Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519

03/24/2023 01:30 PM House 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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
01:34:53 PM Start
01:35:42 PM HB50
01:36:27 PM Presentation: Carbon Management Legislation Opportunities
03:35:00 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ Presentation: Carbon as a Resource by TELECONFERENCED
Commissioner-Designee John Boyle, Department of
Natural Resources
Heard & Held
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
                  HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                                                                       
                      March 24, 2023                                                                                            
                         1:34 p.m.                                                                                              
1:34:53 PM                                                                                                                    
CALL TO ORDER                                                                                                                 
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting                                                                      
to order at 1:34 p.m.                                                                                                           
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Co-Chair                                                                                           
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair                                                                                            
Representative DeLena Johnson, Co-Chair                                                                                         
Representative Julie Coulombe                                                                                                   
Representative Mike Cronk                                                                                                       
Representative Alyse Galvin                                                                                                     
Representative Sara Hannan                                                                                                      
Representative Dan Ortiz                                                                                                        
Representative Will Stapp                                                                                                       
Representative Frank Tomaszewski                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
Representative Andy Josephson                                                                                                   
ALSO PRESENT                                                                                                                  
John Boyle,  Commissioner, Department of  Natural Resources;                                                                    
John  Crowther, Deputy  Commissioner, Department  of Natural                                                                    
Resources;  Rena Miller,  Special  Assistant, Department  of                                                                    
Natural Resources.                                                                                                              
HB 49     CARBON OFFSET PROGRAM ON STATE LAND                                                                                   
          HB 49 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further                                                                     
HB 50     CARBON STORAGE                                                                                                        
          HB 50 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further                                                                     
PRESENTATION: Carbon Management Legislation Opportunities                                                                       
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda for the meeting.                                                                            
HOUSE BILL NO. 49                                                                                                             
     "An   Act  authorizing   the   Department  of   Natural                                                                    
     Resources   to  lease   land   for  carbon   management                                                                    
     purposes;  establishing  a  carbon offset  program  for                                                                    
     state  land;  authorizing  the sale  of  carbon  offset                                                                    
     credits; and providing for an effective date."                                                                             
HOUSE BILL NO. 50                                                                                                             
"An Act relating to the  geologic storage of carbon dioxide;                                                                    
and providing for an effective date."                                                                                           
1:35:42 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Johnson  CLOSED  public testimony  for  the  prior                                                                    
day's meeting on HB 39-APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET; CAP; SUPP                                                                      
and HB 41-APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET.                                                                                         
^PRESENTATION: Carbon Management Legislation Opportunities                                                                    
1:36:27 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Foster  continued to  review  the  agenda for  the                                                                    
meeting.  He explained  that the  presentation would  give a                                                                    
high level overview of HB 49 and HB 50.                                                                                         
1:37:07 PM                                                                                                                    
JOHN BOYLE,  COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF  NATURAL RESOURCES,                                                                    
offered  the   PowerPoint  Presentation   entitled,  "Carbon                                                                    
Management Legislation  and Opportunities," dated  March 24,                                                                    
2023 (copy on file).                                                                                                            
Co-Chair Foster  noted that Representative Ortiz  had joined                                                                    
the meeting.                                                                                                                    
Commissioner Boyle continued to slide 2 titled Outline:                                                                         
      Alaska's Opportunities in Carbon Management                                                                            
      What is carbon management?                                                                                             
      What are Alaska's opportunities?                                                                                       
         HB 49 Carbon Offset Projects on State Land                                                                          
         HB 50 Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage                                                                       
Commissioner  Boyle  moved  to   slide  3  titled   Alaska's                                                                    
Opportunities  in  Carbon  Management,   showing  the  first                                                                    
topic  of the  presentation.  He turned  to  slide 4  titled                                                                    
 Carbon Management    simplified.  He explained  that it was                                                                    
essential to  understand the concept  of   carbon management                                                                    
in order  to learn about  the opportunities it  offered. One                                                                    
method of  carbon capture entailed  the actual  capturing of                                                                    
carbon. Carbon that  was produced as a  result of industrial                                                                    
or   manufacturing   activities   could  be   captured   and                                                                    
sequestered  underground. He  pointed to  another method  of                                                                    
carbon management  using nature based offsets  for carbon in                                                                    
the atmosphere,  by managing  state lands  and forests  in a                                                                    
way that enhanced the ability  to absorb and pull carbon out                                                                    
of the atmosphere.                                                                                                              
Commissioner  Boyle  continued  on slide  5  titled   Carbon                                                                    
     Different emissions, different carbon management                                                                           
          Scope 1                                                                                                               
          Emissions made directly, such as running a power                                                                      
          plant or vehicles.                                                                                                    
          Scope 2                                                                                                               
          Emissions made indirectly, such as buying                                                                             
         electricity to power an office building.                                                                               
          Scope 3:                                                                                                              
          Emissions associated with a business's value                                                                          
Commissioner Boyle defined how  emissions were classified in                                                                    
carbon  management. He  noted that  scope  three related  to                                                                    
emissions  on  a consumer  level.  He  delineated that  both                                                                    
scope one and scope two  emissions would ideally be captured                                                                    
from   the  source   and  correlated   to  carbon   capture,                                                                    
utilization,  and   storage.  He   indicated  that   it  was                                                                    
difficult to  manage scope  three emissions  from individual                                                                    
use:  car emissions,  lawn mowers,  snow blowers,  etc. with                                                                    
carbon capture.  Carbon offsets  were associated  with scope                                                                    
three emissions.                                                                                                                
1:42:38 PM                                                                                                                    
Commissioner  Boyle  advanced  to  slide  6  titled   Carbon                                                                    
Management - not  so simple!  and explained  that the market                                                                    
was rapidly  evolving and  there were a  number of  types of                                                                    
carbon  credits  that were  currently  available  or in  the                                                                    
development     process    for     household,    industrial,                                                                    
manufacturing, agriculture, etc.  emissions. He offered that                                                                    
a   myriad   of  opportunities  existed  for  the  state  to                                                                    
monetize   certain  elements   of  its   natural  resources'                                                                    
portfolio.  He  voiced that  an  essential  element of  both                                                                    
pieces  of  legislation was  that  the  department needed  a                                                                    
broad  framework and  flexibility to  determine what  credit                                                                    
programs  would  best  fit  the  situation.  The  department                                                                    
currently had  not determined what  type of  credit programs                                                                    
worked for the state that  offered the best opportunities to                                                                    
monetize its carbon resources.                                                                                                  
1:44:29 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Galvin  restated  that  the  department  was                                                                    
asking  for  flexibility  in  order  to  navigate  the  best                                                                    
opportunities   for  the   state.   She   asked  where   the                                                                    
opportunities  for the  state lay  within the  world market.                                                                    
Commissioner  Boyle  responded  that he  would  address  the                                                                    
topic  later  in  the  presentation.  Representative  Galvin                                                                    
hoped that there  would be avenues for  local communities to                                                                    
determine what would be the best fit for them as well.                                                                          
1:46:14 PM                                                                                                                    
Commissioner Boyle  continued to slide  7 titled  HB  49 and                                                                    
HB 50:                                                                                                                          
     Frameworks for Alaska to engage in two areas of carbon                                                                     
          1)Carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS)                                                                     
            'the below ground'                                                                                                  
          2)Carbon offset programs on state land                                                                                
            'the above ground'                                                                                                  
          Bills are NOT:                                                                                                        
                   New taxes on industry or Alaskans                                                                         
                   Emissions limits                                                                                          
                 A "cap and trade" system                                                                                    
                   Locking up land                                                                                           
Commissioner Boyle  felt that it was  important to emphasize                                                                    
what  the bills  were not  doing. The  goal was  not to  tax                                                                    
Alaskans based on the carbon  activities in which individual                                                                    
citizens engaged  in nor create conservation  units that had                                                                    
very   restricted  land   management  plans   and  prevented                                                                    
Alaskans from engaging in traditional use.                                                                                      
1:48:53 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Hannan  pondered the idea of  carbon capture.                                                                    
She hypothesized a scenario regarding  a lease in the Arctic                                                                    
National Wildlife  Refuge (ANWR) where  the oil had  a value                                                                    
if kept  undeveloped and whether that  was considered carbon                                                                    
capture. Commissioner  Boyle answered that the  scenario was                                                                    
not specifically what carbon  capture and sequestration was.                                                                    
He  related   that  he   had  heard   discussions  regarding                                                                    
monetizing mineral  resources where an entity  had the right                                                                    
to  develop   but  a  state,  nation,   communities,  or  an                                                                    
individual  could choose  to  forego  development to  reduce                                                                    
carbon  emissions.  He  deemed  that  the  scenario  was  an                                                                    
emerging concept  but was currently unaware  of any specific                                                                    
credit opportunities as of yet.                                                                                                 
Commissioner Boyle  continued that the state  was focused on                                                                    
the   voluntary  compliance   market.  He   elaborated  that                                                                    
compliance  markets   were  the   result  of   a  government                                                                    
regulated  activity like  the carbon  credit, cap  and trade                                                                    
system implemented by the state  of California Air Resources                                                                    
Board.   He  indicated   that   some   of  Alaskas    native                                                                    
corporations,  i.e., Sealaska,  Chugach,  etc. utilized  the                                                                    
California  compliance  market  to monetize  some  of  their                                                                    
forested lands.  He noted  that Europe  had a  very advanced                                                                    
compliance   market  that   operated   under  a   regulatory                                                                    
structure  with  emission  limits.   In  that  case,  carbon                                                                    
credits were  being traded  at over $100  per metric  ton of                                                                    
carbon. He  contrasted compliance to voluntary  markets that                                                                    
were  based on  entities  private  goals to  achieve certain                                                                    
environmental   benchmarks   and    were   unregulated   and                                                                    
ungoverned. He reiterated that the  state currently was only                                                                    
interested in  voluntary markets offering more  variation in                                                                    
pricing  but less  than the  compliance market.  However, he                                                                    
understood that  voluntary carbon  markets were  trending to                                                                    
future growth  due to a  recognition that  allowing industry                                                                    
to engage in a market  based system to address emissions was                                                                    
more effective than an imposed system.                                                                                          
1:53:34 PM                                                                                                                    
Commissioner  Boyle  advanced  to  slide  8  titled   Carbon                                                                    
Offset Markets.  He reported that  the slide highlighted the                                                                    
difference between the compliance  and voluntary markets and                                                                    
their  projected  growth. He  pointed  to  the $850  billion                                                                    
value  for  15  gigatons  of  transacted  volume  in  carbon                                                                    
credits  in  the  compliance  market   in  2021  versus  the                                                                    
voluntary market at $2 billion.  He elaborated that in 2022,                                                                    
the value  of the  voluntary market  increased tremendously.                                                                    
The voluntary market  could be anywhere from  $10 billion to                                                                    
over  $40  billion  dollars  in value  in  the  future.  All                                                                    
indications  were pointing  to increasing  opportunities for                                                                    
the state and  he believed that the state  had a competitive                                                                    
advantage   regarding  its    geography   relating   to  the                                                                    
credits.  He  pointed  out that  carbon  credits  issued  in                                                                    
places  that  were  more  pristine  and  iconic  had  higher                                                                    
premiums on the voluntary market.  He thought that the state                                                                    
being  able to  market  itself as  a "pristine  environment"                                                                    
would command a higher premium in carbon markets.                                                                               
Commissioner Boyle  examined slide 9 titled   Carbon Offsets                                                                    
- State Resource  Base.  The slides map  denoted the states                                                                     
resource ownership in purple at  over 100 million acres. The                                                                    
state had  a tremendous resource  base, tens of  millions of                                                                    
forested acres  for carbon offsets.  He pointed to  slide 10                                                                    
titled Carbon offsets  Opportunities:                                                                                           
      Alaska has the resources.                                                                                              
          o Forest carbon potential:                                                                                            
          o 100 million acres of uplands                                                                                        
          o Tens of millions of acres of forested State                                                                         
      Kelp potential:                                                                                                        
          o 60 million acres of tide and submerged lands                                                                        
      New source of State revenue                                                                                            
      Constitutional responsibility for                                                                                      
        maximum use                                                                                                             
Commissioner Boyle commented that  the state had over 30,000                                                                    
miles  of  coastline  and  60  million  acres  of  tide  and                                                                    
submerged land.  He believed that carbon  resource potential                                                                    
from   monetizing state  land and  state submerged  lands in                                                                    
new  ways afforded  the state  the  opportunity to  increase                                                                    
revenues. He  reminded the committee that  the Department of                                                                    
Natural Resources  (DNR) responsibility  was to maximize and                                                                    
develop  state resources  for public  benefit and  felt that                                                                    
the carbon  opportunity fit in well  with its constitutional                                                                    
obligations under Article VIII.                                                                                                 
1:59:39 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Stapp  asked how  the process would  work. He                                                                    
wondered how  the Alaska  Permanent Fund  Corporation (APFC)                                                                    
could work  hand in  hand with  the states   emerging carbon                                                                    
markets  and   not   short    the  states    carbon  market.                                                                    
Commissioner Boyle  responded that different  markets traded                                                                    
in  different   ways.  He  was   unsure  how   markets  were                                                                    
manipulated by  different entities. He deduced  that gauging                                                                    
by the worlds  interest, a  level of confidence existed that                                                                    
the voluntary market  was an effective and  efficient way to                                                                    
price  carbon. He  indicated that  DNRs   approach would  be                                                                    
circumspect and  would change its  management goals  as time                                                                    
Representative Ortiz  was interested  in the  kelp potential                                                                    
listed on slide  10. He asked how the  program would provide                                                                    
revenue to  the state  and how  it would  work. Commissioner                                                                    
Boyle replied  that the  state could be  both an  active and                                                                    
passive  participant and  contemplated the  state fulfilling                                                                    
both  roles. He  exemplified  that in  a  passive role,  the                                                                    
state may choose  to lease lands to private  developers of a                                                                    
carbon   offset   project   and  collect   lease   revenues.                                                                    
Alternatively,  the  state  may  decide to  manage  its  own                                                                    
carbon offset project and play  an active role in maximizing                                                                    
state   revenue.  He   observed  that   the  Alaska   Native                                                                    
Corporation entering  into contracts with other  entities to                                                                    
develop  carbon offset  projects with  a provision  that the                                                                    
entity trained the  corporation in order to  develop its own                                                                    
projects in the future.                                                                                                         
2:06:53 PM                                                                                                                    
Commissioner  Boyle continued  on  slide 11  titled  CCUS  -                                                                    
Global Demand:                                                                                                                  
     There is  a growing trend  of CCUS projects  around the                                                                    
     world as  companies compete to  provide oil and  gas to                                                                    
     competitive markets in  foreign jurisdictions that have                                                                    
     implemented   carbon  taxation,   and  more   companies                                                                    
     include environmental targets  in their corporate goals                                                                    
     and performance.                                                                                                           
Commissioner  Boyle related  that  in  2021, the  Occidental                                                                    
Petroleum Company shipped a cargo  of over 2 million barrels                                                                    
of oil  to a  refinery in  India that  was certified  as net                                                                    
zero  offsetting  the amount  of  carbon  the oil  would  be                                                                    
emitting. He commented  that  blockchain technology  enabled                                                                    
the differentiation  of barrels  of oil that  were certified                                                                    
as  offset  and considered   greener   barrels  of oil  than                                                                    
those  that  were not,  and  he  pointed  to growth  in  the                                                                    
 green  oil market.  He noted that in the gulf  coast of the                                                                    
United States  (US) there was  a large number  of developing                                                                    
projects in CCUS as well  as active CCUS projects in Wyoming                                                                    
and North Dakota.  He offered that Alaska  had large amounts                                                                    
of  the type  of geology  for sequestering  carbon that  was                                                                    
located  on  state  land  and  not  privately  owned,  which                                                                    
offered  a competitive  advantage over  other jurisdictions.                                                                    
Alaska could  sequester other countries' carbon  in its vast                                                                    
geologic basins.                                                                                                                
2:12:28 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Tomaszewski  asked   Commissioner  Boyle  to                                                                    
explain blockchain  technology and how it  would be utilized                                                                    
in carbon  sequestration. Commissioner Boyle  responded that                                                                    
block change  technology was a distributed  electronic leger                                                                    
system that  could track a  particular cargo  transaction as                                                                    
it  progressed through  its transportation  and distribution                                                                    
systems. The oil matched the  identification number that was                                                                    
certified  as  net  zero  at  its  destination.  The  system                                                                    
verified  that   the  product  delivered  was   the  product                                                                    
ordered.   He  summarized   that  it   was  the   underlying                                                                    
technology that could identify a fungible commodity.                                                                            
2:15:46 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair  Johnson  guessed  that  theoretically,  the  state                                                                    
could offset its  own oil production if it  became a mandate                                                                    
by  the  federal  government. She  assumed  there  was  some                                                                    
registry or  official certification  for carbon  capture and                                                                    
offset and wondered  whether there was a value  to the state                                                                    
having its  own standards  or criteria to  determine credits                                                                    
or offsets.  She believed that  it was a new  and subjective                                                                    
endeavor.   She  wondered   about  the   integrity  of   the                                                                    
certification  process  and  thought the  state   should  be                                                                    
aware  of what  it  was selling..   She  asked for  comment.                                                                    
Commissioner Boyle responded that  there were various carbon                                                                    
registries for  the voluntary market. He  elucidated that an                                                                    
important element of  a carbon registry was  that it offered                                                                    
a  robust  certification process  to ensure  that the carbon                                                                    
was  truly   being  offset.  He  opined   that  the  states                                                                     
reputation  was  an  important factor  in  that  the  credit                                                                    
purchaser  could  trust  the   offset  transaction.  He  was                                                                    
uncertain  whether   the  state   should  develop   its  own                                                                    
registry. In  terms of developing  a carbon  offset project,                                                                    
he believed  that it  was important for  a registry  to have                                                                    
integrity  and  credibility   in  certifying  carbon  offset                                                                    
projects. Co-Chair  Johnson commented that if  the state was                                                                    
going to invest in a  program, it was imperative it operated                                                                    
ethically and in good faith.                                                                                                    
2:21:25 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Hannan referred  to  slide  11 and  observed                                                                    
that most of the CCUS  was happening near where the resource                                                                    
was being produced or there  was an efficient transportation                                                                    
system to transport the carbon.  She deemed that most of the                                                                    
CCUS in Alaska  would happen in Cook Inlet  versus the North                                                                    
Slope,  which was  difficult and  costly  for transport  and                                                                    
would create a lot of carbon  to transport it to the Arctic.                                                                    
She asked  if he could  narrow down the geographic  scope of                                                                    
CCUS  in the  state. Commissioner  Boyle responded  that the                                                                    
administration was contemplating making  all state land that                                                                    
was  geologically conducive  to sequestration  available. He                                                                    
noted that she  had correctly pointed out that  it was ideal                                                                    
to co-locate  the CCUS facility where  the carbon generating                                                                    
activity was due to the  profit margins of sequestration. He                                                                    
indicated  that all  of the  facilities on  the North  Slope                                                                    
associated with the oil industry  created emissions and they                                                                    
were sitting on  top of geology that was  conducive to CCUS.                                                                    
He  pointed to  coal  fired powerplants  in Interior  Alaska                                                                    
that  also had  sedimentary  basins that  were conducive  to                                                                    
sequestering carbon. He suggested  that entities involved in                                                                    
generating   coal  fired   power   may   be  interested   in                                                                    
sequestering its carbon in the  Interior. He speculated that                                                                    
the  development  of  a liquefied  natural  gas  project  in                                                                    
Nikiski,  that produced  other valuable  energy related  by-                                                                    
products would likely drive the  development of CCUS in Cook                                                                    
Inlet. He remarked  that it was speculative, and  he did not                                                                    
think  the economic  conditions currently  existed, but  the                                                                    
potential  was  there  for  some time  in  the  future  when                                                                    
economics changed.                                                                                                              
2:27:32 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Galvin  was curious  about the  Alaska Native                                                                    
Corporations and the work it  had already done in monetizing                                                                    
carbon  offsets. She  asked the  Commissioner  to share  his                                                                    
knowledge  of the  native corporations   successful projects                                                                    
as an  example of something  that was currently  working and                                                                    
generating  revenue. Commissioner  Boyle  answered that  the                                                                    
governor  had looked  at what  the  native corporations  had                                                                    
accomplished as  he considered how the  state could monetize                                                                    
the same types of activities.  He mentioned a study that the                                                                    
state had  undertaken that evaluated the  monetary potential                                                                    
of carbon  offsets on  state forests.  The department  had a                                                                    
 high level  of confidence   that a myriad  of opportunities                                                                    
existed  to   monetize  and  bring  in   state  revenue.  He                                                                    
cautioned  that  he  wanted  to  avoid   overpromising   the                                                                    
amount of revenues that could be collected.                                                                                     
2:30:47 PM                                                                                                                    
Commissioner  Boyle   discussed  slide  12   titled   Carbon                                                                    
      Approximately 35 commercial CCUS facilities today                                                                      
      Targeted    growth:   2,500   facilities   to   reach                                                                  
        International Energy Agency (IEA) scenario of net                                                                       
        zero carbon emissions by 2070.                                                                                          
Commissioner  Boyle  indicated  that the  graph  showed  the                                                                    
projected  world captured  carbon by  source (coal,  natural                                                                    
gas, industrial  processes, and biomass) from  2020 to 2070.                                                                    
There was  a growing market  and demand for  carbon capture.                                                                    
He continued  on slide  13 titled   Net Zero  Greenhouse Gas                                                                    
(GHG).  The  slide listed emission reduction  initiatives of                                                                    
North  Slope companies.  He  noted that  almost  all of  the                                                                    
large North  Slope operators  had set   aggressive  emission                                                                    
reduction  standards  and   benchmarks  for  themselves.  He                                                                    
pointed to  Santos and  noted it had  committed to  net zero                                                                    
emissions (scope  1 and scope  2) for the Pikka  Project. He                                                                    
discerned that if  the state did not have  a CCUS regulatory                                                                    
framework or  carbon offset program in  place, the companies                                                                    
would engage  in the activities in  other jurisdictions. The                                                                    
department  believed that  the  carbon generating  companies                                                                    
should  be  able  to  offset their  emissions  in  the  same                                                                    
jurisdiction where  the emissions were created.  He believed                                                                    
that oil  and gas produced  in Alaska  was done in  a manner                                                                    
that was  more environmentally and socially  responsible. He                                                                    
reasoned that if the state  had a carbon emission and offset                                                                    
regulatory regime in  place it implied that  the state could                                                                    
responsibly develop its  resources while addressing concerns                                                                    
about the  carbon intensity of  the underlying  activity. He                                                                    
surmised  that  lacking  a   carbon  regulatory  and  offset                                                                    
structure,  the  state  would   miss  out  on  monetizing  a                                                                    
resource.  He stated  that due  to an  Alaska Supreme  Court                                                                    
ruling,  25 percent  of the  revenues from  CCUS fees  would                                                                    
accrue to the Permanent Fund.                                                                                                   
2:35:58 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Stapp  referenced  the companies  listed  on                                                                    
slide  13 and  asked whether  emission reduction  plans were                                                                    
self-imposed  and whether  other  global  oil companies  had                                                                    
emission reduction targets.  Commissioner Boyle responded in                                                                    
the affirmative  and added that  the benchmarks were  self -                                                                    
imposed and were based on  the own volition of the companies                                                                    
to  meet the  environmental  benchmarks. He  added that,  in                                                                    
general,  most of  the companies  operated around  the world                                                                    
and  often in  jurisdiction  that  had emissions  compliance                                                                    
requirements and were being  pressured by their shareholders                                                                    
and  boards to  manage emissions.  He deemed  that it  would                                                                    
take a considerable amount of  time for the world to develop                                                                    
sufficient renewable energy resources  yet demand for energy                                                                    
was  growing. He  shared  statistics on  the  number of  the                                                                    
worlds  population with  inadequate and unpredictable energy                                                                    
sources  that  wanted  reliable   energy  to  improve  their                                                                    
quality  of  life. He  ascertained  that  in order  for  the                                                                    
energy companies  to increase energy production  in a manner                                                                    
that reduced  the environmental impact they  needed to adopt                                                                    
emission standards.  Representative Stapp wondered  what the                                                                    
continued  investment  of  Alaskas   oil and  gas  would  be                                                                    
without the  standards. Commissioner Boyle believed  that if                                                                    
the companies  could offset their  carbon generation  in the                                                                    
state it  would make a  stronger case to  their shareholders                                                                    
and help to promote or encourage further investment.                                                                            
2:40:49 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Edgmon  appreciated the presentation.  He discussed                                                                    
climate change, fossil fuel emissions,  and the need to stop                                                                    
carbon   emissions  and   for  the   world  to   change.  He                                                                    
acknowledged that  it would not happen  swiftly. He stressed                                                                    
that there  was too much  carbon dioxide in  the atmosphere,                                                                    
and it  was proven  by scientists around  the world.  He was                                                                    
confounded  that   there  was   still  no   open  discussion                                                                    
regarding climate change. He  mentioned the damaging effects                                                                    
on the Arctic due to  a changing climate. He emphasized that                                                                    
it  was  not  just   corporate  boards  but  countries  that                                                                    
acknowledged the changing climate.  He wished that the state                                                                    
would engage  in global  detailed discussions  about climate                                                                    
change. He  referenced recent presentations in  committee on                                                                    
prior days  on the Willow Project  [Willow  Project Update,                                                                     
DNR,  March   23,  2023]  and  the    Spring  2023  Forecast                                                                    
Presentation  [Department  of Revenue,  March 22,  2023] and                                                                    
noted  that  both of  the  PowerPoints  were populated  with                                                                    
caveats.  He  recounted the  FY  2024  10-year forecast  had                                                                    
projected revenues for carbon capture  of $300 million in FY                                                                    
24  increasing to  $900  million per  year.  He thought  the                                                                    
proposals  were   speculative.  He   asked  what   level  of                                                                    
confidence   Commissioner   Boyle   had   in   the   revenue                                                                    
projections. Commissioner Boyle answered  that he was unsure                                                                    
how to answer the question.  He had not viewed the proposals                                                                    
through the  specter of specific  revenue numbers,  but more                                                                    
broadly as a way to  monetize state resources. He referenced                                                                    
a  report  on   a  carbon  offset  pilot   project  done  by                                                                    
consultants that  demonstrated the state could  make tens of                                                                    
millions in  revenue. He offered  that in terms of  CCUS, it                                                                    
could take up to two  years to accomplish the permitting. He                                                                    
was reticent to  project any revenues by a  time certain due                                                                    
to many factors. He was  certain that the state could embark                                                                    
on the  program with  minimal costs  and investment  and was                                                                    
 extremely  confident" that  the state  would gain  some net                                                                    
positive cash flow.                                                                                                             
Co-Chair  Edgmon appreciated  the Commissioners   answer. He                                                                    
recounted  that  there was  $300  million   baked  into  the                                                                    
revenue  projection  according  to  the ten  year  plan.  He                                                                    
acknowledged that  there  was a level of  conjecture  in the                                                                    
projections. He cautioned that carbon  capture was  a moving                                                                    
picture   including  the  registries and  the  state  should                                                                    
proceed with care.                                                                                                              
Commissioner  Boyle  interjected  that much  of  the  carbon                                                                    
capture economics  were driven  by the increased  amounts of                                                                    
federal  tax credits.  The credits  as they  currently exist                                                                    
would expire  in roughly  10 years. One  of the  reasons why                                                                    
the administration  was pushing  so hard  to pass  the bills                                                                    
was due  to the expiration  of the federal tax  credits that                                                                    
played  a crucial  role in  driving the  economics of  CCUS.                                                                    
There was an  urgency to have the state program  in place so                                                                    
the companies could take advantage of the tax credits.                                                                          
2:50:29 PM                                                                                                                    
RENA  MILLER,  SPECIAL   ASSISTANT,  DEPARTMENT  OF  NATURAL                                                                    
RESOURCES, introduced the next  section of the presentation:                                                                    
 HB  49  -  Carbon  Offset   Projects  on  State  Land   and                                                                    
continued with an  overview of HB 49 on slide  15 titled  HB
49 Overview:                                                                                                                    
    Tasks DNR with exploring carbon offset opportunities                                                                     
     that align with Alaska's resource and land interests,                                                                      
         Enables carbon offset projects on state land and                                                                    
         Caps project terms at 55 years, protects existing                                                                   
          land use by Alaskans.                                                                                                 
Ms. Miller  expounded that the bill  protected existing land                                                                    
use  by Alaskans.  She referred  to Representative  Galvins                                                                     
comments  concerning  local  input   on  the  projects.  She                                                                    
assured  the  committee  that  the   bill  required  a  best                                                                    
interest finding by DNR for  either a third party project or                                                                    
a state project.  The process included a  comment period and                                                                    
input  by  local  entities and  governments  that  would  be                                                                    
 wrapped into a final decision.                                                                                                 
2:52:19 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Ortiz  understood  that  the  most  valuable                                                                    
offsets were  for a term  of 99  years. He inquired  why the                                                                    
bill set a 55 year term.  Ms. Miller responded that 55 years                                                                    
was typically  the term of  long-term state land  leases for                                                                    
other purposes.  In addition, she  determined that  55 years                                                                    
was a sufficient  amount of time to embark on  a project and                                                                    
generate a  full suite of  credits under the  protocols that                                                                    
the registries established. She  indicated that depending on                                                                    
the registry and  the standards they imposed  that were most                                                                    
suited for ongoing  managed land in Alaska,  55 years seemed                                                                    
sufficient.  Representative Ortiz  deduced  from her  answer                                                                    
that there  would not be  an added financial benefit  to the                                                                    
state with  longer term leases. He  asked for clarification.                                                                    
Ms.  Miller replied  that potential  for longer  term leases                                                                    
existed, it  depended on what  other criteria  Alaskas  land                                                                    
would be eligible to meet  and the timelines associated with                                                                    
it.   Representative   Ortiz   asked  who   determined   the                                                                    
eligibility.  Ms. Miller  answered  that  the registry;  the                                                                    
entity  in   the  middle  between   the  projects   and  the                                                                    
purchasers of  the credits, had  a series of  protocols that                                                                    
covered different types of projects.  She detailed that each                                                                    
protocol had  specific requirements related to  current land                                                                    
practices and what type of  project was chosen. The registry                                                                    
had a  time period associated with  each project. Therefore,                                                                    
depending on  the project,  a longer  term lease  could work                                                                    
for  the  state. However,  the  department  was viewing  the                                                                    
offsets as a way to generate  revenue for the state but stay                                                                    
within its mandate to maximize  state resources for multiple                                                                    
Commissioner  Boyle   interjected  that  the   states   land                                                                    
leasing statutes  included the ability to  offer renewals of                                                                    
another 55-year lease.                                                                                                          
2:57:16 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Ortiz  deemed that the original  purchaser of                                                                    
the  offset  would  not  be aware  of  the  lease  extension                                                                    
provision  or whether  the extension  would  happen or  not.                                                                    
Therefore, the value  was calculated lower at  55 years than                                                                    
it would  have been at  110 years. He was  wondering whether                                                                    
he was  correct. Commissioner Boyle responded  that he would                                                                    
respond  with more  information. He  assumed that  a project                                                                    
developer would  know that state  law granted  an extension,                                                                    
which  would be  weighed in  the  value of  the credits.  He                                                                    
believed  that  the  length  of  state  land  leases  was  a                                                                    
reasonable discussion to have as policy developed.                                                                              
2:59:17 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms. Miller advanced to slide 16 titled "HB 49 Overview:"                                                                        
         Provides a process for third parties to lease                                                                       
          state land for carbon management purposes                                                                             
          (Section 4).                                                                                                          
         Establishes the Carbon Offset Program at DNR to                                                                     
          undertake state projects (Section 6).                                                                                 
         Authorizes the use of the 3 state forests for                                                                       
        state sponsored projects (Sections 7, 10).                                                                              
Ms. Miller  listed the 3  state forests as the  Haines State                                                                    
Forest, Southeast Forests, and Tanana Valley State Forest.                                                                      
Ms. Miller moved to slide 17 titled Carbon Offsets -                                                                            
Potential Affirmed:                                                                                                             
     Anew report affirms potential:                                                                                             
         Identifies 3 'pilot' projects.                                                                                      
         Improved Forest Management protocols timber                                                                         
          harvest continues.                                                                                                    
         Revenue potential of all three:                                                                                     
           - approx. $81.6 million over 10 years                                                                                
           - approx. $311 million over 40 years                                                                                 
     *Revenue potential as estimated by Anew at time of                                                                         
     report; an actual project may have different potential                                                                     
     depending on design, costs.                                                                                                
Ms. Miller  pointed out that  the report was  not conclusive                                                                    
or exhaustive,  but it affirmed  the potential  for projects                                                                    
that  could be  implemented fairly  quickly and  had revenue                                                                    
potential.  She remarked  that  the  report [Carbon  Offsets                                                                    
Opportunity  Evaluation, August  2022  (copy  on file)]  was                                                                    
included  in  the  members  bill  packets.  The  consultants                                                                    
identified  three pilot  projects  in the  three forests  as                                                                    
well as  forested lands in  the Matanuska    Susitna Borough                                                                    
(Mat-Su). The lands were eligible  for active timber harvest                                                                    
and would fall under the  improved forest management type of                                                                    
project. She  noted that the  registry ANEW used  was called                                                                    
the  American Carbon  Registry  and was  one  of four  major                                                                    
registries  operating in  North America.  She recalled  that                                                                    
there  were  several  Alaska Native  Corporations   projects                                                                    
enrolled  under  the  American  Carbon  Registry  under  the                                                                    
improved forest management protocol.  She turned to slide 18                                                                    
titled   Carbon Offsets  -  Potential  Pilot Projects.   She                                                                    
pointed  to the  slides   map that  depicted where  projects                                                                    
could be located.                                                                                                               
3:02:59 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Hannan  noted that  the sectional  only named                                                                    
the Haines  State Forest,  which indicated  to her  that the                                                                    
resources in the Haines Forest  would be beneficial, yet the                                                                    
presentation referenced  three state forests. She  asked for                                                                    
clarification. Ms. Miller responded that the legislation                                                                        
authorized  all  three  state forests  eligible  for  carbon                                                                    
management projects.  She elaborated  that the  Haines State                                                                    
Forest  was established  in  statute  separately from  other                                                                    
state  forests  therefore, bill  sections  7  through 9  was                                                                    
specifically written  to Haines, but sections  10 through 13                                                                    
referenced state forests that  included Southeast and Tanana                                                                    
Valley.  Representative   Hannan  asked  about   the  Mat-Su                                                                    
Forest. Ms.  Miller replied that  the Mat-Su area was  not a                                                                    
state forest but was forested state land.                                                                                       
3:04:29 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Cronk   asked  how  the  process   would  be                                                                    
conducted. Ms.  Miller responded  that the  following slides                                                                    
would answer the question.                                                                                                      
Co-Chair  Foster cited  slide  17 and  ascertained that  the                                                                    
 key  word  was  potential.   He referenced the  fiscal note                                                                    
that showed $400  thousand in revenue in FY  2025 and others                                                                    
showing a total of $1.5  million per year with the potential                                                                    
for  roughly $8  million per  year. Ms.  Miller agreed  that                                                                    
potential was a  good word to  keep in  mind.  She indicated                                                                    
that  the  fiscal  notes did  not  include  the  anticipated                                                                    
revenue from  the projects.  The department  lacked specific                                                                    
information to  include an  accurate projection  of revenue,                                                                    
since the projects were not identified as yet.                                                                                  
Ms. Miller examined slide 19  titled  Carbon Offsets - State                                                                    
Project Parties.   She commented  that the slide  listed the                                                                    
participants in  a carbon offset project.  There were three:                                                                    
project proponent, registry, and  buyers. She would focus on                                                                    
a  hypothetical  project  that  the  state  would  undertake                                                                    
through DNR. She explained that  the project proponent would                                                                    
be the State of Alaska.  The project proponent held the land                                                                    
and resource  and would  be the  recipient of  the project's                                                                    
revenue.  The   buyers  of  the  offset   credits  would  be                                                                    
companies  with voluntary  emission  reduction targets.  The                                                                    
middle participant was the registry  with certain rules that                                                                    
according to  the slide was  a  Nonprofit  'quality control'                                                                    
ensuring  project, credit  integrity through  scientifically                                                                    
based  project protocols.   She stressed  that the  rules of                                                                    
the  registry  existed  to  protect  the  integrity  of  the                                                                    
credits  the companies  were  purchasing. She  characterized                                                                    
the credits  as backed by highly  scientific, peer reviewed,                                                                    
and factual in order to  ensure the legitimacy of the claims                                                                    
of  the  credits. The  buyer  could  be confident  that  the                                                                    
credit  represented a   real emission  reduction  and  would                                                                    
not  be  accused  of   green  washing.   She  defined  green                                                                    
washing  as   a  company  making  false   claims  about  its                                                                    
environmentally beneficial  activities. She  summarized that                                                                    
the registry protected the integrity  of the credits and was                                                                    
a  crucial   party  to  the  process.   She  cited  Co-Chair                                                                    
Johnsons   query  about  creating  an  Alaska  registry  and                                                                    
related that  registries were non-profits and  very distinct                                                                    
from the proponent or the buyer.                                                                                                
3:08:25 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative Galvin  asked who paid for  the registry. Ms.                                                                    
Miller  answered   that  the  project  proponent   paid  the                                                                    
registry  an  initial fee  to  open  the project.  Once  the                                                                    
project was  proved to be  successful and  demonstrated that                                                                    
it  was achieving  the  emission  reduction objectives,  the                                                                    
registry generated credits  and accessed a fee  based on the                                                                    
credits. Representative  Galvin asked  whether the  state or                                                                    
the buyer paid  the assessed fees. Ms.  Miller answered that                                                                    
the fees would be a portion of the credit issuance.                                                                             
Representative Coulombe  voiced that she did  not want state                                                                    
land   locked  up   and  favored  that  the  state  was  not                                                                    
engaging in contracts for 99  years. She was hesitant to see                                                                    
the  state commit  for even  55 years  for something  so new                                                                    
with  unknown outcomes.  She surmised  that the  offset land                                                                    
was locked up   in some way.  She wondered how  much use the                                                                    
forest could  retain once it  was in an offset  project. She                                                                    
asked if  a better  use of the  land was  discovered whether                                                                    
there was flexibility to shift  to a maximum use model after                                                                    
40 years  of a  55 year contract.  She wondered  whether the                                                                    
land  could be  logged and  what would  happen if  the trees                                                                    
started dying. Ms. Miller responded  that land was not being                                                                    
locked up,  it would be  committed to a  specific management                                                                    
plan.  She   noted  that  the  improved   forest  management                                                                    
projects were conditional on  continued timber harvesting to                                                                    
some degree.  The management commitment was  being locked in                                                                    
versus locking in  the land. The land  was broadly available                                                                    
to the  public but there might  be a varying degree  of site                                                                    
control that limited some access.  She assured the committee                                                                    
that there was an ability  to terminate a project and remove                                                                    
some of  the land from the  project, but the loss  of carbon                                                                    
storage had  to be  accounted for and  it was  possible that                                                                    
there would  be financial  consequences. She noted  that the                                                                    
term was  called a  reversal.   She added  that  involuntary                                                                    
reversals   for   things  like,  insect   infestation,  wind                                                                    
events,  fire, other  "acts  of god"  were  covered under  a                                                                    
 risk  buffer  or  type of  insurance pool  required by  the                                                                    
registry to mitigate against that type of loss.                                                                                 
3:14:26 PM                                                                                                                    
Commissioner Boyle  added that  the best  way of  looking at                                                                    
carbon  offset as  it related  to forested  land was  in the                                                                    
context of  enhanced forest  management. He  delineated that                                                                    
carbon credits  could incentivize more  proactive management                                                                    
of forests.  He provided  the example of  the forest  in the                                                                    
Anchorage bowl, Kenai, and Mat-Su that were damaged by                                                                          
the spruce bark  beetle infestation and the  trees were left                                                                    
dead and dying. He exemplified  that an offset program could                                                                    
incentivize removing and replanting  the trees with a higher                                                                    
value species  and provide for other  value added management                                                                    
practices.  He  described ways  in  which  the managed  land                                                                    
could yield  multiple benefits under  an offset  program. He                                                                    
shared  that a  mine could  exist within  an offset  managed                                                                    
forest  if the  footprint of  the  mine did  not exceed  the                                                                    
additional carbon credit margins  that were being earned. He                                                                    
summarized that  carbon credits would likely  incentivize or                                                                    
revitalize  a   timber  industry,  especially   in  interior                                                                    
forests  because it  would  provide  an additional  economic                                                                    
mechanism that  would make  forest products  profitable. The                                                                    
existing practice of utilizing  forests and harvesting timer                                                                    
was  not  in opposition  to  a  carbon offset  project.  The                                                                    
harvesting  and management  would  have to  comply with  the                                                                    
particular terms of the offset project.                                                                                         
3:19:13 PM                                                                                                                    
Ms. Miller  interjected that the  founding principle  was to                                                                    
grow more than can be harvested within the project area.                                                                        
Co-Chair Foster wanted the committee  to be comfortable with                                                                    
the concept of an emerging  new market. He intended to bring                                                                    
the  topic back  before the  committee at  a later  date. He                                                                    
asked the  department to continue with  the presentation and                                                                    
did not want to rush into the next section.                                                                                     
Ms.  Miller  discussed carbon  offsets  on  slide 20  titled                                                                    
"Carbon Offsets - State Project Process:                                                                                        
          Project Development                                                                                                   
          Third-party Verification                                                                                              
          Registry Review                                                                                                       
          Credits Issued                                                                                                        
Ms. Miller  indicated that the  slide depicted a  high level                                                                    
overview of  the state project  process. She  recounted that                                                                    
the state could  be the project developer or hire  a firm to                                                                    
develop the project. She pointed  out that ANEW projected it                                                                    
took 18 months  to 24 months to develop a  project to credit                                                                    
generation.   She   elaborated  that   project   development                                                                    
entailed groundwork  and fieldwork  to determine  the amount                                                                    
of carbon  the trees  were capable  of storing.  The project                                                                    
would  eventually  move  into  a  design  and  concept.  She                                                                    
interjected  that the  forest management  construct was  the                                                                    
commitment to manage the forest  in a certain way over time.                                                                    
The project  proceeded to the registry  review that required                                                                    
retaining a  third party  to audit  the findings  and ensure                                                                    
compliance  with  registry  rules.   Once  the  project  was                                                                    
approved the  registry could  then start  generating credits                                                                    
for  the  project.  A  steady   flow  of  credits  could  be                                                                    
generated  over the  years. She  furthered that  the project                                                                    
required   ongoing   monitoring   reports,   fieldwork   and                                                                    
inventory updates required throughout the projects term.                                                                        
3:23:50 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Coulombe   expressed  concern   that  carbon                                                                    
offsets would ultimately raise the  cost of energy. The cost                                                                    
of the  offsets would be  passed on  to the consumer  by the                                                                    
purchaser. She worried about the  high cost of energy in the                                                                    
Commissioner   Boyle  responded   that   the  activity   and                                                                    
commitment to  net zero whether  or not it was  being driven                                                                    
voluntarily from within a company  or imposed on industry by                                                                    
government  was  happening.  He ascertained  that  from  the                                                                    
perspective of the  state, its participation was  not a cost                                                                    
driver, it was an off-ramp  that enabled companies to divert                                                                    
revenue  to  the  state versus  diverting  the  revenues  to                                                                    
another  entity.   One  could   argue  that  based   on  the                                                                    
prospective benefits to the state,  the revenues received by                                                                    
the state  would be  redistributed amongst  Alaska residents                                                                    
to  offset   any  additional   costs  associated   with  the                                                                    
activities. He  restated that state  policy was  not driving                                                                    
the  costs. The  costs were  not being  driven by  voluntary                                                                    
compliance  and regulatory  markets.  He  believed that  the                                                                    
question  was whether  the state  chose  to participate  and                                                                    
drive  benefits  that  helped  offset  costs  or  watch  the                                                                    
investment   go    elsewhere   and   deride    no   benefit.                                                                    
Representative   Coulombe  thought   it  was   something  to                                                                    
consider. She supported carbon credits  and believed that it                                                                    
was a benefit to the state  but not necessarily a benefit to                                                                    
the consumer  and energy costs  should be factored  into the                                                                    
3:27:45 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Ortiz  shared that  he  had  done a  bit  of                                                                    
research  on the  topic and  referenced the  term  leakage.                                                                     
He  relayed  that if  the  trees  on  the land  outside  the                                                                    
project  area  were  being harvested  it  might  affect  the                                                                    
offsets in the  project area. He asked  for more information                                                                    
on leakage.                                                                                                                     
Ms. Miller  responded that there  were two types  of leakage                                                                    
in  the carbon  offset  programs: activity  and market.  She                                                                    
explained  that   activity  leakage  was  the   scenario  as                                                                    
described  by Representative  Ortiz.  The registry  actually                                                                    
accounted  for activity  leakage in  the calculation  of the                                                                    
carbon credits.  She stated that  the other type  was market                                                                    
leakage.  Representative Ortiz  restated  that the  registry                                                                    
anticipated leakage  and calculated  that into the  value of                                                                    
the  credits  in  the  project  area. He  asked  if  he  was                                                                    
correct.  Ms. Miller  responded  that the  registry did  not                                                                    
anticipate it but  was hedging against it.  She deduced that                                                                    
state projects  had the benefit  of existing land  use plans                                                                    
and harvest schedules that were  public, and it was apparent                                                                    
how adjacent lands  would be managed. She  added that market                                                                    
leakage  was also  accounted  for in  terms  of timber  that                                                                    
would not  be harvested  in the project  area, but  the same                                                                    
amount of  lumber would  be needed  from elsewhere.  She saw                                                                    
that as a benefit in keeping the credits legitimate.                                                                            
3:31:35 PM                                                                                                                    
Representative  Hannan commented  that the  current day  was                                                                    
the twenty-fourth anniversary of  the Exxon Valdez disaster.                                                                    
It was  important to note  the long-term cost of  carbon and                                                                    
if it  was not paid for  upfront, society had to  pay for it                                                                    
over a  lifetime. She  felt that a  big issue  regarding the                                                                    
bills   was  the   upfront  costs   of   the  projects   and                                                                    
understanding any ripple effects it caused.                                                                                     
3:32:52 PM                                                                                                                    
Co-Chair Foster  noted that there  would be  future meetings                                                                    
on the topic and to finish the presentation.                                                                                    
HB  49  was   HEARD  and  HELD  in   committee  for  further                                                                    
HB  50  was   HEARD  and  HELD  in   committee  for  further                                                                    
3:35:00 PM                                                                                                                    
The meeting was adjourned at 3:34 p.m.                                                                                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB050 DNR DOG CCUS Bill One-Pager 2.1.2023.pdf HFIN 3/24/2023 1:30:00 PM
HB 50
HB050 Summary of Changes version A to U 03.16.2023.pdf HFIN 3/24/2023 1:30:00 PM
HB 50
HB050 Sectional Analysis version U 3.16.2023.pdf HFIN 3/24/2023 1:30:00 PM
HB 50
HB050 Transmittal Letter 1.26.2023.pdf HFIN 3/24/2023 1:30:00 PM
HB 50
University of Alaska - Issue and Policy Review for CCUS in the State of Alaska.pdf HFIN 3/24/2023 1:30:00 PM
HB 50
HB49- AK DNR Carbon Offset Opportunity Evaluation by Anew.pdf HFIN 3/24/2023 1:30:00 PM
HB 49
HB 49 AlaskaDNR_Haines_Southeast_Scenarios_11_30_2022.pdf HFIN 3/24/2023 1:30:00 PM
HB 49
HB049 Carbon Offset Bill Overview 2.1.2023.pdf HFIN 3/24/2023 1:30:00 PM
HB 49
HB049 Sectional Analysis version U 03.22.2023.pdf HFIN 3/24/2023 1:30:00 PM
HB 49
HB049 Transmittal Letter 01.26.2023.pdf HFIN 3/24/2023 1:30:00 PM
HB 49
HB049 Summary of Changes version A to U 03.22.2023.pdf HFIN 3/24/2023 1:30:00 PM
HB 49
Presentation DNR Carbon Management Initiatives Presentation to HFIN 03.24.2023.pdf HFIN 3/24/2023 1:30:00 PM
HB 49
HB 50
HB 49 HB 50