Legislature(2011 - 2012)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/27/2012 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB170 | |
| Overview of Energy Projects | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 170 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 170
"An Act requiring vocational education counseling in
public schools."
9:02:49 AM
Senator Thomas introduced SB 170. He stated that one of the
major functions of public education is to prepare our
future workforce. During their school years young people
make critical decisions which will ultimately affect their
choice of a career later in life. Some young people have a
clear idea of what they want to be doing after graduation,
but many do not. The adolescent years in particular are
filled with many changes, making it a one of the critical
phases of a person's life. If childhood is like traveling
down a busy street, seventh grade is the junction. Recent
research has specifically targeted the early adolescent
years as a crucial point in development. It is a perfect
time to introduce realistic career options. Senate Bill 170
recognizes this junction in a young person's life, and
provides for career counseling for every student in
seventh, ninth and eleventh grades. Many schools are
already offering this for all secondary students, but it
should be available to every student in our state. The
Department of Education and Early Development already has
resources that can be directed toward this important task.
This bill would not prevent schools or districts from
providing a more comprehensive program. It sets the minimum
standards for career counseling, starting at seventh grade
and continuing in ninth and eleventh grades. Seventh grade
is when students start making important life choices. Ninth
grade is the beginning of high school, when they are
choosing courses which will affect their readiness for the
workforce. In eleventh grade they are starting to look
ahead to high school graduation, and what will come after
commencement.
9:06:30 AM
Co-Chair Stedman noted the previously published zero fiscal
note.
SUZANNE ARMSTRONG, ASSOCIATED BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in support of SB
170. She stressed that there was a high demand in her field
for skilled workers. She felt that SB 170 would benefit the
construction industry. She felt that students should
receive support in pursuing specific career paths.
SHELLY BERRY, ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT (via
teleconference), spoke in support of SB 170. She shared
that she has extensive experience in counseling students.
She shared that there was even potential for at-risk
students.
BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, LEGISLATIVE GOVERNMENT RELATIONS,
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 959, testified in support of SB 170. She
stated that some new students had severely lacked the math
skills required for success in the work field. She felt
that SB 170 would encourage students who choose to embark
on a technical career.
Senator Thomas felt the testimony was important, and
stressed that many students did not have enough of a narrow
focus at the middle school level. He remarked that students
needed to understand as early as possible, what it took to
succeed in the work force.
SB 170 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
9:15:45 AM
AT EASE
9:17:21 AM
RECONVENED
^Overview of Energy Projects
9:17:34 AM
SARAH FISHER GOAD, DIRECTOR, ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY (AEA),
presented the PowerPoint presentation, "Renewable Energy
Fund Program Status." She discussed slide 2, "Renewables
and other Projects 5-Year State Funds." She stated that the
slide represented a five year state fund snapshot of the
renewable energy funds of $176.6 million, and 310 projects.
She furthered that there were other state funds that had
been appropriated for AEA to manage projects and grants of
$248 million. Although the Renewable Energy Fund was a
significant part of the AEA, there were several other
funding sources and projects. The energy-efficiency section
was represented in the slide, but most of the money for
energy efficiency came from the federal government.
9:19:10 AM
PETER CRIMP, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY,
displayed slide 3, "RE Fund Grant Status: February 17,
2012." The table in the slide displayed the statistics for
the Renewable Energy Fund to date. The grant program was
currently in its fifth round; had received 558
applications; funded 208 of those applications; and had 165
grants currently in place. Round 5 of the Renewable Energy
Fund was up for consideration, and AEA had recommended up
to $43.2 million. The appropriations for round 5 were not
established. Approximately $177 million was the total money
that had been appropriated, and $81 million had been
dispersed. He pointed out the substantial amount of match
money in the grants and other contributions. He stated that
money that had not moved forward was going to be
reallocated.
Co-Chair Stedman requested that a focus on cost benefit to
the states and the individual communities be highlighted in
the presentation. Mr. Crimp replied that there were some
slides related to cost benefit for individual communities
later in the presentation.
Mr. Crimp discussed slide 4, "RE Fund Drawdown Outlook." He
stated that approximately $81 million had moved forward out
of the fund. The graph showed the differentiation among
feasibility: reconnaissance stage work versus the final
design. Generally, 70 to 80 percent of the funding would go
into construction of the projects. He remarked that the
slope of the curve increases during the construction
season, when funds were expended more quickly.
Mr. Crimp looked at slide 5, "RE Fund Project Completion."
He stated that at the end of 2011, there were 58 completed
projects. He explained that the chart showed a progression
of the completion of the projects.
Co-Chair Stedman wondered if the department re-examined the
projects for future viability. Mr. Crimp stated that AEA
had a reliable metric to determine the financial benefit of
each project.
Mr. Crimp displayed slide 6, "Pre-construction Projects
(R1-4)." He stated that the slide displayed a good
distribution along Southeast Alaska, with a specific focus
on hydro-electric energy in Southeast and South-central
Alaska. He noted the chart in the top left corner of the
slide displayed the allocation of the fund: 73 percent for
construction, 21 percent for feasibility, and 6 percent for
the final design.
Mr. Crimp discussed slide 7, "Construction Projects (R1-
4)." He was willing to discuss each project, if
specifically requested.
9:26:56 AM
Mr. Crimp displayed slide 8, "Funding Allocation by: PCE
vs. Non-PCE; Heat vs. Power." He explained that 72 percent
of the funds had been given to PCE communities, and 28
percent went to non-PCE communities. He stated that AEA had
sponsored a study related to the heat and power topic.
Approximately 80 percent of the energy used in Alaska was
used for heat. The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee
had advised AEA to emphasize heat projects.
Co-Chair Stedman requested a definition of PCE. Mr. Crimp
replied that PCE stood for "Power Cost Equalization." He
stated that PCE communities received PCE payments.
Co-Chair Stedman surmised that homes in communities that
had diesel-generated power, were given a state subsidy in
the first thousand kilowatts. Ms. Fisher-Goad replied that
the definition of the eligible PCE utility began in 1985,
and was determined whether or not the community was
generating with diesel in 1985. She agreed that it was
primarily the communities that generate from diesel,
however there were still communities and utilities that
were eligible for PCE, even though they may have
transitioned to other resources.
Co-Chair Stedman wondered if PCE was the first thousand
kilowatts. Ms. Fisher-Goad replied that PCE was the first
500 kilowatts.
Senator Thomas queried the statistic related to heat being
80 percent of the issue. Mr. Crimp replied that the value
of electric energy was higher than other factors, but heat
was the most important sector.
Senator Thomas stressed that there was a major issue in the
interior, and felt that there needed to be a stronger
emphasis on the heat problem.
9:32:46 AM
Mr. Crimp discussed slide 9, "Annual Fuel Savings - Actual
and Projected." He stated that the fuel saving from 2009 to
2011 displayed the actual figures. He apologized for not
providing the total of the three years combined. He shared
that the value from 2009 to 2011 approximately $11.7
million. He explained that fuel savings was used as the
broadest metric for the Renewable Energy Fund. He stressed
that the most important factor was saving to the rate
payers and customers. However, in order to have a broad
metric that was not subject to the year to year
variability, the chart was very useful. He remarked that he
would be discussing the savings per kilowatt hour for the
projects in individual communities.
Co-Chair Stedman requested further examination of a way for
the state to obtain the savings. Mr. Crimp replied that
there was a slide later in the presentation that would
highlight that request.
Senator Thomas looked at years 2014 to 2017, and he
wondered what accounted for the flattening out of biomass,
geothermal, and heat recovery. Mr. Crimp replied that the
projects were built out, so there were no new projects. The
fuel would be displaced at an annual basis, and the graph
displayed the diesel displacement per gallon per year.
Senator Thomas surmised that only the projects listed on
slide 2 were represented in slide 9. Mr. Crimp agreed.
Mr. Crimp looked at slide 10, "Cost of Scheduled
Construction Projects, Rounds 1-4." He stated that there
was a significant non-state and local match, compared to
the Renewable Energy Fund dollars.
9:37:32 AM
Mr. Crimp discussed slide 11, "Energy production and diesel
cost savings-2011." He stated that the slide displayed the
projects that had been in operation, at least before
January 1 2011. The table displayed the energy production
and cost savings in 2011, for the projects for which there
was a full year's worth of data. There were no projections
or major assumptions, and the table was simply a
representation of the products of the projects.
Co-Chair Stedman wondered if the goal was to save diesel
fuel. Mr. Crimp replied that the goal was to bring down the
cost to the communities.
Co-Chair Stedman wondered if that was represented in the
presentation. Mr. Crimp referenced a report from November
2011, and agreed to update the report and provide it to the
committee.
Co-Chair Stedman felt that the cost benefit to the State
was more complex than saving diesel fuel. Mr. Crimp replied
that Wrangell paid $.08 per kilowatt hour. He stated that
the spread was approximately $61,000 to Wrangell. He
stressed that there was a diminishing amount of hydro power
in Southeast Alaska. He pointed out that the project in
Wrangell was recommended for funding in 2009.
9:45:47 AM
Co-Chair Stedman would like to see an analysis before a net
savings could be determined. Mr. Crimp felt that the
Wrangell boilers would be looked at, and AEA would provide
the net savings after the cost of electricity had been
analyzed.
Co-Chair Stedman was very familiar with the process in
determining the benefit of hydroelectricity. He stressed
that there needed to be an examination of alternatives in
order to complete the goals of the goals. He understood the
concern of the communities, especially when the cost of oil
reached $100 a barrel. He felt that the State needed to
maintain focus on the net savings.
Ms. Crimp stressed that the projects displayed only
reflected one year of data. She added that there were
issues that required attention, and agreed that there was
an issue of heat requirements across the state
9:50:35 AM
Co-Chair Stedman noted that the cost of hydroelectricity
was not necessarily lower than other power source costs,
specifically oil.
Co-Chair Stedman looked at the geo-thermal project at the
Juneau Airport. He would like to see a detailed report on
that project and also the new swimming pool in Juneau. He
felt that there could be a benefit, if the projects
actually work and had a positive cost benefit. Mr. Crimp
replied that Juneau had released a report stated that the
geo thermal airport project were highly successful and
released more energy than was expected. He agreed to
provide that report to the committee. He added that there
was no report yet on the new swimming pool in Juneau.
Co-Chair Stedman requested data on the heat pump. He noted
that there could be different objectives between the City
of Juneau and the State. He felt that there needed to be an
examination of the financial success, rather than the
mechanical success. Mr. Crimp agreed to provide that
information.
9:56:27 AM
Mr. Crimp highlighted each project displayed on slide 11.
He stated that the economic performance was poor, but that
there would be more typical numbers by the end of the year.
He looked at the wood processor in Cordova, and remarked
that project was highly successful. He stated that the
Gulkana Central Wood Heating was poor. The North Pole
heating recovering project was going excellent and had very
low operation and maintenance costs.
Co-Chair Stedman stated that every project was a "good
project with someone else's money. He stressed that there
needed to be a more appropriate analysis from AEA. Mr.
Crimp agreed.
Senator Olson wondered how much of the private venture
affected the project. Mr. Crimp replied that it was too
difficult to assess the project in terms of the benefit of
the public dollars versus private dollars.
10:07:12 AM
Senator Olson stressed felt that there was no savings to
the State in the Nome Utilities project on the list. Co-
Chair Stedman would like Mr. Crimp to provide the
information that Senator Olson had requested. Mr. Crimp
agreed to provide that information.
Mr. Crimp looked at the Toksook Wind Farm. He stated that
he did not have the detailed information, because that
information was not available in 2011. He stated that
Unalakleet Wind Farm was generating approximately slightly
below the goal. Whether or not the dollars were paid back,
the savings was 3.4 cents per kilowatt hour before PCE.
Senator Thomas requested an overall analysis of the
maintenance and savings. He would like energy efficiency to
be a part of the discussion and analysis. Mr. Crimp agreed
that energy efficiency should be the priority, and would
provide the requested information.
Co-Chair Stedman understood that there was a profound
workload on AEA, and stressed that the committee was
aggressively addressing the situation.
10:14:44 AM
Ms. Fisher-Goad displayed slide 12,
"Challenges/Opportunities."
Focus on the entire energy system
-Reliable, efficient diesel systems first
-Reduce demand through EE
Deliverables
-Reduce and stabilize costs to residents
-Displace diesel
-Assist in project development
Monitor technical and economic performance
Ms. Fisher-Goad stated that there was a significant
pressure to move the projects forward. She stressed that
there was an analysis to determine which projects should go
forward, there were few projects that had obtained data to
determine viability. There needed to be a focus on the
entire energy system, in order make energy efficiency a
priority. She stated that there were some issues related to
addressing small communities to update the energy systems.
She appreciated the comments related to diesel displacement
and cost feasibility, and remarked that long term data was
essential, so projects needed to continually be evaluated.
She added that technical performance monitoring and
technical assistance was essential to the success of AEA.
Co-Chair Stedman requested information related to the
Emerging Technology Fund. Ms. Goad stated that AEA was
currently soliciting applications for the Emerging
Technology Fund.
10:19:24 AM
AT EASE
10:25:05 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stedman welcomed the presenters.
BOB BREAN, DIRECTOR, RESEARCH AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, ALASKA
HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, discussed the presentation,
"Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) Energy Programs
Update,"
Mr. Brean displayed slide 2, "Weatherization Program."
-Assisting homeowners for 30 years
-Income based
-Homeowners and renters may apply
-Services provided at no cost by 17 providers
-Strong history of performance
10:27:41 AM
Mr. Brean looked at slide 2, "Weatherization Program." He
explained that the slide represented the funding level
prior to and after FY 08 appropriation. The average expense
per unit for the road and marine highway had grown from
$7,000 to $11,000; for air only, the average expense per
unit had risen from $18,000 to $30,000.
Senator Egan felt that weatherization in Angoon was much
different than other parts of the state. He did not
understand why the road and marine highways were combined.
Mr. Brean looked at the cost of freight in the Alaska
Marine Highway system, and felt that the amount worked well
in Southeast Alaska. He added that the contractors were
comfortable with the freight reduction costs on the marine
highway system.
Senator Egan surmised that there was freight reduction on
the marine highway system. Mr. Brean stated that the cost
was less for those communities on the marine highway
system, than for communities on the road system.
Mr. Brean discussed slide 4, "FY 2012 100 percent of Median
Income Limits for Alaska." He stated that the graph
displayed a snapshot of a policy decision that was made
after receiving an infusion of funds. The median income
level was moved from 80 percent to 100 percent.
Co-Chair Stedman requested a definition of "DOE." Mr. Brean
replied that DOE stood for the United States Department of
Energy.
Mr. Brean looked at slide 5, "Weatherization Program." The
slide showed the number of communities that received
weatherization service. In 2008 to 2010, AHFC conducted
residential weatherization training. The contractors were
instructed to bring in individuals from the league, and
then hire local people. He stressed that the weatherization
program provided jobs in communities where there may be
limited employment. He felt that the weatherization program
had the same value as a jobs program.
10:32:58 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked for a description of the wait times
that people encountered when they were placed on the
weatherization waiting list. Mr. Brean replied that someone
would address that issue later in the presentation. He
furthered that the individual contractors conducted the
intake surveys in the spring. Typically, there was no
problem filling the waiting list or finding people who were
eligible for the program. Because the program was income-
based, there was no difficulty in getting people on the
wait-list. He stressed that income-eligible families were
out-pacing the rate at which AHFC could conduct
weatherization around the state. In 2008, when funds had
been infused in the program, only ten percent of the
current need and eligible homes would be weatherized.
Senator Olson wondered if the map on the slide was all
inclusive. Mr. Brean said it was not all inclusive, and
furthered that the map's intent was mostly for visual
effect.
Mr. Brean discussed slide 6, "Weatherization Program." He
stated that in FY 2008 the program received $200 million,
and in FY 2011 the program received $64 million, totaling
$264 million.
Mr. Brean displayed slide 7, "Weatherization Program:
Update." He stated that $144.6 million had been expended,
and 5,649 units were complete. The project totals as of
March 31, 2012 was $164.2 million expended, with 7,681
units complete; and as of Mar 31 2013 $245 would be
expended with 10,500 units complete.
10:39:06 AM
Mr. Brean looked at slide 8, "Weatherization Program:
Benefits." He stated that the benefits included resident
health and safety; fire safety' improves building stock;
job creation; invests in local communities; and energy
savings. He stated that the program created jobs, and the
program allowed for workers to apply their trades and
continue working. He stated that utility bills were more
manageable and consumption of fuel was lowered, because of
the weatherization program. He stressed that there was
reduced carbon dioxide emissions, and pointed out that
there was an average of about 30-33 percent savings to the
consumer. He used an example of the Aleutian Island Housing
Authority, and noted that there was data collected in 2008,
2009, and 2011, and had recorded 43 percent energy usage
reduction.
Mr. Brean emphasized that there was a reduction of energy
costs of 30 percent due to the weatherization and home
energy rebate programs.
10:44:37 AM
Senator Thomas wondered if the focus was net savings, and
was simplified. Mr. Brean stated that based on utilities
and overall performance, that number was consistent.
Senator McGuire surmised that the weatherization program
was 100 percent rebate, and income-based. Mr. Brean
affirmed.
Senator McGuire noted that there were some proposals, and
she recommended adding money to this program. She noted
that there was no backlog, and wondered if there was a way
to enhance the program. Mr. Brean replied that there as
currently a ramp up to distribute $100 billion annually. He
stated that the program should focus on residential benefit
based on the individual home.
Senator McGuire looked at point 3 of slide 2, and wondered
there were some renters who were not the beneficiaries of
the program. Mr. Brean stated that renters were eligible to
apply based on income, and was required to agree with the
landlords.
10:50:35 AM
AT EASE
1:01:52 PM
RECONVENED
1:02:33 PM
JOHN ANDERSON, WEATHERIZATION AND PROJECT OFFICER, ALASKA
HOUSING AND FINANCE CORPORATION, discussed slide 9, "Home
Energy Rebate Program."
-Open to all Alaskans not participating in the
Weatherization program
-No income requirements
-Owner-occupied, year-round residences
-Homeowners pay upfront and are then rebated
-"As-Is & Post" energy ratings
Mr. Anderson looked at slide 10, "Home Energy Rebate
Program: State Funding Levels." In FY 02, the funding was
$100 million; in FY 09, it was $60 million; in FY 11 in was
37.5 million; with a total of $197.5 million.
Mr. Anderson discussed slide 11, "Home Energy Rebate
Program: Results." To date, the rebate program distributed
16,098 rebates, which totaled $102.6 million. He stated
that 28,365 rebates were distributed as of January 30 2012,
totaling $9.2 million; 16,158 post-rebates, totaling $2.8
million; and 1,317 five star plus rebates, totaling $9.9
million. The total money expended for the program was
$130.5 million.
Senator Ellis wondered how the five star components
compared with the Alaska Craftsman Home Standards Program.
Mr. Anderson stated that the standards for both programs
were AHFC standards.
Co-Chair Stedman requested further information regarding
how standards were determined. Mr. Anderson reiterated that
all of the standard, were AHFC standards. Mr. Brean added
that the determination software was developed with the help
from the Alaska Craftsman.
Senator Ellis surmised the five star program met or exceeds
the Alaska Craftsman Home Standards Program. Mr. Brean
indicated to the affirmative.
Mr. Anderson displayed slide 12, "Home Energy Rebate
Program." Currently, there were 1,746 homes on the
waitlist, and 500 homes were dispatched a month.
1:07:37 PM
Mr. Anderson looked at slide 13, "Home Energy Rebate
Program: Program Snapshot." He stated that the average
income costs of 15,906 homeowners were displayed. He stated
that the homeowner average investment was $4,134.
Mr. Anderson displayed slide 14, "Home Energy Rebate
Program: Savings." He stated that the Alaska Retrofit
Information System was used to determine the savings. He
stated that the average home energy savings was 33 percent,
and the average home cost savings was $1,297 per year.
Co-Chair Stedman wondered if there was a difference between
the hydro and non-hydro areas. Mr. Anderson replied that
the investment average was the same across the state, but
Southeast Alaska showed more cost savings than other
regions in the state.
Senator Egan surmised that climate was also a factor. Mr.
Brean agreed with that assumption. Co-Chair Stedman
stressed that there was a significant difference between
Southeast and the rest of Alaska. Mr. Brean agreed. Senator
Egan assumed that the same formula was used for the entire
state when determining the average numbers. Mr. Brean
affirmed that assumption.
1:12:46 PM
Mr. Anderson discussed slide 15, "Home Energy Rebate
Program Statewide Annual Outcome Estimates as of 9/30/11."
He explained that there was an estimation of savings of
$1.649 million BTUs, with a net reduction of carbon dioxide
of over 100,000 tons. There was an average of 33 percent of
energy savings. The as is rating in the increase of a home,
was rising from a below standard rating of 2 star to a
minimum standard of a 4 star rating.
Mr. Brean hoped to add more numbers with the weatherization
program as well. He hoped to provide numbers for both
programs.
Co-Chair Stedman requested information from the fuel
distributors and the fuel savings. Mr. Brean agreed to
provide that information.
Senator Egan queried the benefit for older homes. Mr. Brean
stressed that the older homes had the opportunity for gain
and fixes. He added that the rebate was predicated on the
differences between the before and after conditions.
1:17:28 PM
Mr. Anderson stated that fuel vendors were not a regulated
entity, so it was difficult to obtain their numbers.
Co-Chair Stedman pointed out that he thought it was normal
in Southeast Alaska to have ice on the inside of windows,
and was relieved to know that it was not normal for ice to
form indoors.
Mr. Anderson looked at slide 16, "Five State Plus New Home
Rebate."
AHFC provides a $7,500 rebate for new 5 Star Plus
homes.
-Not more than one year old
-For original owner
-Must meet all AHFC property financing requirements
-5 Star Plus energy rating
Rebates: 1,317
Total Expended: $9.9 million
Mr. Anderson discussed slide 17, "Second Mortgage or Energy
Conservation."
-Second mortgage up to $30,000
-15 Year Loan at the Taxable Rate
-Active Loans: 77
-Loans Paid Off: 59
Mr. Braun noted that there were some inquiries pertaining
to additional interest in the program. He explained that
there were some conversations regarding a possible
adjustment to the program.
Mr. Anderson presented slide 18, "Alaska Energy Efficiency
Revolving Loan Fund (AEERLF)." He stated that this program
was a new program. He explained that the program would be
available for schools, state facilities, the University of
Alaska, and municipal facilities. He stated that there was
$8 million available to benchmark as many facilities as
they could. There were 350 investment grade audits
currently occurring.
1:22:50 PM
Mr. Braun explained that a key element of performance
contract was essential to the AEERLF program. He stressed
that if the repairs were made, then the auditors and
assessors could be held accountable.
Senator McGuire felt that the program was pertinent, but
she was frustrated because schools often were not aware of
the program. She wondered if there were plans to provide
more information to the schools and municipalities. Mr.
Anderson stressed that it was a new program, and felt that
there was an aggressive campaign to inform the potential
participants.
Mr. Brean stated that the municipalities were involved in
the audits, and that was a major positive step towards
gaining participants in the program.
1:27:14 PM
Senator Egan felt that there needed to be more outreach
than what had been discussed. He stressed a focus on each
individual school districts and municipalities. Mr. Brean
agreed with Senator Egan. He added that the cost of fuel
was high, and many municipalities were struggling just to
meet their fuel costs.
Mr. Anderson displayed slide 20, "Energy Efficiency
Benefits." The energy efficiency benefits included a
reduction in energy costs and usage; an increase in
economic activity; an increase in quality of life and
safety; and enhancement of durability and value of the
home; and other environmental, social, and economic
benefits.
Co-Chair Stedman wondered if any money was requested for
this new program. Mr. Anderson stressed that there needed
to be money for the outreach, but there was no money
requested for outreach.
Co-Chair Hoffman wondered if there was a completion of the
headquarters. Mr. Anderson commented that their heating and
ventilation was currently being updated.
Senator McGuire wondered what barriers AHFC faced in
integrating this new program. Mr. Anderson replied that
there were not many barriers.
Co-Chair Stedman discussed the following day's agenda.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 170 Sponsor Statement.dot |
SFIN 2/27/2012 9:00:00 AM |
SB 170 |
| SB 170 CareerDevelopment abstract.pdf |
SFIN 2/27/2012 9:00:00 AM |
SB 170 |
| 022712 Department of Labor Green Jobs.pdf |
SFIN 2/27/2012 9:00:00 AM |
AEA Overview |
| Energy Projects AEA 022712 SFIN.pptx |
SFIN 2/27/2012 9:00:00 AM |
Overview AEA |
| AHFC 2.27.12 FY13 Overview.pdf |
SFIN 2/27/2012 9:00:00 AM |
Overview AHFC |