Legislature(2009 - 2010)BUTROVICH 205
02/10/2010 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
Audio | Topic |
---|---|
Start | |
SB242 | |
SB243 | |
Presentation: Point Mackenzie Rail Extension | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
*+ | SB 243 | TELECONFERENCED | |
*+ | SB 242 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED | ||
+ | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 243-GEOTHERMAL RESOURCE:ROYALTY/PERMIT/FEE 4:21:25 PM CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE announced SB 243 to be up for discussion and that it is the companion bill to SB 242 that deals with the royalty relating to geothermal energy. MIKE PAWLOWSKI, aide to Senator McGuire, sponsor of SB 243, explained that currently under AS 38.05.181(g), the State of Alaska charges a 10-15 percent royalty on gross revenues on geothermal projects. This has a significant impact on the economics of this geothermal project that has a fixed cost of $.12 to $.14. Other states don't have royalties anywhere near what Alaska has; these royalties are very similar to what the state has for oil and gas development, not for geothermal development. That is where the bill started off in concept; procedurally SB 243 removes royalty from geothermal projects in Alaska. CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE explained that last Interim geothermal was looked at and an old reference to a 10-15 percent geothermal royalty credit was discovered. They think it was put in as a place holder back when the oil and gas provisions were being developed, but without any reflection on what an appropriate geothermal regime would look like. This resource is hot water, a renewable energy that is not extracted permanently in the way that hydrocarbons are. She explained that the thinking behind this bill is to incentivize these projects, but also realizing that they really don't see a rationale for the state to exact a royalty on a resource that is not being removed permanently from the ground - the whole point of royalty and severance. If Alaska has a royalty, it would be the highest rate in the nation and would make any geothermal development in this state impractical. Further, Senator McGuire said, some states with federal lands aligning them have a 1.7 percent royalty. The federal government has said 3 percent is their threshold. Clearly the 10-15 percent would be "outrageous," and she supported no royalty for the reasons she just articulated. But, she said she wanted to hear testimony from the companies about other royalty regimes. 4:25:55 PM PAUL THOMSEN, Ormat Technologies, echoed earlier comments about how geothermal power capital costs in other states are around $4000/kW and how in Alaska the costs are 25-50 percent higher than that. They think SB 243 recognizes that in other western states geothermal power projects rarely are required to pay state royalties. 4:27:05 PM He clarified that when they were looking at this provision, they found that a predominance of western states actually do have a very high state royalty rate in statute; they just don't have any geothermal power projects paying it. That is when they started to question it. The state of California has somewhere in the range of a 10-11 cent royalty for state lands; it is the largest producer of geothermal power in the US. A fraction of their projects sit on state lands. The geysers in Northern California that produce 1000 mgW take up a couple acres of state land and pay the 10 percent; but when you look at total projects, it's less than 1 percent. Another example is in Southern California. MR. THOMSEN said they compared that to a state like Nevada that is the largest geothermal producer per capita, but does not have a state royalty rate at all. The state is 90 percent federally owned, so Ormat pays a federal rate. He said the Geothermal Energy Association, the National Association which Ormat is also a board member of, explained that geothermal royalties vary depending on land ownership, type and tend to range from .5 percent to 5.5 percent of revenues. The 10 percent is sometimes applied to gross revenues versus net. The majority of geothermal projects currently under development in the US are on federal lands where BLM regulations call for revenue royalties of 1.75 percent for the first 10 years and 3.5 percent thereafter. MR. THOMSEN said that despite the fact that geothermal development faces greater financial challenges in Alaska, they think that the current statute's royalty rate of 10-15 percent is simply "cost prohibitive." Ormat's financial analysis shows that removing the royalty obligation would reduce the kWh cost by about 10 percent; and they think that removing the royalty obligations from geothermal power plants in Alaska will serve to acknowledge the unusually high costs of geothermal development and address even the AEA's concerns that the direct economic benefits of geothermal production are highly sensitive to O&M costs. Unlike the previous bill, this one really looks at reducing those costs once the project is up and operating - combating the high prices of remoteness of projects, the severity of weather and other difficult factors about developing in Alaska. This would ultimately lower the cost of clean reliable power to ratepayers. 4:29:29 PM CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if he would support an amendment that said any reduction in royalty is required to be passed on to the customers. MR. THOMSEN replied that he would examine that language, but in principle they absolutely support that concept. 4:30:03 PM At Ease 4:34:25 PM CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE called the meeting back to order at 4:34 p.m. SB 343 was set aside. ^Presentation: Point Mackenzie Rail Extension Presentation: Point Mackenzie Rail Extension 4:34:34 PM CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE announced an overview of the proposed Point Mackenzie Rail Extension project. 4:34:44 PM JOHN DUFFY, Manager, Matanuska Susitna Borough, said this project offers tremendous opportunities for the State of Alaska in terms of job creation and economic opportunities, especially in the South central region. Studies done by the University of Alaska and Northern Economics indicate the project will create thousands of jobs and pay off hundreds of millions of dollars to the state treasury over a hundred years. It begins the diversification of Alaska's economy and provides the opportunity to create major manufacturing opportunities; for instance, Alaska could supply 5 percent of the nation's cement needs with this project. RICK MYSTROM, consultant, Matanuska Susitna Borough, said the Valley has become their new second home, and he sees how the economy of Anchorage and the Valley are very closely tied. His other business is buying and operating apartments - mostly in Anchorage and Eagle River, but his job is to understand and predict the Alaskan economy. In the last 35 years the Alaskan economy has slid three different times. One time was after conclusion of the TAPS in 1979, but at that time Governor Hammond who had just been reelected in 1978 and the legislature focused on getting jobs out into the economy. They created a capital budget that allowed for $1000/yr. for every person in Alaska for three years to get jobs into the economy. Every community got a chance to put forth its suggestions for capital projects. Since he was on the Anchorage Assembly at that time, he knows they built the $32-million Sullivan Arena, the $32- million Egan Center, a $16-million museum expansion, $44-million library, and what was going to be a $27-million performing arts center, but turned out to be $72 million (because of the dyslexic accountant). More related to what they are now doing, Mr. Mystrom said, they also built the extension of Minnesota that went south out to O'Malley that allowed for development out there. That on a small scale is what he wanted to talk to them about today. He related that the second time the economy slid was in 1986 when the price of oil dropped from $30/barrel down to $8. At that time Governor Cowper and the legislature decided to save the state's money and allowed for very little capital expenditure during the next two or three years - and the Alaskan economy fell off the biggest cliff that it had ever seen. Anchorage lost 13 percent of its population and 25 percent of its assessed valuation. The same thing happened in the rest of the state. 4:42:30 PM The third slide to the economy is happening right now Mr. Mystrom said, and he felt the next 3-5 years were going to be tough. So, he encouraged the legislature to use capital spending now because it's cheaper now and more workforce is available. 4:43:06 PM MR. MYSTROM said to understand the impact of Port MacKenzie and the Rail Extension they need to begin thinking of the Fairbanks North Star Borough, the Denali Borough, the Mat-Su Borough and Anchorage as a regional economy. He elaborated on his slides: Slide 1: Uncertainty about energy availability and costs, uncertainty about the gas line construction, uncertainty about the future of the TransAlaska pipeline, uncertainty about small business administration rules for contracting programs for Native businesses, and ongoing Congressional discussions of scenarios that would not be good for Alaska. He said it's just a matter of how bad they will be for Alaska. There is also uncertainty about the exploration permits for Chukchi and Beaufort Sea. Uncertainty is very bothersome to investors; two things are certain: one is lack of transportation infrastructure and the other is lack of diversification of Alaska's economy. One of the solutions is the project he would talk about now and the effects could happen as soon as next summer. 4:46:09 PM He said the Port MacKenzie/Rail Extension has three route options for getting the mainline of the Alaska Railroad (slide 3). One of the three will be recommended by the Surface Transportation Board that is part of the ongoing EPA study. It should come out in March and then there would be 60 days of hearings before a final recommendation. He said the extension would reduce the number of miles to tidewater by 147 miles and it would have huge positive impacts on all four areas. 4:46:46 PM CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked what would happen to Anchorage if things were shipped to Wasilla. MR. MYSTROM answered "very positive" things, because the ports are very different. He said he would elaborate on that more later in his presentation. 4:47:33 PM SENATOR WAGONER asked from where to where for the 147 miles. 4:47:37 PM MR. MYSTROM answered "from anyplace north of Willow to tidewater" or 147 miles closer than it would be to go to Seward. He went on to slide 4 on what the rail extension means to the regional economy: · It opens up the Interior to resource development. · It facilitates the development of a world-class limestone deposit in Livengood just north of Fairbanks. · It facilitates the development of a cement production facility in or around Fairbanks. · It opens up a 60-mile corridor along the Railbelt to exploration and extraction of strategic minerals (lead, zinc, copper, molybdenum and silver). · It improves the transportation of lower cost and low sulphur fuel to the Interior and Southwest Alaska. · It dramatically improves the world competitiveness of Alaska coal by about $3/ton. This savings can be applied to any aggregate coming out of the Denali and North Star Boroughs. · It reduces transportation and staging costs for the gas pipeline construction. The Denali Project believes it will save about $100 million in transportation and staging costs of pipe for the gas pipeline. Right now the pipe for the Liberty field comes up from Japan to Houston, goes by rail to Seattle, by barge to Whittier and by rail from Whittier north. · It increases employment in the four regions. 4:49:58 PM SENATOR WAGONER asked why it goes that route instead of through Seward and up the railroad from there. MR. MYSTROM said he would have to ask the Liberty people who are doing it. He continued his presentation saying that Port MacKenzie is a bulk commodities port for minerals, cement, coal, fuel and bulk fuel - very different from the Port of Anchorage that is for consumer goods and containers. 4:50:43 PM He said the Port of Anchorage will always be the most important port in Anchorage because it focuses just on consumer goods and containers. Port MacKenzie has 14 square miles of industrially zoned area with nothing to prevent industrial development of that area - like homes. Anchorage just doesn't have that. 4:52:20 PM CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE said Cook Inlet Region Incorporation (CIRI) did a presentation on its underground coal gasification project and they mentioned multiple times that they were trying to stay this side of the Mat-Su Borough line because of local tax issues. She wanted to know if those issues had been addressed. SENATOR HUGGINS added that it's really about power generation and a delay factor with the permitting process. Some people, including MEA, think it's not a friendly environment for building power plants. MR. MYSTROM remarked that CIRI, the Mat-Su Borough, and the University of Alaska Trust own the land at Port MacKenzie and are supportive of this legislation. It does not compete with Anchorage; it has a 60 ft. mean low tide. The Port of Anchorage has 35 ft. The kinds of ships that haul aggregate and minerals can't come into the Port of Anchorage. He envisioned that ultimately the two would become sister ports with a common port commission supervising both - with the Railroad included. The Railroad is very supportive of this concept. To help understand the differences in the ports, he explained, Port MacKenzie can handle Panamax vessels, the maximum size vessel that can get through the Panama Canal, and Cape vessels that are too big to go through the Panama Canal and must go around Cape Horn or the Cape of Good Hope. Port MacKenzie can handle the largest ships in the world; it also handles barges carrying bulk commodities minerals, coals and aggregate. 4:58:25 PM He described and explained the pictures on slides 13-18. Slide 18 showed plenty of storage and staging capacity for all the pipe needed for both gas lines. Again he said Denali estimated the rail extension would save $100 million in the cost of the pipeline. Port MacKenzie is a two-and-a-half hour drive from Anchorage, but soon a new ferry, the MV Susitna, will start running between the MatSu Borough, Anchorage, Kenai and Tyonek. It holds 20 cars and will be christened in March in Ketchikan. The revolutionary thing about the ferry is that the cars will be drive on at the lower level and then the cars will be hydraulically lifted so the middle part of the ship never touches the water. The pontoons become the ice-breaker, making it the first high speed ice breaking ferry that has ever been built - built by the Navy and turned over to the MatSu Borough for years of testing and record-keeping. Incidentally, he said the MatSu Borough, in its negotiations with the Navy, required that it be built in Alaska. SENATOR WAGONER asked where the ferry would dock in Kenai. MR. DUFFY answered Nikiski. 5:02:06 PM MR. MYSTROM said the ferry terminal is already built on the Port MacKenzie side. He said a number of studies had been done by Paul Metz, HDR, and Northern Economics that talk about how this transportation is necessary to allow the development of limestone deposits, zinc, molybdenum, copper, and silver in the Interior. It will make a significant difference in the economy of that area. The rail extension is estimated to create 3000 related construction jobs from 2010 to 2013. The Port MacKenzie portion would create 500 jobs, Anchorage 720, and the balance from the MatSu Borough for a total of 3500 jobs. Incidentally, he had found out that half the employees at the Red Dog and Pogo mines live in Anchorage and work a week on and a week off. In addition to that, this project would facilitate private development of jobs along the rail line that will become part of Anchorage's northern industrial segment. MR. MYSTROM said the EIS will be done in March for a cost of $10 million and the construction of the road and the rail bimodal loop is under construction for a cost of $17 million, which they have in hand. The permitting, design and beginning of construction for the selected alternative is the next step, and keeping that going with $57 million is what they are looking for this year from the Legislature. The cost of constructing the railroad bed and the final project, will depend on which of the routes are selected. The laying of tracks could be completed by 2013. CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE thanked him for his presentation. CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the Railroad is thinking about bonding for this project. 5:07:34 PM PAT GAMBLE, Executive Director, Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC), responded that the legislature gave ARRC preapproval to bond for this project in a previous piece of legislation, but they haven't reached that financial decision point. Having the preapproval "in our hip pocket" makes it a lot easier to find out which vehicle will be the best one for the state to use. SENATOR HUGGINS asked for a quick burst on ARRC's mission. MR. GAMBLE responded that was a great question, because they are "in the business of economic development." The Corporate Act has four state policies that define the Railroad; three of them are in the development area of resources, transportation infrastructure, and economic long-term growth. 5:09:30 PM MR. MYSTROM said he understands that the Railroad has authority for revenue bonds that aren't practical or realistic for this project. MR. GAMBLE responded that at the time they were trying to do two things at once, one was to pre-approve the Agrium project and the other was to pre-approve bonding for this project. He didn't remember the exact bonding language, but it was clearly intended that the tool be used as appropriate - he remembered it being "some sort of a conduit bonding." SENATOR WAGONER asked the average cost of constructing each mile of railroad right now. MR. GAMBLE answered about $5-8 million/mile depending on the geography, interest rates, and the cost of commodities. SENATOR WAGONER asked how much more traffic the existing line between Fairbanks and Anchorage can take before it will need modifications. MR. GAMBLE answered that the good news is that the modifications are just about done on that line. It includes the bridges, the sidings, upgrading signalization and technology. They began building it in earnest about eight years ago in anticipation of the pipeline and actually sped the whole project up by 10 years. The legislature gave them permission to issue $165-million worth of bonds to pay the debt service. They have three more years to complete the whole line from Anchorage to Fairbanks. Traffic now is at a fraction of what it will be able to move when and if the time comes. 5:13:27 PM CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE thanked him again and adjourned the meeting at 5:13 p.m.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|---|---|
Briefing on Southcentral Rail Extension.ppt |
SRES 2/10/2010 3:30:00 PM |
|
Briefing on Rail Extension Econ. Benefits to Central AK.pptx |
SRES 2/10/2010 3:30:00 PM |