Legislature(2015 - 2016)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/14/2016 01:30 PM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB188 | |
| HB222 | |
| SB130 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 188 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 222 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 130 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 247 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 130
"An Act relating to confidential information status
and public record status of information in the
possession of the Department of Revenue; relating to
interest applicable to delinquent tax; relating to
disclosure of oil and gas production tax credit
information; relating to refunds for the gas storage
facility tax credit, the liquefied natural gas storage
facility tax credit, and the qualified in-state oil
refinery infrastructure expenditures tax credit;
relating to the minimum tax for certain oil and gas
production; relating to the minimum tax calculation
for monthly installment payments of estimated tax;
relating to interest on monthly installment payments
of estimated tax; relating to limitations for the
application of tax credits; relating to oil and gas
production tax credits for certain losses and
expenditures; relating to limitations for
nontransferable oil and gas production tax credits
based on oil production and the alternative tax credit
for oil and gas exploration; relating to purchase of
tax credit certificates from the oil and gas tax
credit fund; relating to a minimum for gross value at
the point of production; relating to lease
expenditures and tax credits for municipal entities;
adding a definition for "qualified capital
expenditure"; adding a definition for "outstanding
liability to the state"; repealing oil and gas
exploration incentive credits; repealing the
limitation on the application of credits against tax
liability for lease expenditures incurred before
January 1, 2011; repealing provisions related to the
monthly installment payments for estimated tax for oil
and gas produced before January 1, 2014; repealing the
oil and gas production tax credit for qualified
capital expenditures and certain well expenditures;
repealing the calculation for certain lease
expenditures applicable before January 1, 2011; making
conforming amendments; and providing for an effective
date."
2:08:01 PM
JANAK MAYER, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF TECHNOLOGIST, ENALYTICA,
announced some of his background.
2:09:09 PM
Janak Mayer discussed the presentation, "CS SB 130: Key
Issues and Assessment" (copy on file).
2:09:15 PM
Mr. Mayer looked at Slide 2, "Agenda":
CS SB 130: Summary of Key Issues
North Slope: Fiscal Regime Overview
North Slope: Changes Proposed
Cook Inlet: key issues and Proposed Changes
CS SB 130: Summary of Key Issues
Appendix
2:10:09 PM
Janak Mayer addressed Slide 3, "Summary: Common Proposed
Changes":
Issue: Gross value reduction and net operating loss
credit
Status Quo: Because GVR artificially reduces
Production Tax Value, 35% NOL credit can be
claimed on amount greater than actual loss - more
than 35% support for spending.
CS HB 247 (FIN) / CS SB 130 (RES): Assess
NOL credit on actual loss (not including
GVR), so NOL is for 35% of actual loss, and
all producers have 35% support for spending.
Impact: Make North Slope state support
for spending uniform at 35%.
Interaction is arguably an unintended
consequence under SB21, though fixing
has negative impact for current GVR new
developments.
Issue: Time limit on gross value reduction
Status Quo: No current time limit on how long new
developments benefit from GVR.
CS HB 247 (FIN) / CS SB 130 (RES): Allow GVR
benefit only for 5 years from first
production (or until 1/1/2021).
Impact: Short limit effectively
eliminates much of the GVR benefit.
Major negative impact on recently
sanctioned eligible developments.
Issue: Refundable credit withholding
Status Quo: Liabilities against production tax
withheld from refundable credits, but not other
liabilities.
CS HB 247 (FIN) / CS SB 130 (RES): Any
exploration/development/ production related
liabilities to the state can be withheld
from refundable credit payments.
Impact: Companies in dispute over
liabilities will have those amounts
withheld. Companies that wish to have
withholding used to settle liability
may do so.
Issue: .025 'Middle Earth' exploration credit
Status Quo: $25 mm or 80% credit, sunsets July 1
2016.
CS HB 247 (FIN) / CS SB 130 (RES): Extend to
allow for completion of wells spudded before
July 1.
Issue: Municipal production expense deduction
Status Quo: Munis that own production and only
sell portion can deduct all expenses and claim
credits.
CS HB 247 (FIN) / CS SB 130 (RES): Credits
and deductions can only be claimed in
proportion to taxable production.
Issue: Surety bond
Status Quo: No bond requirement.
CS HB 247 (FIN) / CS SB 130 (RES): Add
$250,000 bond as license requirement.
2:16:34 PM
Mr. Mayer addressed Slide 4, "Summary: Divergent Proposed
Changes":
Issue: Cook Inlet Tax credits & fiscal system
Status Quo: 25% Net Operating Loss credit, 20%
Qualified Capital Expenditure credit, 40% Well
Lease Expenditure credit; up to 65% gov't support
for spending and minimal production tax
CS HB 247 (FIN): Reduce NOL credit to 10%,
QCE to 10%, WLE to 20% by 2018. Restrict
eligibility for NOL. Working group on Cook
Inlet regime.
CS SB 130 (RES): Reduce NOL credit to
15%, QCE to 10%, WLE to 20% by 2017. No
Credits and no production tax from 2018
Onward.
Impact: Cook Inlet credit regime
is clearly unsustainable in
current environment; degree of
rampdown / elimination has fiscal-
note impact, but also potential
impacts on future investment.
Issue: North Slope gross minimum tax
Status Quo: 4% rate, binding for legacy output if
net value is positive. If net value is negative,
NOL can 'pierce' floor. "New," GVR-eligible
production can take to zero due to $5/bbl and
small producer credit.
CS HB 247 (FIN): Introduce additional,
'harder' 2% gross floor; no credits can
reduce tax liability below this.
CS SB 130 (RES): Maintain status quo -
no further floor hardening.
Impact: Hardening has high fiscal-
note impact, but most is revenue
brought forward from future (NOL),
not truly additional. Makes
regressive system more so, and
adds strain to cashflow-negative
companies.
Issue: Refundable credit cap
Status Quo: Producers with >50 mb/d production
must carry NOL forward, others can be reimbursed
by the state. Major new NS development could
place significant strain on state cashflow.
CS HB 247 (FIN): $100mm per company annual
limit on reimbursement.
CS SB 130 (RES): $85mm per company
annual limit on reimbursement.
Impact: Low limit substantially
increases capital needs for new
developments & raises hurdle
rates/break-even prices. $100mm
likely not binding on companies
now given current spending plans;
$85mm may have negative impact on
some.
2:24:05 PM
Mr. Mayer highlighted Slide 5, "Summary: Divergent Proposed
Changes":
Feature: 'Middle Earth' credits
Status Quo: 25% Net Operating Loss credit, 20%
Qualified Capital Expenditure credit, 40% Well
Lease Expenditure credit.
CS HB 247 (FIN): Maintain NOL at 25%, reduce
QCE to 10%, WLE to 30% by 2018. WLE may
sunset in 2019?
CS SB 130 (RES): Reduce NOL credit to
15%, QCE to 10%, WLE to 20% by 2017.
Impact: Fiscal impact of 'Middle
Earth' credits currently minimal,
but questions about capital
credits may arise if significant
development occurs.
Feature: Interest due on 'delinquent' taxes
Status Quo: Fed Discount Rate + 3% Simple
Interest on delinquent taxes (up to 6-year audit
statute of limitations).
CS HB 247 (FIN): Fed + 5% compounded
quarterly for 3 yrs, then Fed + 5% simple
interest (up to 6-year audit statute of
limitations)
CS SB 130 (RES): Fed + 7% compounded
quarterly for 3 yrs, then no interest
(up to 6-year audit statute of
limitations)
Impact: Current simple interest
arguably a drafting oversight from
SB21 debate. Core issues here
determine 'fair' rate vs
companies' concerns over impact of
long audit backlog on interest
bills when interest rate is higher
and compounded.
Feature: Alaska hire
Status Quo: Alaska hire not currently given
preferential treatment in tax code (significant
constitutional restrictions).
CS HB 247 (FIN): No change
CS SB 130 (RES): No preferential
treatment in amount of refunded
credits, but companies with >75% Alaska
hire placed higher in queue for
refundable credit payments.
2:28:18 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that the house and senate versions
of the bill differed considerably.
2:28:40 PM
NIKOS TSAFOS, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF ANALYST, ENALYTICA (vis
teleconference), introduced himself.
2:29:13 PM
Mr. Mayer discussed Slide 6, "Summary: Visualizing
Credits." He said that what both the house and the senate
version of the bill hoped to address was the impact of
Alaska's oil and gas tax credits at the current low prices.
He stated that the slide represented the amount of credits,
and where the credits were spent. He noted that the first
bar on the slide spit the credits in to North Slope and
non-North Slope spending. The second bar split the refunded
and non-refunded credits for the North Slope and non-North
Slope operations. He noted that the majority of credits
paid out in Cook Inlet were refunded credits. The third bar
broke down the credits involved: North Slope dollar per
barrel credit (introduced under SB 21), North Slope
Operating Loss, North Slope other, and non-North Slope
state support. He noted that the "other" credits bar would
shrink going into the future, most of those credits no
longer exist. He said that the only remaining credit of
substance on the North Slope, other than the dollar per
barrel credit, was the net operating loss credit. He
relayed that expenses were deducted against revenues in any
net profit system, and in the years that there was not
enough revenue and companies experienced a loss, there was
a means for costs to somehow be deducted.
2:34:23 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the difference of revenue
generated as a result of the credits, versus merely the
expense. She queried a slide that would relate the credits
to the generated revenue.
Mr. Mayer stated that there would be a slide later in the
presentation that would address the question. He said that
operating loss credits would have to be paid; the question
was whether they should be paid now or later as a deduction
through the tax system.
2:36:20 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche asked where the well lease expenditure
(WLE) and QCEs were captured for the North Slope.
Mr. Mayer replied that the only remaining credit on the
North Slope was the net operating loss credit. He furthered
that there used to be a capital credit, but there was never
a WLE. He said that the capital credit had been repealed
under Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share (ACES). He noted
that the green section of the third bar on Slide 6
reflected the non-North Slope state support. He stated that
there were three big categories of credits at play: credits
that were a mathematical exercise in determining the North
Slope tax rate, credits on the North Slope that were about
net operating losses that would be eventually recognized,
and the Cook Inlet credits.
2:37:36 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche noted the $595 million for the per
barrel credit. He asserted that the figure shaped the
overall underlying tax structure.
Mr. Mayer agreed.
2:38:26 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon explained that the tax credit system was
illustrated in three different ways on the chart. She
stressed that the numbers did not reflect additional tax
credits, but broke them down in different was for the
purpose of highlighting the value and usage of each credit.
Mr. Mayer agreed.
2:38:57 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche asked whether per barrel credits could
be taken below the minimum, and if so, how they would be
incorporated into the refunded credits.
Mr. Mayer replied that they would appear as non-refunded
because they were taken by taxpayers against liabilities.
2:39:34 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche understood that it would be part of the
$655, in orange, on the second bar.
Mr. Mayer agreed. He reminded the committee that the
numbers used on Slide 6 were from FY 15.
2:40:59 PM
Mr. Mayer highlighted Slide 7, Summary: History of Credit
Payouts":
Refunded Credits Reached New High in FY 2015
Refundable credits in FY 2015 reached $628 mm, the
highest point ever
In both 2014 and 2015, the majority of these credits
went to non-North Slope producers
Under DOR's current forecast, credits will exceed $1.3
billion across FY 2016 and FY 2017
Mr. Mayer pointed out to the committee that in FY 15 the
credits had reached an all-time high of $628 million, and
were projected to be higher in FY 17. He noted that there
had not been an increase on the North Slope, the increase
had been in non-North Slope credits.
2:41:44 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche understood that the following slide
would address revenue. He thought a slide showing the
elimination of non-North Slope credits, and the application
of the production taxes, would be informative. He said that
the public had a hard time understanding the value of the
credits as they related in production and revenue to the
state. He wanted a slide that would provide that
information. He said that the state got value from Cook
Inlet credits, but very little revenue to the state.
2:42:59 PM
Senator Dunleavy remarked that facts could sometimes ruin a
good story. He asserted that SB 21 had not affected Cook
Inlet.
2:44:26 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche added that SB 21 was working better for
the state than ACES.
2:45:02 PM
Senator Bishop commented that looking at the numbers, it
was clear that SB 21 had spurred production.
2:45:50 PM
Senator Dunleavy thought that the presenter could discuss
the effects of more production on tariffs. He thought that
tariffs could create lower or higher costs for shipping
oil, which he believed was a North Slope issue. He asserted
that the administration had admitted that the state would
not be making more money under ACES.
2:46:52 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon stressed that no one was currently
making any money, given the current oil prices, but that
ACES fared worse than SB 21 at $40/bbl.
2:47:24 PM
Mr. Mayer remarked that new production could reduce costs.
He said that the more volumes of oil that were flowing
through the pipe, the more barrels that could support the
cost of the pipeline. He expounded on the benefits of
tariffs. He noted that under ACES there was a 20 percent
capital credit and a 25 percent net operating loss credit,
which meant that new producers without tax liability could
put them together and receive 45 percent support for
spending. SB 21 offered a transition period where the 45
percent support was maintained, with the understanding that
it would be brought down to 35 percent to match the nominal
rate of tax under SB 21.
2:50:58 PM
Mr. Mayer addressed Slide 8, "Summary: North Slope vs. Cook
Inlet Credits":
Big difference between North Slope and Cook Inlet
The majority of refundable credits go to Cook Inlet
producers
Cook Inlet production, however, generates limited
direct revenue for the state
Credits on the North Slope are more limited but also a
far smaller fraction of total value generated
Mr. Mayer noted that the slide charted where revenues came
from and where credit spending occurred. The stacked bar on
the left reflected FY 2105 numbers for total revenues
through the oil and gas fiscal system and total spending on
credits. He stated that below the zero baseline, in the
light grey bars, was refunded tax credits, and above the
baseline in dark grey was production tax, purple was
corporate income tax, green was property tax, yellow and
orange were both royalty - restricted and unrestricted. He
relayed that the slide reflected over $2.3 billion in
revenues to the state in FY 15, with substantial credit
expenditures of $628 million. He related that nearly all of
the revenue came from the North Slope; $2.2 billion between
restricted and unrestricted revenue, and $224 million in
outlay on reimbursed, refunded capital credits. He said
that looking at only that picture, the question of refunded
credit did not seem out of proportion to the revenue that
was being brought in, if that was reinvestment in future
production. He countered that the picture differed when
looking at the Cook Inlet side of the equation, illustrated
in the third bar on the slide.
2:53:54 PM
Senator Dunleavy noted that some of the outcomes in Cook
Inlet could be due to additional incentives for gas that
had been used in the area.
Mr. Mayer agreed that the Cook Inlet credits had been
established during a time when there had been a great deal
of concern over the future of the gas supply in
Southcentral Alaska, and also during a time of higher oil
prices. He believed that the time had come to revisit the
equation using current variables.
2:55:07 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche turned to Slide 7. He asserted that the
Cook Inlet credits were an exposure for the state. He
requested information about how a sovereign would quantify
the return to the state of the credit investment in Cook
Inlet. He suggested that the state may have overinvested in
Cook Inlet credits. He wondered how the investment could be
defended, and understood that the conversation would take
longer than the current meeting would allow.
Mr. Mayer replied that there were various ways to conduct
the cost/benefit analysis. He suggested looking at royalty
revenues that were received from current and future
production, and at how that would compare overtime to the
credits involved.
Mr. Mayer announced that the next section of slides would
discuss an overview of the North Slope fiscal regime.
2:58:59 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon announced that the meeting needed to end
in 15 minutes. She noted that the committee could reconvene
later in the day to finish the presentation.
2:59:35 PM
Mr. Mayer discussed Slide 10, "NS Overview: Gross vs. Net
Taxes":
Hard to be both Norway & N. Dakota at Same Time
Gross taxes
Less volatile, shift risk to private sector
Simple and easy to administer
High/low government take at low/high prices
Disadvantages marginal investment
Net taxes
More volatile revenues for government
Harder to administer
Efficient-do not distort decision-making
Enable investment across commodity cycle
Mr. Mayer noted that the chart on the bottom right
illustrated effective tax rates. He said that the idea of
an effective tax rate was inherently a net tax concept; of
the available profit generated in a given system, how much
was taken in the form of tax. He stated that the numbers on
the graph compared a 25 percent net tax and a 10 percent
gross tax. He relayed that the green line represented the
net tax and stayed at 25 percent all the way across the
chart from $40/bbl to $150/bbl. He shared that the gross
tax was highly regressive; when prices were lowest the tax
was high, and got lower at high prices. He ran through the
numbers in the lower left of the slide. He explained that
at $80/bbl the production tax value of each barrel was
$34/bbl. He discussed the gross versus net taxes $80/bbl.
He said that as prices dropped the gross taxes took up more
and more of the profit available. He related that gross
taxes were less volatile and shifted the risk to the
private sector. He furthered that administering a net tax
was more difficult because incurred costs needed to be
determined, which contributed to audit backlogs. He said
that the state had made the decision for over a decade to
have a net profit tax system, which required planning for
volatility of revenue and maintaining substantial savings
and assets, while relying more on earnings from the assets
than the direct revenue from the oil and gas tax system to
run the state. He added that a more diversified economy
would also be beneficial to the state.
3:07:33 PM
Mr. Mayer looked at Slide 11, "NS Overview: Cash Flow
Taxes":
Cashflow taxes: More efficient, more volatile
Purpose of net tax is to minimize distorting
impact on investment
Best achieved by making the state's fiscal
cost/benefit as close as possible to equity
investor
Results in outflows during development, receipts
during production
He spoke to the highly simplified cashflow and income
example presented on the slide. He stressed the importance
of distinguishing between cashflow and net income. He spoke
to the numbers reflected on the slide related to the
hypothetical development of a small oil field.
3:12:56 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon announced that a continuation of the
presentation would be scheduled for the following day. She
noted that the committee would be back at 5pm to hear a
different presentation.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 130 Johnson 4-14-16 Letter to Senator Anna MacKinnon.pdf |
SFIN 4/14/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 130 |
| SB 130 BREAKING NEWS_ Federal Court Affirms Constitutional Rights and Denies Motions of Govt_Fossil Fuel Industry.pdf |
SFIN 4/14/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 130 |
| SB 130 Middle Earth or Frontier Tax Credits Maloney.pdf |
SFIN 4/14/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 130 |
| SB 130 Alaska Forest Association SB 130 comments.pdf |
SFIN 4/14/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 130 |
| SB 130 public testimony Sanders.pdf |
SFIN 4/14/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 130 |
| SB 130 Public Testimony Hanson.pdf |
SFIN 4/14/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 130 |
| SB 130 enalytica SFIN April 1 2016.pdf |
SFIN 4/14/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 130 |
| SB 130 04 13 16 AOGA Testimony SFIN SB 130 FINAL.pdf |
SFIN 4/14/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 130 |
| SB 130 Oil Tax Credits with bankruptcy Home Run Oil.pdf |
SFIN 4/14/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 130 |
| SB 130 Legislation's Impact on Caelus.pdf |
SFIN 4/14/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 130 |
| SB 130 Public Testimony Home Run Oil 2.pdf |
SFIN 4/14/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 130 |