Legislature(2019 - 2020)BARNES 124
01/22/2020 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Alaska Lng Project Update | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
January 22, 2020
1:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Lincoln, Co-Chair
Representative Grier Hopkins, Vice Chair
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Dave Talerico
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Sara Rasmussen
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Geran Tarr, Co-Chair
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: ALASKA LNG PROJECT UPDATE
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
JOE DUBLER, Interim President
Alaska Gasline Development Corp.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation
entitled, "Alaska LNG Project Legislative Update House Resources
Committee," dated 1/22/20, and answered questions.
FRANK RICHARDS, Senior Vice President Program Management
Alaska Gasline Development Corp.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the PowerPoint
presentation entitled, "Alaska LNG Project Legislative Update
House Resources Committee," dated 1/22/20.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:02:18 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHN LINCOLN called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. Representatives
Talerico, Hannan, Hopkins, Rasmussen, Rauscher, and Lincoln were
present at the call to order.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN made opening remarks.
^PRESENTATION: ALASKA LNG PROJECT UPDATE
PRESENTATION: ALASKA LNG PROJECT UPDATE
1:04:09 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN announced the only order of business would be a
presentation by the Alaska Gasline Development Corp.
1:04:39 PM
JOE DUBLER, Interim President, Alaska Gasline Development Corp.
(AGDC), provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled, "Alaska LNG
Project Legislative Update House Resources Committee." Mr.
Dubler directed attention to slide 2, which was an overview of
the history of AGDC: in 2010, House Bill 369 [passed in the
Twenty-sixth Alaska State Legislature] instructed the Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation to conduct a pre-feasibility study
of a small diameter pipeline to transport natural gas from the
North Slope to Fairbanks and Southcentral Alaska, to address
anticipated lower gas production in Cook Inlet; the study
resulted in an estimate of $10 billion to build the
infrastructure needed to bring gas to Southcentral. In 2013,
House Bill 4 [passed in the Twenty-eighth Alaska State
Legislature] created AGDC, and its board of directors was
granted broad powers in order to insulate the corporation from
political influence. In 2014, Senate Bill 138 [passed in the
Twenty-eighth Alaska State Legislature] authorized AGDC to
represent the state in a partnership with ConocoPhillips Alaska,
Inc., BP, and ExxonMobil Corporation, which was formed to
facilitate construction of the Alaska Liquefied Natural Gas
Project (AKLNG).
1:09:06 PM
MR. DUBLER stated that in 2016, the 25 percent interest in an
earlier project - established by the Alaska Gasline Inducement
Act (AGIA) [passed in the Twenty-fifth Alaska State Legislature]
- held by TransCanada Corporation, was purchased by AGDC, thus
AGDC holds the state's 25 percent interest in the entire
project; TransCanada Corporation deals with the GTP and pipeline
portion of the project, while AGDC took the LNG facility. Also
in 2016, the pre-front end engineering and design (FEED) work
was completed, and it was determined that the price to deliver
gas to Asia was not marketable. Subsequently, the state's
private sector partners withdrew from the project. In the last
two years, AGDC has sought to advance the project by finding
financial partners and through other means. In 2019, AGDC began
to update cost factors to determine whether the project could be
competitive on the world market, and to complete the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulatory process; in fact,
FERC has issued its draft environmental impact statement (EIS),
the final EIS is expected in March 2020, and a permit to proceed
is expected in June 2020. Mr. Dubler stressed AGDC's focus in
2019 was turned away from the Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline (ASAP)
to AKLNG due to ASAP's cost of $10 billion; however, ASAP is
still an asset available to the state at any time as an
infrastructure project that could provide gas to Alaskans if
needed.
1:13:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked how AGDC will proceed after [the
FERC permit] is completed in June 2020.
MR. DUBLER explained efforts are already underway to seek third
parties to invest in, own, build, and operate the project. He
stressed the state would not be able to build an integrated
liquefied natural gas (LNG) project without experienced partners
because AKLNG consists of three projects: North Slope
facilities, a pipeline, and an LNG facility, each of which is an
approximately $10 billion project.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked whether the state would retain
ownership in the project and, if so, at what percentage.
MR. DUBLER answered that he did not know; he observed similar
projects occur when there is an alignment between the ownership
of the gas and the ownership of the project. Depending upon
agreement, the state would own up to 25 percent of the gas and
thus could own or invest one-quarter of the equity in the
project.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS questioned whether AGDC would need to add
staff if it receives the final FERC permit in June 2020.
MR. DUBLER said no, explaining AGDC's role would not be as the
project's sponsor but would represent the state's interest; for
example, [the state's interest] in commercial negotiations.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether current AGDC staff would be
sufficient in this regard.
MR. DUBLER advised that if the project cost projections are
favorable in June [2020], then third parties will participate in
the project and the role for AGDC will be relatively limited;
the third parties will be taking the lead and most of the risk
of construction and operations. He estimated participation by
minority parties will not require a staff exceeding 24
employees, although the need is unknown at this time.
1:18:03 PM
MR. DUBLER directed attention to slide 3 and reviewed AGDC's
activities in 2019, shown on the slide as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
• shelved ASAP pending interest by an entity - the
project is not economic at current gas prices
• reinitiated the stage gate process for AKLNG - a
reasoned approach to developing a project by stopping
to reevaluate its economics before further spending
• suspended AGDC's focus on marketing AKLNG in Asia and
returned focus to the FERC process to de-risk the
regulatory risk to the project - he provided an
example
• committed to evaluating AKLNG competitiveness by
updating costs related to construction costs and
tariffs
• contracted with the engineering firm that provided
original cost estimates under the terms of the Joint
Venture Agreement (JVA) to provide December 2019, cost
estimates
• committed to solicit private sector firms to build,
own, and operate AKLNG
1:24:00 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN returned attention to ASAP and asked for the
term of the rights-of-way (ROWs) that have been received.
MR. DUBLER expressed his understanding the ASAP permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is valid for five to seven
years; if construction begins within five to seven years,
applications can be made for an extension of the permit.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN asked about the time limit for the AKLNG
permit.
1:26:08 PM
FRANK RICHARDS, Senior Vice President Program Management, AGDC,
explained the USACE and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Joint
Record of Decision, permits, and ROW across state and federal
land for ASAP are authorizations valid for three to five years
on a major EIS; however, additional work on the project could
add more time. He cautioned ASAP has been set aside thus time
is expiring on the ASAP permits. The lead federal agency
regulating AKLNG is a different agency - FERC - and FERC will
keep its order to construct AKLNG open for eight years or longer
for additional work.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN inquired as to the firm updating the economic
analysis of AKLNG.
MR. DUBLER answered Fluor Corporation.
MR. RICHARDS added Fluor Corporation's Houston [Texas], Aliso
Viejo [California], and offshore offices are providing data from
other major projects. Other participants in the ongoing work
are AGDC, ExxonMobil, and BP. In further response to Co-Chair
Lincoln, he said the work completed in 2016 under the terms of
the JVA was compiled by ExxonMobil. Fluor Corporation developed
cost estimates for ASAP and has reviewed facets of AKLNG for
project sponsors.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN asked for a summary of the basis for the
project's high cost estimates.
1:31:04 PM
MR. RICHARDS explained in April 2019, there was a review of the
execution plan and cost estimate developed under the terms of
the JVA, led by ExxonMobil. The review was of the methods the
project planned for delivery of materials and how the
construction would be executed. He noted there have been
increases in the use of modular construction in oil and gas
facilities worldwide, which is a significant way to reduce the
cost of a constructing a facility. In fact, modularization is a
significant component in reducing cost for AKLNG. The gas
treatment plant on the North Slope was planned for modular
construction; however, the liquefaction facility in Nikiski was
designed with substantial onsite construction at increased cost.
Further cost reductions may be found in the price of major
commodities, and by reductions to the project management team.
MR. DUBLER directed attention to slide 4 which showed a map and
specifications for AKLNG. The pipeline begins at Point Thomson
to a main gas treatment plant at Prudhoe Bay, and continues 804
miles to Nikiski. He noted there would be 500 to 1,500 workers
on the North Slope during peak construction, and construction of
the gas treatment plant would require 250,000 to 300,000 tons of
steel. Mr. Dubler pointed out modular construction saves
construction costs because units are built elsewhere with
cheaper labor and shipped to the North Slope for installation,
as has been done for many years on the North Slope.
1:36:00 PM
MR. DUBLER said the pipeline is a 42-inch steel pipeline, with
pressure greater than 2,000 pounds per square inch (PSI),
maintained with compressor stations, and shipping 3.3 billion
cubic feet per day. He compared the aforementioned production
with the use of natural gas in Anchorage which is 250 million
cubic feet per day; further, 500 million cubic feet will be
available for in-state use. The liquefaction plant will produce
up to 20 million tons per annum (MTPA) with three trains that
allow for expansion. The estimated peak workforce of 3,500 to
5,000 workers will be less if modular construction is utilized.
Mr. Dubler stressed the price and fabrication of steel affects
the cost of the project significantly.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked how the price of steel has affected
the cost of the project over the past five years, and for the
factors that affect the price of steel.
MR. DUBLER assured the committee AGDC will find the best price
available for steel; the steel could be sourced from the U.S.,
which would negate the added cost of an [import] tariff. He
advised Fluor Corporation will provide guidance in this regard.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked - in addition to high volume -
whether AGDC staff are aware of issues related to timing and the
demand for steel.
1:41:03 PM
MR. DUBLER said AGDC has cut staff and expressed his
understanding current staff do not follow the steel market. In
regard to other projects, he said information about other
projects is illusive; for example, AKLNG was to begin
construction in 2020. The price of energy is also a factor in
the price of steel, which is the reason AGDC will rely on Fluor
Corporation for advice. He turned attention to slide 5, which
illustrated the components of the gas treatment plant at a cost
of $10.7 billion, the pipeline at a cost of approximately $14
billion, and the LNG production facility at a cost of
approximately $20 billion, based on 2015 cost estimates. A
final investment decision (FID) would occur in 2022, after
additional work is completed during the FEED stage.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN surmised "first cargo means a tanker
leaving with gas in it."
MR. DUBLER said correct. He estimated there is a time lapse of
one year to eighteen months between the beginning of production
and full commercial production.
1:46:01 PM
MR. DUBLER continued to slide 6, which illustrated a stage gate
process. He restated the process is a reasoned approach which
forces parties to stop at predetermined points and decide
whether to advance the project. A stage gate process is not
appropriate for some projects, such as roads, but is an
industry-led effort with stopping points at which the project is
analyzed. As shown on slide 6, AKLNG has three stopping points.
He cautioned the state should avoid a project that is delayed by
obstacles and advances only because a lot of money has been
invested.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked for clarification of "de-risk."
MR. DUBLER explained de-risk is reducing risk; for example,
reducing regulatory risk by getting the FERC permit. In further
response to Representative Rauscher, he said the timeline for
obtaining permits is several years as there are thousands of
permits required because of the number of facilities and the
length of the pipeline.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked for the amount the state would
have invested at each stopping point [indicated on slide 6.]
MR. DUBLER said the front end loading (FEL) 2 Decision was prior
to pre-FEED thus there would have been no investment in AKLNG at
that time; however, costs incurred by the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) and state agencies over the past 40 years are
unknown. During pre-FEED, under the terms of the JVA, the state
spent approximately $150 million, and the aforementioned amount
paid to TransCanada was $160 million.
1:51:01 PM
MR. RICHARDS expressed his understanding costs associated with
AGIA were over $320 million.
MR. DUBLER returned attention to slide 6 and talked about the
next stage, the FEED effort. He said there has been quite a bit
of discussion about this because it was in the original Joint
Venture Agreement. He explained the concept was to complete the
regulatory effort during FEED; however, a good deal of that
effort was completed during pre-FEED. He said the original
estimate was about $1.5 billion to go from "the middle green one
to the right green one" [in reference to the slide]. He said
AGDC thinks it's going to be significantly less because of the
permitting that it has acquired in the last two or three years.
He indicated that the numbers he has heard "thrown around" are
in the range of $800 million to $1.2 billion.
MR. DUBLER clarified the estimate of $800 million to $1.2
billion is for the entire project. He suggested the state's
portion would be determined by the state's role in the project;
for example, one-quarter interest in $1 billion is $250 million.
In response to Representative Hopkins, he said the project is
now at the FEED (FEL 3) stage [shown on slide 6 in the middle
yellow box], which is a decision stage.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS questioned whether June 4, [2020,] is the
final investment decision timeframe.
MR. DUBLER answered no, FID would be two more years; FEED is
approximately eighteen months [hence] if the project is
economic.
1:56:03 PM
MR. DUBLER directed attention to slide 7, which was an overview
of AKLNG's regulatory program. He explained "pre-FEED JVA"
advanced the project through FERC pre-filing; subsequently, AGDC
answered 2,000 questions through FERC, which serves as the lead
federal agency. Further, there has been no change to AKLNG
design criteria since 2015-2017, and data from ASAP was used for
AKLNG where the routes aligned.
MR. DUBLER continued to slide 8, which illustrated some of the
federal, state, and local agencies that are issuing permits for
the project.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN questioned whether state permitting
processes could be streamlined.
MR. DUBLER advised the enabling legislation that created AGDC
authorized state permitting agencies, departments, and
corporations to give preference to AKLNG over other projects.
MR. RICHARDS pointed out issues concerning ROWs over state land
involved five different agencies, with differing regulations,
and he suggested this process could be improved.
2:01:03 PM
MR. DUBLER continued to slide 9, which listed the FERC schedule
and some milestones achieved by the project, such as public
comment meetings where the project was supported by affected
communities. He noted the biggest issue is between regions
seeking to have facilities located in their region. Subsistence
hearings have raised the issue of access which is being
addressed for the Native Village of Minto. On 10/3/19, draft
EIS comments were provided to FERC; the final EIS is expected on
3/6/20, and the final FERC order on 6/4/20. Mr. Dubler said the
aforementioned accomplishments are encouraging to potential
participants in the AKLNG project.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether a 100-foot ROW is standard
for the main pipeline.
MR. DUBLER stated AGDC would take measures in order not to
create issues for subsistence hunters, and deferred to Mr.
Richards.
MR. RICHARDS further explained during construction the width of
a ROW would be approximately 120 feet; however, after the
pipeline is in the ground the permanent ROW would be
approximately 53 feet, which would be kept clear of new
[vegetative] growth for maintenance purposes.
2:06:00 PM
MR. DUBLER added that in Denali National Park and Preserve the
ROW will become a bike trail.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether the ROW will be a publicly
accessible ROW.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN clarified the opportunity for people to use the
ROW for hunting is a concern; definitely the intent of the ROW
was not to open the ROW for hunting access.
MR. DUBLER acknowledged "an unfortunate consequence" is the
potential to open up areas.
MR. RICHARDS explained access to the ROW will be governed by the
landowner who provides AGDC with a ROW easement or a land lease;
private landowners and federal entities have expressed concerns
about subsistence issues and sensitive habitat. He said AGDC
will comply with the wishes of the landowners; furthermore, the
future operator of the project will need access for maintenance,
which would be part of the landowner agreements. Mr. Richards
remarked:
So, the concept is ... not an open trail concept for,
you know, from Prudhoe Bay to Nikiski, it is going to
be -- it's an active pipeline corridor.
MR. DUBLER observed along Parks Highway the ROW could provide
access to an area not accessible now because there are wetlands
or dense vegetation; on state land, state rules regarding access
would apply. He continued to slide 10, which listed completed
major permits from entities such as the U.S. Coast Guard, the
U.S. Department of Energy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials and
Safety Administration (PHMSA), U.S. Department of
Transportation. He related PHMSA is an oversight agency to
ensure pipeline safety and reduce risk, which is extremely
important to AGDC and the oil and gas industry. Slide 11 listed
major permits that are in process.
2:11:01 PM
MR. RICHARDS advised projects such as AKLNG or ASAP may need to
deviate from design standards or regulations set by PHMSA and
thus need a special permit from PHMSA. For example, in Nikiski,
LNG will be contained in tanks and must be transported by a
pipeline to two loading berths, and PHMSA required the
installation of a very expensive catchment system in case of a
spill. However, AGDC proposed an alternative pipe in pipe
concept which utilizes a smaller pipe inside a larger pipe, both
of which would be capable of safely transporting LNG. This
concept has been used in LNG facilities outside the U.S.,
therefore, AGDC is seeking a special permit from PHMSA to use
pipe in pipe, which is a safe and cost-saving element. The
remainder of the permits shown on slide 8 will be received
during the next six months and will continue to de-risk the
project.
MR. DUBLER said additional permits in process are related to
whales, bridges, a ROW through Denali National Park and
Preserve, wetlands, and water quality (slide 12). He stated
water quality issues occur because the project crosses several
major rivers. He described two other pending permits (slide
13).
2:16:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked when all the permits would be
received.
MR. DUBLER stressed the major permits would be obtained first;
however, a large project does not advance before most permits
are acquired, and he elaborated.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER restated his question.
MR. RICHARDS said the aforementioned major federal permits grant
authorization to construct the project, followed by state and
local permits. Most of the state and local permits will be
acquired as the project advances through FEED; however, there
will be permitting activity up to and through the time of
construction. In fact, he said, there will be authorized
officers in the field during construction who will address
permit compliance through operations. He noted the majority of
permits will be acquired prior to the final investment decision.
MR. DUBLER estimated six to seven years total to acquire
permits.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN surmised two years from now all major permits
would be done.
MR. DUBLER turned attention to AGDC's efforts to reduce the cost
of the project in order to determine the future of the project.
Sufficiently reducing the cost from the 2015 estimate is
critical to the project being commercially viable: Fluor
Corporation will update the cost estimate by completing ten
major cost elements including modularization, sourcing, and
contingency which is 20 percent of the cost of the project. The
class 4 updated estimate incorporates 15-20 percent engineering
with a percentage of generic design; after FID, design advances
to the engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) phase
[slide 14].
2:22:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether labor costs are included
and, if so, how labor costs are estimated.
MR. DUBLER indicated labor costs are included. A complete cost
of labor is based on prevailing wages in Alaska, which are
higher than wages paid in the Gulf of Mexico [gulf coast] labor
market.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired as to classes of estimates.
MR. RICHARDS explained definitions of class levels of estimates
are established by the American Association of Cost Estimators
as follows: initial work is class 5 level; pre-FEED is class 4
level; FEED is class 3 level; detailed design/EPC is class 2
level; complete project is class 1, when the overall costs are
known.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN questioned whether AGDC is currently working
with an investment bank.
2:26:00 PM
MR. DUBLER remarked:
We have been working with ... an investment bank for
quite a while now. It's ... Goldman Sachs, which is
why I didn't put it in the presentation, but since you
asked... For those of you who didn't hear, they came
out with an announcement that they're not going to
support any projects that involve drilling for liquids
in ... the Arctic, for -- it was specifically ...
related to oil, not gas. However, that's -- as an
Alaskan, that, to me, that's kind of offensive; ...
it's something that is a real problem for them to
continue working on this project. ... We've talked
to them, and they said that wasn't their intent, that
they're OK to keep working on this, and we have
continued to work with them. We're still evaluating
that, whether that relationship will continue.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked, "Do you have a ballpark of the
amount of exposure we have with Goldman in investment right
now?"
MR. DUBLER said [Goldman Sachs] has done some work; investment
banks do not make money during structuring of a project but earn
commissions when the equity or debt is sold. He further
explained:
... I believe we had a contract with them not to
exceed $150,000. We've probably got $100,000 into
that already from the work that they've done over two
years, so it's not a lot of money ..., and they've
provided some very good advice ... [and] product that
we've used .... [For example,] we just finished
working with them on our shared economic model. ...
Exxon and BP and AGDC came together and created a
model to do a projection so that when the costs are
updated and when everything's done, we can put them
into this model and get some idea at the end on what
we would potentially be able to deliver gas to Asia
for ....
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN observed BP was an investment company in
AKLNG and BP is now selling its North Slope assets to Hilcorp.
She asked whether BP retains any rights to the work in which it
has invested.
MR. DUBLER directed attention to slide 15 and said BP and
ExxonMobil are not partners in the project but have a cost
sharing agreement to provide funding to AGDC for work on the
project; after the agreement terminates in [June 2020], further
action by BP is unknown. He surmised all of the parties will
make decisions in the future.
2:31:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN questioned whether BP retains rights to
use any technical data in the future that was gleaned from
AKLNG, because BP was one of the parties that invested in the
project.
MR. DUBLER acknowledged ownership of data related to AKLNG is
confusing; although AGDC has a license to use some of the data,
and owns some of the data, there are different categories of
data. For example, ExxonMobil worked with TransCanada on the
AGIA project at the same time ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. and BP
were working on the "Denali pipeline"; both projects accumulated
data for AKLNG. He cautioned this is a technical legal issue
and opined it is in the best interest of North Slope companies
that own data to allow the data to advance the AKLNG project.
MR. DUBLER returned attention to slide 15, noting AGDC acquired
$20 million receipt authority in fiscal year 2020 (FY 20) of
which BP and ExxonMobil agreed to provide up to $10 million
each. He pointed out AGDC is significantly underbudget and will
spend approximately $15 million in FY 20 - of which the state's
cost is $5 million - and with $20 million left, AGDC can
continue working for several years without additional
appropriations. Further, in the FY 21 budget, there is
additional receipt authority of $20 million for use if a
positive outcome of AKLNG's economic analysis occurs.
2:35:56 PM
MR. RICHARDS related AGDC operations in FY 20 were authorized
for approximately $10 million and the AGDC board of directors
authorized an additional $20 million for capital spending in
order to complete the FERC license and the permitting process,
and for [expenses related to the] cost reduction work;
therefore, AGDC budgeted up to $30 million, including the one-
third funding provided by ExxonMobil and BP. Through [November
2019], AGDC spent approximately $5.2 million and will spend
additional funds to Fluor Corporation, with an expected total
expenditure of approximately $15 million. ExxonMobil and BP
provide reimbursements on a quarterly basis. He concluded AGDC
is spending its budget responsibility.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked for clarification of AGDC's capital
spending procedure.
MR. DUBLER explained AGDC's original appropriation was put into
a fund to be used to advance the AKLNG project and AGDC returns
to the legislature on an annual basis for operating funds;
capital expenditures for facets of the AKLNG project are
withdrawn from the fund without further appropriation. In
response to Co-Chair Lincoln, he confirmed permitting costs are
paid from the fund for capital expenditures.
2:40:15 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 1.20.20 AGDC Presentation.pdf |
HRES 1/22/2020 1:00:00 PM |
AGDC Update |