].   Mr. Galvin                                                               
compared this situation to a  new company that spends $1 billion,                                                               
and which  under HB 111,  earns a 15  percent tax credit  that is                                                               
not refundable.  The new company  will not receive its tax credit                                                               
until it begins  production, then the minimum tax  will limit its                                                               
ability to use its NOL, and  thus will not receive economic value                                                               
for its expenditures for many  years.  He stressed an exploration                                                               
production  company works  in an  expensive  environment and  not                                                               
receiving the credit  for three to seven years  reduces the value                                                               
of  the credit  to  one-third  [slide 12].    Currently, the  new                                                               
company would receive a $350  million credit, paid at $35 million                                                               
per year - subject to  appropriation - and thus nearly equivalent                                                               
to  what  is received  by  an  incumbent  at  an equal  level  of                                                               
investment [slide 13].   Mr. Galvin said the  difference also has                                                               
implications  for   project  development  if  two   taxpayers  in                                                               
different situations are  joint partners.  He gave  an example of                                                               
50/50 partners  with investments of  $1 billion each, but  due to                                                               
unequal  tax  treatment  have poor  project  alignment.    Solely                                                               
because of the tax system, the  new company would have spent $865                                                               
million for  the same interest  the incumbent acquired at  a cost                                                               
of $735  million, which  would delay  and complicate  the project                                                               
[slides 14  and 15].   He  suggested a  more balanced  approach -                                                               
which  in  the  aforementioned   example  -  the  incumbent  gets                                                               
immediate tax savings of $250 million  and the new company gets a                                                               
cash rebate  from the state of  $250 million, and there  would be                                                               
project alignment  because the  two companies  would not  have to                                                               
negotiate additional terms [slide 16].                                                                                          
2:50:18 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. GALVIN  continued to other issues  raised by HB 111,  such as                                                               
the "hard  floor, and what  that does  for small producers."   He                                                               
restated  that every  taxpayer  is in  a  different situation;  a                                                               
small producer is going to  be expending money on exploration and                                                               
new  development, thus  a system  that does  not recognize  their                                                               
costs  creates  a  disincentive  to  production.    For  example,                                                               
companies start  with the first  phase of limited  production and                                                               
progress to higher levels of  production.  The bill may encourage                                                               
producers to  forgo the first  phase, because a modest  amount of                                                               
production creates the  hard floor and denies  credits that would                                                               
otherwise be  generated [slides 18  and 19].  The  small producer                                                               
credit is a  credit available to companies with  production up to                                                               
50,000 barrels of oil per  day; however, the qualification period                                                               
has ended, and companies that  previously qualified were promised                                                               
this  benefit  for  a  period   of  10  years,  and  based  their                                                               
investment  decisions upon  the  benefit.   Although  - from  the                                                               
state's perspective  - eliminating  the small producer  credit is                                                               
not significant, the change will  "potentially devastate a number                                                               
of companies in terms of  their expectations on the projects that                                                               
they're  pursuing."   He  restated the  importance  of a  balance                                                               
between  the revenue  to the  state and  the impact  to taxpayers                                                               
[slides 19  and 20].  Mr.  Galvin observed during the  past 10-15                                                               
years,  the  tax   debate  has  transitioned  from   a  focus  on                                                               
exploration  to  a focus  primarily  on  production; however,  in                                                               
order to have future production,  he cautioned that there must be                                                               
exploration  for  new  discoveries,  or  there  will  be  certain                                                               
decline [slides 21  and 22].  He provided a  chart from 2007 that                                                               
illustrated   balancing   revenue    with   investment   climate,                                                               
transparency with  economic flexibility, and incumbents  with new                                                               
entrants,  are all  universal, ongoing,  and significant  factors                                                               
[slide 23].   His past  experience with  oil tax debate  began at                                                               
the time  between the Petroleum  Production Tax (PPT)  [passed in                                                               
the  Twenty-Fourth  Alaska   State  Legislature]  and  subsequent                                                               
changes  to oil  tax policy.    The administration  at that  time                                                               
focused on  a return  to a  gross tax,  thus consultants  and the                                                               
administration's economic  team were tasked  to identify  a gross                                                               
tax that would  benefit the state.  However, it  was found that a                                                               
combination of a gross tax  and various credits would not achieve                                                               
the state's  desired revenue without  risking projects  that were                                                               
underway, therefore,  the state  retained a  net tax  [slide 24].                                                               
He  said he  was troubled  that  there are  those who  mistakenly                                                               
believe  a gross  tax is  a simple  solution that  eliminates any                                                               
risk,  gains  state  revenue  at  any  price,  and  protects  new                                                               
projects.   Mr.  Galvin  closed as  follows:   a  problem of  tax                                                               
credits  does   not  exist;   don't  put   new  companies   at  a                                                               
disadvantage;   balance  revenue   and   investment  across   all                                                               
taxpayers [slide 25].                                                                                                           
3:00:23 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  BIRCH appreciated  [slides  3-5] that  segregated                                                               
North  Slope  and  non-North  Slope  credits.    Turning  to  the                                                               
financial  viability of  projects,  he  recalled DOR  "referenced                                                               
about  a  10  percent  discount  or hurdle  rate,  in  their  ...                                                               
analysis, and if  I recall, the Department  of Natural Resources,                                                               
like with  Caelus, I think  they were in  the 15 to  20 percent."                                                               
He asked for a reliable discount rate for comparison purposes.                                                                  
MR. GALVIN expressed his belief  the DNR analysis of 17.5 percent                                                               
for  Caelus  is  more  accurate  in terms  of  "what  actual  E&P                                                               
companies experience  and what we would  use in terms of  our own                                                               
analysis ...."                                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH  agreed "a 15  to 20 percent range  that DNR                                                               
is using is probably a more valid range."                                                                                       
MR. GALVIN  clarified that the  discount rate assigned by  DOR is                                                               
representative  of what  the  state's  appropriate discount  rate                                                               
should  be for  forgone revenue;  however, for  the company,  the                                                               
higher rate is  appropriate because of the nature of  the cost of                                                               
capital and associated risk.                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH  recalled there was discussion  in 2013 that                                                               
the tax credits were proposed with  the intention to draw new and                                                               
small companies to  Alaska for oil exploration and  research.  He                                                               
asked whether the tax credits were effective.                                                                                   
MR.  GALVIN said,  "It was  effective  in perhaps  more than  the                                                               
state intended in some instances."                                                                                              
[HB 111 was held over.]                                                                                                         

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB111 Opposing Document-ConocoPhillips HRES 2.24.17.pdf HRES 2/24/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 111
HB111 Opposing Document - Great Bear Petroleum HRES 2.24.17.pdf HRES 2/24/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 111
HB111 ver O 2.8.17.PDF HRES 2/13/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/17/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/20/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/22/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/22/2017 6:30:00 PM
HRES 2/24/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/27/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/1/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/1/2017 6:00:00 PM
HRES 3/6/2017 6:30:00 PM
HRES 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 111
HB111 Fiscal Note DOR-TAX 2.12.17.pdf HRES 2/13/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/17/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/22/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/22/2017 6:30:00 PM
HRES 2/24/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/27/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/1/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/1/2017 6:00:00 PM
HRES 3/6/2017 6:30:00 PM
HRES 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 111
HB111 Sectional Analysis 2.12.17.pdf HRES 2/13/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/17/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/20/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/22/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/22/2017 6:30:00 PM
HRES 2/24/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/27/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/1/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/1/2017 6:00:00 PM
HRES 3/6/2017 6:30:00 PM
HRES 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 111
HB111 Sponsor Statement 2.12.17.pdf HRES 2/13/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/17/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/20/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/22/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/22/2017 6:30:00 PM
HRES 2/24/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/27/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/1/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/1/2017 6:00:00 PM
HRES 3/6/2017 6:30:00 PM
HRES 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM
HB 111