03/01/2024 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB359 | |
| SSCR11 | |
| SSCR3 | |
| SSCR9 | |
| SSCR1 | |
| HB222 | |
| HB223 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 222 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 359 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SSCR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SSCR 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SSCR 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SSCR11 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 223 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 1, 2024
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom McKay, Chair
Representative George Rauscher, Vice Chair
Representative Thomas Baker
Representative Kevin McCabe
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Jennie Armstrong
Representative Donna Mears
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Stanley Wright
Representative Maxine Dibert
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 359
"An Act relating to the permanent fund dividend and a one-time
permanent fund dividend payment and land voucher; and providing
for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE SPECIAL CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 11
Disapproving Executive Order No. 134.
- CONSIDERED
SENATE SPECIAL CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 3
Disapproving Executive Order No. 126.
- CONSIDERED
SENATE SPECIAL CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 9
Disapproving Executive Order No. 132.
- CONSIDERED
SENATE SPECIAL CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1
Disapproving Executive Order No. 124.
- CONSIDERED
HOUSE BILL NO. 222
"An Act relating to the Alaska permanent fund and the income and
investments of the fund; relating to the permanent fund
dividend; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 222 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 223
"An Act relating to the production tax and royalty rates on
certain gas; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 359
SHORT TITLE: ONE-TIME PFD PAYMENT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CRONK
02/20/24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/24 (H) RES, FIN
03/01/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: SSCR11
SHORT TITLE: DISAPPROVE EO 134
SPONSOR(s): RULES
02/12/24 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/12/24 (S) RES
02/14/24 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/14/24 (S) Moved SSCR11 Out of Committee
02/14/24 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/15/24 (S) RES RPT 5DP 2NR
02/15/24 (S) DP: GIESSEL, BISHOP, KAWASAKI, CLAMAN,
WIELECHOWSKI
02/15/24 (S) NR: KAUFMAN, DUNBAR
02/15/24 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/15/24 (S) VERSION: SSCR11
02/20/24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/24 (H) RES
03/01/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: SSCR 3
SHORT TITLE: DISAPPROVE EO 126
SPONSOR(s): RULES
02/12/24 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/12/24 (S) RES
02/14/24 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/14/24 (S) Moved SSCR 3 Out of Committee
02/14/24 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/15/24 (S) RES RPT 6DP
02/15/24 (S) DP: GIESSEL, BISHOP, KAWASAKI, CLAMAN,
WIELECHOWSKI, DUNBAR
02/15/24 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/15/24 (S) VERSION: SSCR 3
02/20/24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/24 (H) RES
03/01/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: SSCR 9
SHORT TITLE: DISAPPROVE EO 132
SPONSOR(s): RULES
02/12/24 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/12/24 (S) RES
02/14/24 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/14/24 (S) Moved SSCR 9 Out of Committee
02/14/24 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/15/24 (S) RES RPT 6DP
02/15/24 (S) DP: GIESSEL, BISHOP, KAWASAKI, CLAMAN,
WIELECHOWSKI, DUNBAR
02/15/24 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/15/24 (S) VERSION: SSCR 9
02/20/24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/24 (H) RES
03/01/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: SSCR 1
SHORT TITLE: DISAPPROVE EO 124
SPONSOR(s): RULES
02/12/24 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/12/24 (S) RES
02/14/24 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/14/24 (S) Moved SSCR 1 Out of Committee
02/14/24 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/15/24 (S) RES RPT 6DP 1NR
02/15/24 (S) DP: GIESSEL, BISHOP, KAWASAKI, CLAMAN,
WIELECHOWSKI, DUNBAR
02/15/24 (S) NR: KAUFMAN
02/15/24 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/15/24 (S) VERSION: SSCR 1
02/20/24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/24 (H) RES
03/01/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 222
SHORT TITLE: PERMANENT FUND/AIDEA FUND INVESTMENTS
SPONSOR(s): SUMNER
01/16/24 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/24
01/16/24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/24 (H) RES, FIN
02/02/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/02/24 (H) Heard & Held
02/02/24 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/09/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/09/24 (H) Heard & Held
02/09/24 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/01/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 223
SHORT TITLE: TAX & ROYALTY FOR CERTAIN GAS
SPONSOR(s): RAUSCHER
01/16/24 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/8/24
01/16/24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/24 (H) RES, FIN
01/31/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
01/31/24 (H) Heard & Held
01/31/24 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/07/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/07/24 (H) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 02/09/24>
02/09/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/09/24 (H) Heard & Held
02/09/24 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/19/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/19/24 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/21/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/21/24 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/23/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/23/24 (H) Heard & Held
02/23/24 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/26/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/26/24 (H) Heard & Held
02/26/24 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/01/24 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CRONK
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, presented HB 359.
DAVE STANCLIFF, Staff
Representative Mike Cronk
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 359 on behalf of
Representative Cronk, prime sponsor.
BRENT GOODRUM, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a PowerPoint presentation on EO 134,
during the hearing on SSCR 11.
RICKY GEASE, Director
Central Office
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a PowerPoint presentation on EO 126
during the hearing on SSCR 3; gave a PowerPoint presentation on
EO 132 during the hearing on SSCR 9.
JOSEPH FELKL, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke on EO 124 during the hearing on SSCR
1.
RYAN SCOTT, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on EO 124 during the
hearing on SSCR 1.
CODY RICE, Staff
Alaska House Majority
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided introductory remarks on HB 222 on
behalf of Representative Sumner, prime sponsor.
ED KING, Staff
Representative Tom McKay
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented Amendment 1 to HB 223, on behalf
of Representative McKay.
JOHN CROWTHER, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
the proposed committee substitute for HB 223, Version S.
DEREK NOTTINGHAM, Director
Division of Oil & Gas
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
the proposed committee substitute for HB 223, Version S.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:10:13 PM
CHAIR TOM MCKAY called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Representatives McCabe, Saddler,
Armstrong, Mears, and McKay were present at the call to order.
Representatives Baker and Rauscher arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 359-ONE-TIME PFD PAYMENT
1:11:05 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 359, "An Act relating to the permanent fund
dividend and a one-time permanent fund dividend payment and land
voucher; and providing for an effective date."
1:11:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CRONK, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HB 359, deferred to his staff, Mr. Stancliff, to
present the bill.
1:11:41 PM
DAVE STANCLIFF, Staff, Representative Mike Cronk, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Cronk, prime sponsor,
presented HB 359. He shared the sponsor statement [included in
the committee packet], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
HB - 359 is drafted to allow a one-time opportunity
for PFD recipients to receive a lump sum amount of
$15,000.00 dollars and a $5000.00 non-transferable
land credit in lieu of any future yearly payouts.
The benefit for those choosing the buyout option will
be a more useful amount of money immediately and a
substantial credit for future purchase of any state
lands made available for private ownership.
Facts: The courts have ruled the legislature can
ignore the PFD statutory requirements previously
established. In response legislators have reduced PFD
amounts below the statutory requirements to
balance annual budgets.
It does not take artificial intelligence metrics to
see how the rising cost of government affects the PFD
amounts. Each year the savings accounts are being
drained and rising inflation forces the legislature to
reduce the PFD payout.
The question is not if the PFD will disappear, it is
when will the PFD disappear? Legislators do not need
economic wizards or flow charts to see where annual
budgets lines meet the PFD cost line. At some point
in the not-too-distant future there will be no options
left and the PFD will be funded at minuscule levels if
at all.
Basic Math: (Using $1500.00 dollar PFD annual
baseline) (Using a population of 600,00) (Assuming I
in 3 PFD recipients take the buyout.)
Example: To execute the buyout provision the one-time
up-front cost to the state will be $3 billion
dollars to buyout 200,000 PFD recipients. (200,000 x
$15,000.00 dollars)
With the elimination of 200,000 PFDs, the additional
revenue available to the state for 20 years will be $6
billion dollars. (20 years X 200,000 people X $1500.00
PFD)
Using the same metrics those who retain the existing
PFD plan for the next 20 years would receive
$30,000.00 dollars. (20 years@ $1500.00 per year)
Questions of age, health, economic needs, and family
will affect decisions.
I.e. For a family of four who need a down payment on a
house, a car or college tuition, a $15,000.00
lump sum may be very helpful.
As for folks still willing to pull the familiar PFD
lever, the realities of Alaska's budget, and the
spending patterns of legislators, should make the
"Cash Out" button much more tempting.
1:13:56 PM
MR. STANCLIFF next presented the sectional analysis for HB 359
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Section 1.
Adds a new section to AS 38.05.942.
Permanent fund dividend land vouchers.
Establishes the authority for the Department of
Resources to receive from the Department of Revenue a
land voucher for use in the purchase of state land.
Section 2.
Amends AS 43.23.025 (a)
Establishes the number of individuals eligible for a
PFD "Cash out."
Section 3.
Amends AS 43.23 with a new section to article I.
Establishes the one-time amount of the "Cash out" as
well as the PFD land voucher and establishes the
funding will be made through a legislative
appropriation.
1:14:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK observed a refusal by the legislature to
fix the issue of the Alaska permanent fund. He said the
permanent fund dividend (PFD) will be permanent for government
expenses, not for the people. He said this matter is worthy of
conversation and impressed upon the importance of honesty for
the people of Alaska.
1:16:37 PM
CHAIR MCKAY shared his understanding that if the bill were to
pass, a person could request 20 years' worth of dividends to put
towards land.
MR. STANCLIFF clarified that any person could choose to "cash
out" their dividend and receive $15,000 and a one-time land
voucher for $5,000.
1:18:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the land voucher would be
transferrable.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK answered that nothing is set in stone and
all options are on the table.
MR. STANCLIFF noted that the [Division of Mining, Land and
Water] would keep a log of those individuals qualified for the
land voucher, so there would be no need to issue physical
vouchers thereby saving the state time and money.
1:21:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER considered a scenario in which 25
percent of dividend eligible Alaskans decided to cash out their
PFD. He asked how that would be funded, while still paying out
individual dividends to the rest of the population.
MR. STANCLIFF said it would depend on how the legislature sought
to fund the cash out where that money might come from.
1:24:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS expressed concern about this decision being
made for minors and people under legal care of someone else, as
well as the inequity of those who would be able to take
advantage of a land voucher.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK said he anticipated those types of
questions and thanked Representative Mears for sharing her
concerns.
1:25:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG asked how the bill sponsor chose the
metric of one-in-three PFD recipients and questioned whether
it's a reasonable barometer.
MR. STANCLIFF answered that the one-in-three metric was an
initial attempt at estimating how many people may opt into the
plan. He said the number was chosen to make the proposal easier
to understand.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG pointed out behavioral economics show
that most people choose to take a lower, lump sum amount, as
opposed to more money over time. She recommended that the
Legislative Finance Division analyze the financial impact to the
Alaska permanent fund and present economic scenarios at varying
levels of uptake.
1:28:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER agreed that further discussion is
required. He asked whether Representative Cronk would encourage
his constituents to take such a deal.
1:29:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK responded, "If I was a gambling man, I
would," as he predicted that dividends would get progressively
lower. He reiterated his belief that the legislature has failed
to address the PFD issue and the bill is an attempt at forcing
discussion.
1:30:35 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that HB 359 was held over.
SSCR11-DISAPPROVE EO 134
1:30:53 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the next order of business would be
SENATE SPECIAL CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 11, Disapproving
Executive Order No. 134.
1:31:32 PM
BRENT GOODRUM, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Natural
Resources, gave a PowerPoint presentation, entitled "Executive
Order 134: Eliminating the Recreation Rivers Advisory Board,"
dated 3/1/24 [hard copy included in the committee packet]. He
began on slide 2, "Susitna Basin Recreation Rivers Advisory
Board," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Created by Recreation Rivers Act of 1988 (AS
41.23.400-510):
The primary purpose of the Act is for the
establishment of the six recreation river
corridors for their maintenance and enhancement
of fish and wildlife population for recreation
and economic use ensuring multiple use
management.
Established a Governor-appointed, 13-member
advisory board representing:
(1) commercial fishing;
(2) sport fishing;
(3) sport hunting;
(4) conservation;
(5) subsistence
(6) forest products;
(7) mining;
(8) powerboat users;
(9) recreationally-oriented commercial users;
(10) other recreational users;
(11) private property owners within the
recreation river corridors;
(12) the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning
Commission from the membership of the planning
commission; and
13) the mayor of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough or
the designee of the mayor
MR. GOODRUM continued to side 3, "Susitna Basin Recreation
Rivers Advisory Board," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
• Requires DNR write a management plan
Original Management Plan adopted in 1991
• Plan establishes management guidelines
Manage activities consistent with statutory
purposes
Protect fish, wildlife, and the river's free
flow
Identify special recreation values and manage
intensity and types of recreational use
Designate management guidelines for development
activities
Designate management guidelines for commercial
recreation activities or development
Provide for transportation and utility
corridors, public safety, and law enforcement
Provide for reasonable access
Establish criteria and timelines to review
future proposed uses for compatibility with AS
41.23.400
1:34:05 PM
MR. GOODRUM advanced to slide 4, "Advisory Board
Responsibilities," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
The Board assists in preparing, adopting, and revising
the recreation river management plan and regulations
affecting use and management of the recreation rivers.
MR. GOODRUM noted that there have been 19 meetings scheduled
since the board's reconstitution in 2021. Quorum was not
obtained for 4 of the 19 meetings. The next scheduled meeting
of the advisory board is March 13, 2024, as a proposed work
session to review public comments submitted on the public review
draft of the proposed plan.
1:34:28 PM
MR. GOODRUM proceeded to slide 5, "Executive Order 134," which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
WHAT:
• Sunsets the advisory council; transfer the functions
and duties of the Susitna Basin Recreation Rivers
Advisory Board to DNR
WHY:
• Creates efficiency and establishes single point of
contact for management
• Eliminates duplication within state government
• Resulting in increased performance and
accountability
FUTURE:
• Any changes to the Susitna Basin Recreation Rivers
management plan must already go through a robust
public process in consultation with affected
municipalities, state agencies, and stakeholders that
requires public notice, public comment periods, and
meetings in the affected communities
1:35:13 PM
MR. GOODRUM concluded the presentation on slide 6 with a
sectional analysis, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Sec. 1, Page 1
Adds a new section to the uncodified law providing the
governor's findings that it is in the best interests
of efficient administration to transfer the functions
of the Recreation Rivers Advisory Board to the
Department of Natural Resources, and to eliminate the
board as it is no longer needed
Sec. 2, Page 1
Amends AS 41.23.440(a) (relating to management plans
for recreation rivers and corridors) to delete the
reference to the advisory board. The DNR commissioner
would no longer be required to consult with the board
when preparing or revising a management plan for each
of the six recreation rivers and their corridors. The
commissioner and each affected municipality would
still be required to consult with public and state
agencies
Sec. 3, Page 2
Repeals AS 41.23.430 which established the Recreation
Rivers Advisory Board
Sec. 4, Page 2
Adds a new section to the uncodified law to provide
guidelines for the transition period that would be
required by this executive order
Sec. 5, Page 3
Effective date of July 1, 2024
1:36:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG asked Mr. Goodrum to elaborate on
inefficiencies, detail the meaning of "performance", and explain
how these measures would increase accountability.
MR. GOODRUM replied that the department does a vast majority of
the board's work already. He cited an inability to meet quorum
as contributing to the department's frustration.
1:39:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE recalled that the board was reconstituted
in 2021. He asked Mr. Goodrum to comment on the "new
[management] plan."
MR. GOODRUM confirmed that the board was in name only for a
number of decades. He said a new or updated version of the
management plan would likely be finalized and adopted.
1:41:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked what issues would be addressed by
the management plan.
MR. GOODRUM referred back to slides 2 and 3, which outlined the
board's interests and management guidelines.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether there are other geological
groups of rivers similar to the Recreational Rivers Advisory
Report on Susitna.
MR. GOODRUM responded that to his knowledge, there is not
another grouping of recreational rivers within the state
containing several different water bodies being managed for
special purposes.
1:43:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed interest in the management plan
proposed by the board, which he characterized as restrictive and
catering to special interests. He shared his understanding that
the Susitna Basin Rivers would be put in the same category as
the boundary waters canoe area with no motorized vehicles and
limited camping. He asked how that would best serve Alaskans.
MR. GOODRUM declined to speak on behalf of the board. He
surmised that in the 1990s, the board may have anticipated the
best use of these areas with strong interests in commercial and
sport fishing. He reiterated that ultimately, the advisory
board puts forth recommendations, adding that the commissioner
decides whether to adopt them.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE reiterated that the plan is significantly
more extensive and restrictive to Alaskans' recreational use.
He recalled that the governor "was forced" to remove board
members in the past and asked whether the board had become too
politicized.
MR. GOODRUM shared his belief that DNR feels capable of doing
the planning on its own.
1:47:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether current laws are sufficient
to maintain the health of the wild recreational resources in
these rivers.
MR. GOODRUM answered yes.
[SSCR 11 was held over.]
SSCR 3-DISAPPROVE EO 126
1:48:24 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the next order of business would be
SENATE SPECIAL CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 3, Disapproving
Executive Order No. 126.
1:48:53 PM
RICKY GEASE, Director, Central Office, Division of Parks and
Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural Resources, explained
that 12 advisory councils across the state advise the division
on issues in different regions. Two such entities, the Wood-
Tikchik State Park Management Council and the Alaska Chilkat
Bald Eagle Preserve, are appointed by the governor and set in
statute with the purpose of developing management plans. He
noted that the Kenai River Special Management Area is
commissioner appointed while the nine remaining councils are
regional area citizen advisory boards appointed by the director.
He directed attention to a PowerPoint presentation, entitled
"Executive Order 126: Eliminating the Wood-Tikchik State Park
Management Council," dated 3/1/24 [hard copy included in the
committee packet].
1:51:01 PM
MR. GEASE began on slide 2, "Wood-Tikchik State Park," which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
• 1,541,759 acres near Dillingham
• Established by Legislature in 1978 (AS 41.21.161)
• Primary purpose: protect the area's fish and
wildlife systems (important breeding grounds) and
continued subsistence and recreational activities
• Largest state park in the U.S., managed by 1 park
employee
MR. GEASE continued to slide 3, "Wood-Tikchik State Park," which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
• Alaska State Constitution Article 8, Section 7:
Special Purpose Sites: Legislature may reserve land
from the public domain
• Legislature closed the park land and water to
"multiple use" and dedicated area as special purpose
site (closed to oil and gas leasing, mineral entry)
(AS 41.21.160-167)
• Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) is
responsible for managing fish and game resources
within park
MR. GEASE advanced to slide 4, "Management Council Members,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
• 7-member Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Council
is established in AS 41.21.163.
• Governor appoints one member from three nominations
submitted by each of the following:
the village council of Koliganek
the village council of New Stuyahok
the village council of Aleknagik
the city council of Dillingham
the Bristol Bay Native Association, Inc.
the commissioner of natural resources
the commissioner of fish and game
1:52:36 PM
MR. GEASE turned to slide 5, "Management Council
Responsibilities," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
• Management council provides feedback,
recommendations and local insight regarding
management, operations, facilities
• Meetings serve as a forum for public input on park
management
• Members set agenda items, discuss topics such as
park user conflicts, resource issues, proposed
developments and proposed regulation changes
• The Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Council shall
develop a management plan for the park with the advice
and assistance of the department (AS 41.21.164)
• DNR, ADF&G must consult with each other and the
management council before adopting regulations
MR. GEASE continued to slide 6, "DNR's Support Role," which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation coordinates and
supports the Management Council by:
• Providing staff to develop management plan
• Issuing public notice for meetings
• Assisting with agendas
• Taking meeting minutes and/or recording meeting
• Posting meeting minutes and/or recording meeting
• Coordinating appointments through Governor's office
• Filling requests for information from DNR
Council has met online since 2020 and the most recent
meeting was February 1, 2024.
MR. GEASE continued to slide 7, "Executive Order 126," which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
WHAT:
• Sunsets the management council. DNR will develop
management plans and receive stakeholder input through
traditional channels and creation of citizen advisory
board
WHY:
• Creates efficiency and establishes single point of
contact for park management
• Eliminates duplication within state government
• Aligns management activities with those of other
parks
FUTURE:
• Management processes don't change revisions
subject to robust public process and multiple input
opportunities
• Alaska Department of Fish & Game remains involved in
management plan development, associated activities
1:55:44 PM
CHAIR MCKAYADS sought clarity on the "RADS" acronym.
MR. GEASE answered the Resource Assessment and Development
Section, which performs all the management plans for DNR.
1:56:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the Wood-Tikchik Management
Council serves the purpose of a citizen's advisory council or
whether there would still be a citizen's advisory council if the
management council were eliminated.
MR. GEASE said currently, the Wood-Tikchik Management Council
functions very similar to a regional citizen advisory board.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether there would be a need to
develop a citizen's advisory council for the Wood-Tikchik State
Park if the management council were eliminated.
1:56:45 PM
MR. GEASE answered yes, if the executive orders (EOs) are
confirmed, both the Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Council
and the Alaska Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve would need regional
citizen advisory boards.
1:57:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked what would be different if the EO
were confirmed.
MR. GEASE indicated that vacancies are easier to fill on the
regional citizen advisory councils and quorum is met more often.
1:59:25 PM
MR. GEASE concluded the presentation on slide 8, "Future
Stakeholder Engagement," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
DNR has other important engagement tools:
• Creation of a local citizen advisory board covering
the parks in the local region (Lake Aleknagik State
Recreation Site)
• Citizen advisory boards assist park staff with
management and development issues
• Alaska State Parks director appoints members for up
to 3-year terms
• Members are representative of multiple user groups
• Active boards in Chugach, Juneau, Kachemak Bay,
Ketchikan, Kodiak, Mat-Su, Northern Region and Seward
[SSCR 3 was held over.]
SSCR 9-DISAPPROVE EO 132
1:59:46 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the next order of business would be
SENATE SPECIAL CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 9, Disapproving
Executive Order No. 132.
2:00:12 PM
MR. GEASE directed attention to a PowerPoint presentation,
entitled "Executive Order 132: Eliminating the Alaska Chilkat
Bald Eagle Preserve Advisory Council," dated 3/1/24 [hard copy
included in the committee packet]. He began on slide 2, "Alaska
Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
• 43,921 acres of river bottom near Haines
• Established by Legislature in 1982 (AS 41.21.611)
• Primary purpose: protect and perpetuate the bald
eagle habitat inside the preserve
• One of the world's largest concentrations of bald
eagles
MR. GEASE continued to slide 3, "Alaska Chilkat Bald Eagle
Preserve," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
• Alaska State Constitution Article 8, Section 7:
Special Purpose Sites: Legislature may reserve land
from the public domain
• Legislature closed the preserve to "multiple use"
and dedicated area as special purpose site (closed to
oil and gas leasing, mineral entry) (AS 41.21.610(d)
• Traditional uses including hunting, fishing,
trapping, and other subsistence and recreational uses
are allowed (AS 41.21.618)
MR. GEASE advanced to slide 4, "Advisory Council Members," which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
The 12-member Advisory Council established by AS
41.21.625:
• Governor appoints 3 members to 2-year terms:
Haines Borough resident representing a conservation
organization
United State Fish and Wildlife Service
representative
Upper Lynn Canal Fish and Game Advisory Committee
member
Haines Borough Mayor recommends to Governor
appointee to fill seat representing commercial or
industrial interests
• Ex-officio members are named positions in statute
(or designees):
Haines Borough Mayor
Klukwan, Inc. President
Chilkat Indian Village Council chair
Chilkoot Indian Association chair
Haines Borough Assembly member
Alaska Department of Fish & Game Commissioner (or
designee)
Alaska Director of Division of Parks & Outdoor
Recreation (or designee)
Alaska Director of Division of Forestry & Fire
Protection (or designee)
2:01:58 PM
MR. GEASE turned to slide 5, "Advisory Council
Responsibilities," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
• Advisory council provides feedback, recommendations
and local insight regarding management, operations and
facilities
• Meetings serve as a forum for public input on
preserve management
• Members set agenda items and discuss topics such as
user conflicts, resource issues, proposed developments
and proposed regulation changes
Council shall assist the Department in monitoring
and revising preserve management plan (AS
41.21.625(e))
• Council may provide feedback on matters for which
Division of Parks & Recreation, Division of Forestry &
Fire Protection and Alaska Department of Fish & Game
are required to seek council input
MR. GEASE proceeded to slide 6, "DNR's Support Role," which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
The Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation coordinates
and supports the Advisory Council by:
• Issuing public notice for meetings
• Assisting with agendas
• Taking meeting minutes and/or recording meeting
• Posting meeting minutes and/or recording meeting
• Coordinating appointments through Governor's office
• Filling requests for information from DNR
The council has met online since 2020 and the most
recent council meeting was November 2022. The May 2023
meeting lacked a quorum.
MR. GEASE continued to slide 7, "which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
WHAT:
• Sunsets the advisory council; stakeholder input
would be received through traditional channels and
creation of informal advisory groups
WHY:
• Creates efficiency and establishes single point of
contact for preserve management
• Eliminates duplication within state government
• Aligns management activities with those of other
parks
FUTURE:
• Management processes don't change revisions
subject to robust public process and multiple input
opportunities
• Alaska Department of Fish & Game remains involved in
management plan development, associated activities
2:04:09 PM
MR. GEASE concluded on slide 8, "Future Stakeholder Engagement,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
DNR has other important engagement tools:
• Creation of a local citizen advisory board covering
the parks in the local region
• Citizen advisory boards assist DNR staff with
management and development issues
• Alaska State Parks director appoints members for up
to 3-year terms
• Members are representative of multiple user groups
• Currently active boards in Chugach, Juneau, Kachemak
Bay, Ketchikan, Kodiak, Mat-Su, Northern Region and
Seward
2:04:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether dismantling these councils
would kick the cost of future management plan revisions down the
line.
MR. GEASE explained that when there's an opening for RADS to
revise a management plan, its covered through operating costs.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether updating the management
plans is "a big lift."
MR. GEASE said it may take two to three years to update the
management plan with others taking upwards of eight years.
However, once revised, they tend to stay in place for a long
period of time.
2:06:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS said she appreciated the desire to move to
less formal and less restrictive processes for these councils to
allow for more community input; however, she said she's
concerned about the process. She shared her belief that the
overwhelming public testimony and concern about these EOs shows
that the process has not been followed. She asked Mr. Gease
whether the council is supportive of the EO.
MR. GEASE acknowledged that people are often resistant to
change. He assured the committee that the Division of Parks and
Outdoor Recreation's management would deteriorate without public
feedback and emphasized the importance of the citizen advisory
boards.
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS said she would be happy to support this
change in a future bill when there's buy-in from the effected
communities.
2:09:03 PM
CHAIR MCKAY noted that public testimony on the EOs was heard
only in the Senate to save time.
[SSCR 9 was held over.]
SSCR 1-DISAPPROVE EO 124
2:09:37 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the next order of business would be
SENATE SPECIAL CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1, Disapproving
Executive Order No. 124.
2:10:08 PM
JOSEPH FELKL, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), said the governor
found it to be in the best interest of an efficient
administration to transfer from the Board of Game to the
Commissioner of ADF&G the authority to prohibit, by regulation,
the live capture, possession, transport, or release of native or
exotic game or their eggs. In simpler terms, ER 124 would
transfer authority from the board to the department to manage
"Alaska's clean list" for pets and livestock. The list is found
in regulation and is tied to the board's statutory authority,
which would be transferred to the commissioner. If a species
does not appear on the list, it may not be imported or possessed
as a pet or livestock in Alaska. Proposals to change the clean
list are taken up by the Board of Game only during statewide
meetings, which occur once every three years. Effectively, EO
124 would allow these proposals to be acted upon more quickly
and streamline the process while still allowing for a robust,
scientific review to protect Alaska's valuable wildlife
populations from contact with nonnative species. He noted that
public notice and comment would still be required through the
Alaska Administrative Procedures Act instead of the board
process. He said the department would not be fiscally impacted
by EO 124.
2:13:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked where invasive species are
"situated" in state government.
MR. FELKL answered that the invasive species program is managed
by the Division of Sport Fish. He pointed out that the Board of
Fisheries has a similar statutory authority for "ornamental
fish," which would not be transferred by the EO.
2:14:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked whether the Board of Game can change
its process to allow for consideration of the clean list
annually.
2:14:35 PM
RYAN SCOTT, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), shared his belief that it
would be difficult because if the board were to make that
change, there would be interest in reviewing other regulations
on an annual basis.
2:15:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how many people capture, possess,
transport, or release exotic species.
MR. SCOTT said it's "a big deal." He added that it is often
about people trying to bring other species into the state.
2:16:46 PM
CHAIR MCKAY made the following statement:
Let the record reflect that the House Resources
[Standing] Committee held a hearing on SSCR 1, 3, 9,
and 11, as required by Uniform Rule 49. These
resolutions will move on to a joint session if they
are scheduled on the calendar for such a session.
HB 222-PERMANENT FUND/AIDEA FUND INVESTMENTS
2:17:10 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 222, "An Act relating to the Alaska permanent
fund and the income and investments of the fund; relating to the
permanent fund dividend; and providing for an effective date."
2:17:55 PM
CODY RICE, Staff, Alaska House Majority, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Sumner, noted that
using the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation's (AGDC's) most
recent assumptions on interest rates would reduce the numbers
provided to the committee during the most recent bill hearing.
He estimated that equity would be between $800 million and $1
billion, and the debt service would fall somewhere between $120
million and $230 million on an ongoing basis.
CHAIR MCKAY sought questions from committee members.
2:19:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER recounted a discussion on the House Floor
that referenced an argument made by a former legislator and
mayor of Anchorage, Tom Fink, against the permanent fund
dividend (PFD). In his argument, Mr. Fink posited that the
dividend could be better used to build infrastructure;
nonetheless, the dividend was established without a specific
investment purpose. He shared his understanding that the bill
would "turn that back" by saying the PFD should be a means to
finance big capital infrastructure development. He asked how
Mr. Rice would reconcile that conflict.
MR. RICE replied that the legislature has the authority to
direct [the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation] and its
investments.
2:20:34 PM
CHAIR MCKAY sought to clarify whether the bill would use part of
the PFD or the corpus.
MR. RICE shared his understanding that its not specific about
the location.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE directed attention to page 1, line 2 and
read the title of the bill, "An Act relating to the Alaska
permanent fund and the income and investments of the fund;
relating to the permanent fund dividend; and providing for an
effective date."
MR. RICE confirmed that there are two elements of the bill, one
of which affects the PFD based on a recovery for the initial
investment amount.
CHAIR MCKAY shared his understanding that the bill would cap the
PFD at $1,000 with anything extra going towards the pipeline.
MR. RICE agreed, citing page 1, Section 2. He reiterated that
its up to the legislature in terms of how the equity
participation is funded.
CHAIR MCKAY opined that the financial discussion should be had
by the House Finance Committee. As such, he made the following
statement:
Our focus as the [House Resources Standing Committee]
is on resource management policies and as I don't see
any objection to bringing our natural gas to the
market, I recommend that we allow the [House Finance
Committee] to address the financial questions related
to this bill.
2:23:52 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 2:23 p.m.
2:25:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER began a motion but read the wrong bill
number and identifier information. He subsequently stated, "I
strike that motion."
2:26:08 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 2:26 p.m.
2:26:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER moved to report HB 222 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes, and to authorize Legislative Legal Services to make any
necessary technical or conforming changes.
2:27:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS objected.
2:27:44 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Baker, Rauscher,
Armstrong, McCabe, and McKay voted in favor of moving HB 222 out
of committee. Representatives Mears voted against it.
Therefore, HB 222 was reported from the House Resources Standing
Committee by a vote of 5-1.
2:28:31 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:28 p.m. to 2:31 p.m.
HB 223-TAX & ROYALTY FOR CERTAIN GAS
2:31:03 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 223, "An Act relating to the production tax and
royalty rates on certain gas; and providing for an effective
date." [Before the committee, adopted as a working document on
2/23/24, was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 223,
Version 33-LS0886\S, Nauman, 2/10/24 ("Version S").]
2:32:18 PM
CHAIR MCKAY moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 223, Version S,
labeled 33-LS0886\S.9, Nauman 2/29/24, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 1, following "rates":
Insert "and payments"
Page 1, line 13, through page 9, line 31:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 2. AS 38.05.180 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(mm) Notwithstanding a requirement in the
leasing method chosen of a minimum fixed royalty
share, for leases issued in the Cook Inlet sedimentary
basin, the department shall accept, as complete
payment for royalties due to the state, zero in
royalties for qualified new gas and 50 percent of the
minimum fixed royalty share for qualified new oil,
unless payment is lower under another subsection of
this section. The royalty reduction in this subsection
applies until the earlier of either
(1) 10 years following the commencement of
commercial production that begins after July 1, 2024;
or
(2) the date on which a commercial quantity
of oil or gas produced from the Cook Inlet sedimentary
basin is shipped out of the state.
(nn) In (mm) of this section,
(1) "qualified new gas" means gas produced
from
(A) a field or pool that the commissioner
determines has not previously produced gas for
commercial sale before January 1, 2024;
(B) a field or pool that has previously
produced gas, but did not produce gas during calendar
year 2024;
(C) a well that did not exist on January 1,
2025, if the commissioner determines that production
of that gas from the field or pool from an existing
well was not economically feasible;
(2) "qualified new oil" means oil produced
from
(A) a field or pool that the commissioner
determines has not previously produced oil for
commercial sale before January 1, 2024;
(B) a field or pool that has previously
produced oil, but did not produce oil during calendar
year 2024;
(C) a well that did not exist on January 1,
2025, if the commissioner determines that production
of that oil from the field or pool from an existing
well was not economically feasible.
* Sec. 3. AS 31.05.030(i); AS 38.05.180(f)(5), and
38.05.180(dd) are repealed."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
2:32:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER objected for the purpose of discussion.
2:32:26 PM
ED KING, Staff, Representative Tom McKay, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative McKay, explained that
Amendment 1 would repeal everything except the effective date
and the first section of the bill, thereby repealing AS
38.05.180(f)(5), which is the royalty relief provision. The
proposed amendment would also allow the state to accept less
than its full royalty and forego the deed for an amendment to
the lease rather than renegotiating the terms of the contract to
reduce the royalty. In addition, the definitions of "new gas"
and "new oil" in Version S would be limited to gas and oil sold
in state. Furthermore, in the event that a lease is eligible
for royalty relief under a different subsection, the lower rate
would prevail. He further noted that paragraph (2) on lines 15-
16 adds new language to reflect a sunset condition that says if
in the future, the state is exporting liquified natural gas
(LNG) again, the royalty relief would no longer be necessary.
Last, the definition of "qualified new oil" adds a subparagraph
that was missing in the previous version.
2:35:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to paragraph (2) and asked
whether its fair to presume that if oil and gas were being
commercially delivered outside the state, it would be evidence
in itself that the royalty reduction is no longer necessary.
MR. KING answered, "That is correct."
2:35:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked to hear from the department on
Amendment 1.
2:36:23 PM
JOHN CROWTHER, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Natural
Resources, shared his understanding that Amendment 1 is a
"mechanical adjustment" to accomplish the same intent as the
committee substitute. He said DNR supports Amendment 1.
2:37:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER removed his objection to Amendment 1.
There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:37:53 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 2:37 p.m.
2:38:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS moved to adopt Amendment 2 to HB 223,
Version S, labeled 33-LS0886\S.7, Nauman, 2/20/24, which read as
follows:
Page 8, line 30, following "production":
Insert "that begins on or before December 31,
2033,"
2:38:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS explained that Amendment 2 would add a
sunset date to avoid losing potential revenue.
2:40:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked to hear from the department on
Amendment 2.
MR. CROWTHER said DNR does not support Amendment 2 but
understands if the committee wishes to adopt different
timeframes that it deems appropriate.
2:41:28 PM
CHAIR MCKAY explained that as the gas well ages, the royalty
would increase; however, wells never increase in production at
the end of their life. In addition, tax stability is always
being emphasized. For those two reasons, he voiced his
opposition to Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER observed that Version S has a 10-year
limit. He shared his belief that contrary to Representative
Mears's assertion that the date of the reduced royalties could
extend indefinitely into the future, the legislature could
change that in statute. He spoke against the insertion of a
hard deadline and said he is disinclined to support Amendment 2.
CHAIR MCKAY said citizens would pay more for gas than what the
state would make in revenue from the declining gas wells.
Consequently, he opined that the benefit of having low-cost gas
energy coming from the Cook Inlet Region far outweighs any
revenue that would be gained by a small royalty rate.
2:44:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG clarified that the bill was expanded to
include both oil and gas, so the timeline would impact both.
CHAIR MCKAY said the problem is that wells often produce both
oil and gas together; consequently, he asked how a well would be
taxed for both commodities.
2:45:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS clarified that as written, royalties would
be collected on declining oil production after the first 10
years of a well. In response to Representative Saddler, she
said there would be a potential for royalty relief to continue
for the next 20 years, as Amendment 2 would place a sunset on
wells drilled 11 years from now. She pointed out that if
current wells stop producing in 10 years, there is 70 billion
cubic feet (Bcf) of gas being produced in the Cook Inlet to meet
demand, which is $80 million per year at 12.5 percent in royalty
relief that's unrealized by the state. The bill would support
Hilcorp with 20 Bcf per year amounting to $23 million in gas
that they would have produced over the next decade regardless
[of the royalty relief].
CHAIR MCKAY reiterated that the goal is to produce low-cost gas
from the Cook Inlet to save residents of the Railbelt a
significant amount of money that would otherwise go to imported
LNG.
2:48:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER maintained his objection.
2:49:22 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Mears and Armstrong
voted in favor of adopting Amendment 2. Representatives McCabe,
Baker, Rauscher, Saddler, and McKay voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 2 failed to be adopted by a vote of 2-5.
2:50:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS moved to adopt Amendment 3 to HB 223,
Version S, labeled 33-LS0886\S.3, Nauman, 2/20/24, which read as
follows:
Page 1, line 1, following "gas;":
Insert "relating to transferable oil and gas
production tax credit certificates;"
Page 9, following line 24:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 5. AS 43.55.028 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(t) The percentage of a transferable tax credit
certificate issued under AS 43.55.023(d) or former
AS 43.55.023(m) or a production tax credit certificate
issued under AS 43.55.025(f) purchased by the
department may not exceed the percentage of resident
workers in the applicant's workforce in the state in
the preceding calendar year, including workers
employed by the applicant's contractors. An amount of
a credit not purchased because of application of this
subsection may be applied against the applicant's tax
liability under this chapter. In this subsection,
"resident worker" has the meaning given in
AS 43.40.092(b)."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
2:50:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER objected for the purpose of discussion.
2:50:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS explained that Amendment 3 makes a title
change to the bill to allow for transferable tax credits that
encourage local hire and attribute a percentage of tax credit to
an applicant's contractors and employees on site.
2:51:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated his objection to Amendment 3 and
characterized it as the "poster child" for inconsistent tax
policy. He opined that it's not appropriate to predicate tax
credits on the rate of hire.
CHAIR MCKAY reported that the rate of local hire in the Alaska
oil and gas industry is approximately 80 percent. He surmised
that its unconstitutional to demand that "everyone" be an Alaska
resident.
2:52:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS [moved to withdraw] Amendment 3. [There
being no objection, Amendment 3 was withdrawn.]
2:53:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS moved to adopt Amendment 7 to HB 223,
Version S, labeled 33-LS0886\S.1, Nauman, 2/20/24, which read as
follows:
Page 1, line 1, following "gas;":
Insert "relating to disclosure of information
related to oil and gas production taxes;"
Page 9, following line 24:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 5. AS 43.55.890 is amended to read:
Sec. 43.55.890. Disclosure of tax information.
Notwithstanding any contrary provision of AS 40.25.100
or AS 43.05.230, [AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE
INFORMATION IS CONSIDERED UNDER AS 43.05.230(E) TO
CONSTITUTE STATISTICS CLASSIFIED TO PREVENT THE
IDENTIFICATION OF PARTICULAR RETURNS OR REPORTS,] the
department shall make publicly available [MAY PUBLISH]
the following information under this chapter, [IF
AGGREGATED AMONG THREE OR MORE PRODUCERS OR
EXPLORERS,] showing by month or calendar year and by
lease or property, unit, or area of the state:
(1) the amount of oil or gas production;
(2) the amount of taxes levied under this
chapter or paid under this chapter;
(3) the effective tax rates under this
chapter;
(4) the gross value of oil or gas at the
point of production;
(5) the transportation costs for oil or
gas;
(6) qualified capital expenditures, as
defined in AS 43.55.023;
(7) exploration expenditures under
AS 43.55.025;
(8) production tax values of oil or gas
under AS 43.55.160;
(9) lease expenditures under AS 43.55.165;
(10) adjustments to lease expenditures
under AS 43.55.170;
(11) tax credits applicable or potentially
applicable against taxes levied by this chapter.
* Sec. 6. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska
is amended by adding a new section to read:
APPLICABILITY. AS 43.55.890, as amended by sec. 5
of this Act, applies to information collected on or
after the effective date of sec. 5 of this Act."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
2:53:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER objected.
2:53:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS explained that Amendment 7 requires
physical transparency by making disclosure of tax information
publicly available.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how often the Division of Oil & Gas
exercises the discretion to release confidential information.
2:55:49 PM
MR. CROWTHER responded that DNR regularly publishes this kind of
information pursuant to the terms of current law, which prevents
individual or corporate information from being disclosed. He
expressed concern that releasing that kind of particularized
data could result in significant exposure to corporate and
commercial information.
2:57:36 PM
DEREK NOTTINGHAM, Director, Division of Oil & Gas, Department of
Natural Resources, agreed that the individualized release of
that information exposes those entities to competitive
information being released publicly.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether companies would be more or
less likely to invest if their competitive information was made
public.
MR. CROWTHER responded that it would be a key change to the
operational environment of Alaska. Operators would have to
carefully assess what information would be submitted to the
department.
2:59:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG sought to confirm that Amendment 7
would put Alaska in compliance with the way that disclosures are
handled in Texas and North Dakota.
MR. CROWTHER said he could not confirm the treatment of tax or
commercial information in either state.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG referenced the Texas Report on Natural
Gas Tax and pointed out that Texas is not considered a fragile
jurisdiction like Alaska, has a well-endowed university, and
does not have income tax. She shared her belief that Amendment
7 would be hugely beneficial to Alaska, and she posited that
citizens of both Texas and North Dakota have benefited from the
availability of this information as well.
3:01:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said he might be inclined to support
Amendment 7 if there were a grandfather clause for entities
already established in Alaska. He asked whether this is another
"thinly veiled" attempt to access Hilcorp's data that it refuses
to provide.
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS responded that Amendment 7 is an honest and
vigorous attempt to understand the largest business in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said he would not be supporting Amendment
7 because it's unfair to target one company.
CHAIR MCKAY reiterated that the intent of the bill is to
incentivize gas production in Cook Inlet and opined that
requiring "the opening of books" would be a disincentive.
3:03:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER maintained his objection to Amendment 7.
3:04:21 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Mears and Armstrong
voted in favor of adopting Amendment 7. Representatives McCabe,
Baker, Rauscher, Saddler, and McKay voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 7 failed to be adopted by a vote of 2-5.
3:05:22 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that HB 223, Versions S, [as amended], was
held over.
3:05:36 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| exor0126.pdf |
HRES 3/1/2024 1:00:00 PM |
SSCR 3 |
| exor0132.pdf |
HRES 3/1/2024 1:00:00 PM |
SSCR 9 |
| exor0134.pdf |
HRES 3/1/2024 1:00:00 PM |
SSCR11 |
| exor0124.pdf |
HRES 3/1/2024 1:00:00 PM |
SSCR 1 |
| Sect. Analysis for HB-359.pdf |
HRES 3/1/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 359 |
| HB-359 PFD Cash Out Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 3/1/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 359 |
| EO 126 Wood-Tikchik State Park Management Council DNR Presentation 03.01.24.pdf |
HRES 3/1/2024 1:00:00 PM |
SSCR 3 |
| 2024 Executive Order 134 - Rec Rivers Advisory Board Overview 03.01.24.pdf |
HRES 3/1/2024 1:00:00 PM |
SSCR11 |
| EO 132 Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve Advisory Council DNR Presentation 03.01.24.pdf |
HRES 3/1/2024 1:00:00 PM |
SSCR 9 |
| EO 132 Supporting Doc - Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve Management Plan 2.1.24.pdf |
HRES 3/1/2024 1:00:00 PM SRES 2/14/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SSCR 9 |
| EO 132 Testimony - Received as of 2.13.24.pdf |
HRES 3/1/2024 1:00:00 PM SRES 2/14/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SSCR 9 |
| HB 223 HRES Amendment Packet.pdf |
HRES 3/1/2024 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/4/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 223 |
| HB 223 Legal Memo on CS.pdf |
HRES 3/1/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 223 |
| HB 359 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HRES 3/1/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 359 |