Legislature(2015 - 2016)BUTROVICH 205
10/28/2015 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| SB3001 | |
| Start | |
| SB3001 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB3001 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
THIRD SPECIAL SESSION
October 28, 2015
9:06 a.m.
9:06:08 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 8:49 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Peter Micciche, Vice -Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Joe Dubler, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,
Alaska Gasline Development Corporation; Senator Gary
Stevens; Senator John Coghill; Senator Mia Costello;
Senator Cathy Giessel; Representative Shelley Hughes;
Representative Liz Vasquez; Representative Lora Reinbold;
Representative Andy Josephson; Senator Charlie Huggins; Ken
Vassar, General Council, Alaska Gasli ne Development
Corporation; Frank Richards, Vice President, Engineering
and Program Management, Alaska Gasline Development
Corporation; Craig Richards, Attorney General, Department
of Law; Representative Geran Tarr.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Daniel Fauske, President, Alaska Gasline Development
Corporation; Bruce Tangeman, Alaska Gasline Development
Corporation.
SUMMARY
SB 3001 APPROP: LNG PROJECT and FUND/AGDC/SUPP.
SB 3001 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 3001
"An Act making supplemental appropriations; making
appropriations to capitalize funds; making
appropriations to the general fund from the budget
reserve fund (art. IX, sec. 17, Constitution of the
State of Alaska) in accordance with sec. 12(c), ch. 1,
SSSLA 2015; and providing for an effective date."
9:07:33 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the location of Dan Fauske. She
remarked that Mr. Fauske was a decision maker for the
project. She also noted that Bruce Tangeman, who was the
finance representative for the project, was also not
present. She stressed that Miles Baker, the representative
for Government Affairs was also not present.
JOE DUBLER, VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,
ALASKA GASLINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, explained that Mr.
Richards and he were asked to present to the committee, and
the other mentioned individuals were asked not to testify
in the meeting.
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that there were several of the
committee members were able to hear an update on the
project recently, and Mr. Fauske had presented some
information at that time. There were many questions that he
had not yet answered to the committee. She wondered who had
asked that Mr. Fauske not attend the meeting. Mr. Dubler
replied that the attorney general of the state asked that
Mr. Fauske not be in Juneau.
Co-Chair MacKinnon requested an email be sent to the
attorney general asking that he be available for upcoming
hearings.
Senator Olson queried the reasoning behind the request that
Mr. Fauske not attend the meeting. Mr. Dubler replied that
he was not given a reason.
9:10:12 AM
AT EASE
9:13:01 AM
RECONVENED
9:13:22 AM
Senator Bishop remarked that the current appropriation was
the least amount of money for the project. He felt that the
principle decision-makers be present for the meetings.
Vice-Chair Micciche felt that the lack of communication
from the project leadership was frustrating.
Senator Dunleavy commented that alignment and transparency
were essential to moving the project forward. He did not
feel that there was current alignment of the project, and
he did not feel there was transparency. He remarked that
inhibiting the ability for someone to be available for
questions was a major problem.
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that Mr. Fauske is shown as the
decision-maker for the project according to the
organizational chart.
Senator Olson stressed that this was a time-sensitive bill.
He understood that information was sometimes withheld due
to the fluidity of some current decisions. He felt that
there was probably a good reason to restrict access to Mr.
Fauske. He shared that he was surprised by the attorney
general's decision, but felt that there must be a good
explanation for disallowing Mr. Fauske meeting attendance.
9:19:34 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon acknowledged the legislators in the
room.
Co-Chair Kelly explained that Dan Fauske was an important
figure in the building. He stressed that Mr. Fauske was a
talented and respected person. The apprehension was over
concern with the attorney general.
Senator Dunleavy remarked that the attorney general was not
above Mr. Fauske in the organizational chart. He felt that
the AGDC board should have some autonomy in the process. He
wondered if the organizational chart may not be accurate.
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that Mr. Fauske and other members
of AGDC were available to the House Finance Committee the
previous day. She shared that she would attempt to contact
the attorney general or other members of AGDC.
9:23:22 AM
RECESSED
9:56:58 AM
RECONVENED
9:57:33 AM
DANIEL FAUSKE, PRESIDENT, ALASKA GASLINE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION (via teleconference), introduced himself.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that there was a letter from the
governor dated October 14, 2015 (copy on file). She
encouraged the committee to review the letter.
9:58:04 AM
AT EASE
9:59:21 AM
RECONVENED
9:59:29 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon stressed that the legislature was
anxious to move the AKLNG project. She remarked that there
was a point where the oil was transmitted. She stated that
there was a point about the information for the session.
She explained that Governor Walker's chief-of-staff had
been in contact with Senate leadership, and had transmitted
a letter. She stated that the letter had asked for all
partners to send everything through the Attorney General's
office.
Mr. Dubler discussed the presentation, "Alaska LNG Project
Participation" (copy on file).
Mr. Dubler looked at slide 2, "Authority Granted in SB
138":
AGDC has primary responsibility for developing an
Alaska LNG project on the state's behalf [AS 31.25.005
(1)]
AGDC may acquire a direct ownership interest in any
component of an Alaska LNG project [AS 31.25.080
(a)(23)]
AGDC may enter into contracts related to treating,
transporting, liquefying or marketing gas -in
consultation with DNR and DOR [AS 31.25.080 (a)(24)]
AGDC shall assist DNR and DOR to [AS 31.24.005 (2) and
(3)]:
Maximize the value of the state's gas resources
Provide economic benefits in the state
Provide revenue to the state
10:04:31 AM
Senator Dunleavy surmised that AGDC had the primary
responsible to develop a project. Mr. Dubler agreed.
Senator Dunleavy wondered why it was at times confusing.
Mr. Dubler replied that there were many different
components of the project: ownership, upstream, royalty
decisions, taxing authority, etc.
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at point 2, and wondered if
AGDC's authority was implied or explicit. Mr. Dubler
replied that the authority was explicit. He deferred to Mr.
Vassar.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if the AGDC authority was specific
to pipe. She believed that the legal memo outlined the
pipeline facility. She wondered if TransCanada was
specifically given the pipe portion of the project. She
asked for further information about AS 31.25.080(a)(23).
KEN VASSAR, GENERAL COUNCIL, ALASKA GASLINE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, stated that AGDC's pipeline facilities
acquisition authority included the pipe itself. The
authority was considered a "power" not a "duty." He
stressed that AGDC had the power to have ownership of the
pipeline portion of the facility.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if AGDC had the authority to
build the pipeline. Mr. Vassar replied in the affirmative.
He explained that AGDC had the power to develop, finance,
and construct. He stated that AGDC had broad powers aimed
at a pipeline project, like AKLNG.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried whether the powers were explicit
or implied. Mr. Vassar responded that it was an explicit
power.
10:09:09 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if the partner had
responsibility for the pipe, and whether AGDC had LNG
authority. Mr. Vassar responded that the original concept
stated that the statute gave AGDC considerable breadth of
power to develop and acquire all aspects of a pipeline
project. He remarked that AGDC was directed to participate
in the liquefaction plant, but not in the midstream. It was
a determination by the administration for where they wanted
to use AGDC's powers.
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at bullet 4 of slide 2, and
recalled that the maximum value at the well head was the
responsibility of DNR. She wondered how AGDC would take on
the role in concert with DNR. Mr. Dubler replied that DNR
had the statutory responsibility to maximize the state's
gas resources. He stated that AGDC would assist DNR to
maximize the value of the resource.
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that there was a question in
negotiating with an overseas market. She wondered why the
committee should support a marketing team at AGDC versus
DNR. Mr. Dubler replied that AGDC would only assist DNR in
the marketing.
10:14:35 AM
Senator Bishop felt that a developing a project below
budget, which shipped the gas at the cheapest price per
molecule to the state would maximize the gas value.
FRANK RICHARDS, VICE PRESIDENT, ENGINEERING AND PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT, ALASKA GASLINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, agreed
with Senator Bishop.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked for more information about AGDC
intending to not participate in the marketing. She queried
the position of AGDC regarding the marketing assignment to
DNR. Mr. Fauske replied that AGDC had no intention to
market the gas. He remarked that there was some HB 4
language from a few years prior regarding that assignment.
There was also language from SB 138. He stressed that
AGDC's principle role was to decrease the capital costs. He
remarked that AGDC was charged with the responsibility to
aggregate the instate gas demand for the citizens. He
stressed that it was not an international function for the
overseas markets.
Vice-Chair Micciche looked at the authorities granted in SB
138. He queried the definition of "component." He
specifically wondered if the word "component" referred to
gas reserves. Mr. Vassar replied that gas reserves would
not be a component.
10:19:15 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche wanted to ensure that the new AGDC
subsidiary dealt only with the Interior Energy Project. Mr.
Vassar responded that the subsidiary was formed solely for
the purpose of aggregating and distributing gas for instate
use. The language within the creation of the subsidiary may
have been more expansive than the intention. He stated that
expansive language was a more traditional approach to
creating a corporation, because of the possibility of using
the corporation for a different endeavor at a later date.
Vice-Chair Micciche prefers a narrower purpose and powers
to ensure the focus of the Interior Energy Project (IEP).
He understood that the state's acquisition of the assets
associated with IEP was an interim ownership. He felt that
the formation of the public corporation may give the
impression that AGDC had a longer term plan. Mr. Dubler
explained that the instate aggregator function proposed by
AGDC was not solely related to IEP. The function was for
every community along the pipeline route that want access
to the gas. The aggregator was intended to align the
communities, aggregate the gas to demand, and approach the
producers to purchase the gas. He stressed that the
aggregator was intended to help the facilities access the
natural gas.
Vice-Chair Micciche noted that there was a broad definition
in Article 4, Section (a)
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that AGDC had formed a
subsidiary corporation. She wondered if the subsidiary had
met the specific requirements set out in statute.
10:24:35 AM
AT EASE
10:28:41 AM
RECONVENED
10:28:58 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at the letter from the Governor
dated October 14, 2015, which stated that presenters must
be brought to Attorney General Richards before they were
presented to the legislative body. She queried the
reasoning for that letter.
CRAIG RICHARDS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
explained that it was the governor's intent behind the
letter. He explained that he was the legal counsel and
represented the executive branch, including representing
AGDC, DNR, and DOR. He stressed that the letter directs
materials be reviewed by the Attorney General. He felt that
it was the appropriate use of legal counsel. He remarked
that the project required the state to act more like a
commercial party. He had fulfilled that role for hundreds
of witnesses in his career.
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered if the legal counsel allowed
for him to restrict members of certain agencies from
testifying before the committee. Attorney General Richards
replied that it may be considered attorney-client
privilege. He felt it best to bring the individuals that
were most technically knowledgeable in the subject.
Vice-Chair Micciche felt that there seemed to be some
control over the message. He remarked that the legislature
needed the tools in order to complete the job. He agreed
with the attorney general's role, but did not agree with
the control of information. Attorney General Richards
explained that he wanted the individuals who had prepared
the presentation to be available to the committee. He felt
that those individuals had the greatest technical
knowledge. He stated that he had not instructed anyone to
appear via teleconference.
Senator Bishop understood the perspective of the attorney
general. He felt that there could have been less confusion,
had the letter from the governor been distributed to the
committee on October 14.
10:34:37 AM
Senator Dunleavy felt that there were many gaps in the
information. He felt that the burden of proof was on the
administration to provide information. He remarked that the
situation was prolonged, because of the lack of
information. Attorney General Richards agreed.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if the attorney general would
be available on the upcoming Friday. Attorney General
Richards replied in the affirmative.
Senator Dunleavy asked if Attorney General Richards was in
charge of the project. Attorney General Richards responded
that he was not in charge of the project. He stated that he
was the lead lawyer on the project.
Co-Chair Kelly remarked that there was not yet a fiscal
note attached to the bill. He requested a standard fiscal
note as soon as possible. Attorney General Richards agreed
to provide that information. He wondered if he should
present the Department of Law's appropriation during this
meeting.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that he could provide a high
level overview now or at a later date.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if Attorney General Richards had
signed a confidentiality agreement for the project.
Attorney General Richards replied that he had not signed a
confidentiality agreement for the project.
Co-Chair MacKinnon surmised that he was at liberty to
discuss most of his knowledge of the project. Attorney
General Richards disagree. He explained that he, the
governor, and the commissioners had not signed
confidentiality agreements. He stated that there was an
understanding among the parties that they would have access
to the required information.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked that he think about his previous
statement. Attorney General Richards replied that he had
thought about his statement.
Co-Chair MacKinnon summarized that Attorney General
Richards had been given confidential information in order
to make decisions, but he had not signed a confidentiality
agreement. Attorney General Richards agreed.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if that was acceptable
behavior. Attorney General Richards replied that it had
been the function of the project for some time.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether Attorney General Richards
was aware that Mr. Fauske and others were available for
testimony in House Finance the previous day. Attorney
General Richards responded that he was aware of the
presence, but he did not listen to the meeting.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if Attorney General Richards
had any knowledge as to why they were not available during
the current Senate Finance meeting. Attorney General
Richards responded that he had no knowledge of the
reasoning.
Senator Bishop wondered if there was a favored nation's
clause in the agreement. Attorney General Richards
suggested that Senator Bishop request a similar agreement.
10:40:52 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche felt that Attorney General Richards
could be considered the "people's attorney general."
Attorney General Richards agreed.
Vice-Chair Micciche felt that there were firewalls placed
between the legislature and the executive branch. The
firewalls kept the legislature from making appropriate
decisions that supported the administration. Attorney
General Richards replied that he represented the executive
branch, and he also represented the public.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried how the attorney general was
counsel to AGDC, and where that statement fell into his
description to Vice-Chair Micciche. Attorney General
Richards replied that he was acting as the AGDC general
counsel. He recalled that the Department of Law represented
AGDC in consultation with their corporate counsel
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that, according to statute, the
attorney general would write contracts. Therefore, she felt
that a confidentiality agreement would be requirement for
negotiations. She wondered how he would facilitate that
role without a confidentiality agreement. Attorney General
Richards replied that the agreement with the parties was
that the commissioners, the attorney general, and the
governor did not need to sign confidentiality agreements.
Co-Chair Kelly queried who was in charge of the project.
Attorney General Richards stated that the Governor was in
charge of the project.
10:46:07 AM
Co-Chair Kelly disagreed that the governor was in charge of
the project. He felt that the governor was ultimately
responsible. He simply wanted to know the person who would
run the project. Attorney General Richards replied that the
governor was in charge of the project.
Co-Chair MacKinnon felt that Attorney General Richards was
in charge of the project. Attorney General Richards
disagreed. He explained that he was responsible for
coordinating the witnesses for the special session.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that all of the presentations had
been vetted through the attorney general's office. Attorney
General Richards responded that his role as counsel was not
one of "substantive decision maker." He coordinated
presentations and provided advice to the clients on their
presentations.
Senator Dunleavy encouraged the committee to take a long
recess in the hopes that there could be discussions.
10:48:48 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that the testimony on SB 138 was
clear regarding the legislative intent for the attorney
general to only serve as AGDC counsel for the development
of contracts only related to AKLNG. She appreciated the
thoroughness by which the attorney general had acted as
counsel for the governor and the people of Alaska.
10:49:53 AM
Senator Olson queried the role of Rigdon Boykin. Attorney
General Richards replied that Mr. Boykin answered to the
governor and Mr. Fauske. He stressed that the team was
collective and collaborative.
Senator Olson wondered if the head of AGDC could fire
Rigdon Boykin. Attorney General Richards replied that he
had not read the contract with Mr. Boykin, so he did not
know the answer.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the number of times the cabinet
had met since the governor was sworn into office. Attorney
General Richards guessed four or five times.
Senator Bishop felt that the organizational chart was a
chain of command.
Co-Chair MacKinnon felt that Attorney General Richards had
read the professional services contract. Attorney General
Richards disagreed. He stated that he did not generally
read all of the contracts.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if Attorney General Richards'
name would be on the contract. Attorney General Richards
replied that his name would not be on the contract.
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at the Articles of Incorporation
for the AGDC subsidiary. She queried the purpose of the new
subsidiary corporation in its entirety. Attorney General
Richards replied that he was acting as the state's chief
lawyer in the AKLNG negotiations, which included some
activities of AKLNG and AGDC. He had not been involved in
the establishment of the subsidiary. He stated that he had
been made aware of the subsidiary's establishment on the
previous day. He stressed that he was not involved in every
decision of a corporation.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that the presentations to the
Senate Finance Committee had been elevated to Attorney
General Richards' level. Attorney General Richards replied
that, at the request of the governor, materials be
coordinated through Attorney General Richards substantively
before presentation to the legislature.
10:55:36 AM
AT EASE
11:05:27 AM
RECONVENED
11:06:20 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered why AGDC developed a
subsidiary, under what authority the subsidiary was
established, and the intent of the subsidiary. Mr. Fauske
replied that the AGDC Board had held a meeting based on
this issue. He remarked that the subsidiary was intended to
begin the process for which how the gas would be delivered
to Alaskans. The paperwork was filed in response to a
request from the board. He stated that AGDC had prepared an
instate gas demand study, that should be released soon. He
stated that AGDC had worked with DNR the locations of off-
take points for instate gas use. He stated that SB 138 and
the AKLNG project were not responsible for instate
delivery. The offtake points would be installed, but it was
the responsibility of others to determine how the gas would
be distributed to the citizens. He stressed that AGDC had
stayed within the statutes that were originally granted
under HB 4. He stated that the language of the
incorporation had been taken straight from statute. He
stressed that there had been no activity yet under the
subsidiary. He stressed that the intention was to offer gas
to the instate residents.
11:10:33 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon surmised that AGDC would accumulate
molecules and be prepared to sell the molecules across the
state. Mr. Fauske replied that the subsidiary would be the
aggregator to collect the molecules to ease the use of the
gas for the entities. He stressed that the process had not
yet begun on the process.
Co-Chair MacKinnon requested the meeting date that the
board made that decision, so she could check attendance at
that meeting. Mr. Fauske agreed to provide that
information.
Vice-Chair Micciche stressed that legislative intent was
essential. He wondered if the subsidiary precluded the
state from acquiring subservice reserves, and becoming a
producer. Mr. Fauske deferred to Mr. Vassar, but he did not
believe that would ever be the case.
In response to a question from Co-Chair MacKinnon, Mr.
Fauske stated that the decision to create a subsidiary was
made at a board meeting on September 23. He quoted the
motion to create the subsidiary. He furthered that another
corporation was established that could receive the assets
of TransCanada, if the legislation were to pass.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered who was present on the meeting
date. Mr. Fauske replied that the board of directors was in
full attendance.
11:15:18 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the names of the state
employees. Mr. Fauske replied that the assistant attorney
general, Jerry Judet was in attendance. Marsha Davis, the
deputy chief of staff, and other reporters were in
attendance.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wanted to know the legal counsel in
attendance that was requesting the formation of the
subsidiaries.
Mr. Fauske explained that the request came from Marsha
Davis and Rigdon Boykin.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if Ms. Davis and Attorney
General Richards requested the subsidiaries. Mr. Fauske
responded in the affirmative. He furthered that the
assistant attorney was present at the meeting.
Co-Chair MacKinnon felt like the attorney general's office
requested the formation of the subsidiary. She understood
that he may not have reviewed the contract, but she wanted
to know if Attorney General Richards had knowledge of the
creation of the corporation. She stated that she would
follow up with the attorney general at a later date.
Mr. Fauske asked for a restatement of Vice-Chair Micciche's
question.
11:18:38 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered if the subsidiary precluded
the state from acquiring subservice reserves, and becoming
a producer. Mr. Fauske deferred to Mr. Vassar.
Mr. Vassar responded that upon the creation of the
subsidiary, the language was used from AS 31.25.120. The
statute set out that AGDC had the power to create a
subsidiary corporation. The language stated that the
subsidiary could be established for the purpose of
acquiring natural gas from the North Slope. He read from
the statute, "making that natural gas available to market
in the state." He understood that there would be a concern
regarding owning gas or drilling gas. He stressed that AGDC
did not have that power. The acquiring of the gas was from
other entities who had the power to obtain the gas. He did
not believe that the subsidiary allowed for AGDC to harvest
gas from the ground. He stated that AGDC operated within
the appropriated funds from the legislature.
11:22:40 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche stressed that he was presenting the
question to protect the state's interest, as a 25 percent
partner with AKLNG. He stressed that he wanted to ensure
that the state did not compete against itself. He wondered
if an instate market include a smaller export facility. Mr.
Vassar replied that it was not a supportable reading of the
language. The instate market referenced in the statute was
intended for actual use within the state. He furthered that
there could be a business operating to export natural gas,
AGDC could provide gas to that business in state workings.
He stressed that the power did not provide the possibility
for export.
Senator Dunleavy queried AGDC's position on the
legislation. He specifically wondered if AGDC was in
supportive of the bill as written. Mr. Fauske replied that
the board had not yet discussed the bill, because the bill
had not been submitted at the time of the most recent board
meeting. He stated that there had been discussions about
what they believed the special session's intent, including
the purchase of the TransCanada acquisition. He shared that
the board was intrigued by the idea, and furthered that,
pending review and legislative approval, the board was
ready to support the function. He stressed that there was
no formal vote on their position on the legislation.
Senator Dunleavy queried Mr. Fauske's position on the
legislation. Mr. Fauske responded that he liked the bill.
He stressed that the issue was really a finance question.
He remarked that there must be a great consideration about
the intensity of the risk that Alaska will undertake with
this acquisition.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if Mr. Fauske was available to
join the meeting later in the day. Mr. Fauske replied in
the affirmative.
11:29:26 AM
RECESSED
3:03:43 PM
RECONVENED
3:04:53 PM
Co-Chair Kelly remarked that there were many discussions
about who exactly was in charge on the project. He wondered
if Mr. Fauske had the power to fire Rigdon Boykin. Mr.
Fauske replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the number of subsidiaries under
AGDC. Mr. Fauske replied that there were two under the
Articles of Incorporation.
Co-Chair MacKinnon surmised that there were a total of two
subsidiaries in AGDC. Mr. Fauske agreed.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if there had been a request for
more subsidiaries. Mr. Fauske responded that there were no
current requests for more subsidiaries.
Co-Chair MacKinnon speculated that the board had not
directed AGDC to create more subsidiaries. Mr. Fauske
replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Kelly noted that one subsidiary was the
aggregator, and he asked the purpose of the second
subsidiary. Mr. Fauske responded that that the second
subsidiary would hold TransCanada's interests after
purchase.
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered if the full board had the
opportunity to vote on the formation of the subsidiary. Mr.
Fauske replied that it was a unanimous vote to approve the
subsidiary.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if AGDC was charged to finding
instate natural gas. Mr. Fauske replied that AGDC was not
looked for natural gas, but were interested in delivering
the gas to Alaskans.
3:09:14 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that she had been informed that
AGDC had been soliciting gas for over 10 billion bcf. She
queried the purpose of that amount of gas. Mr. Fauske
responded that he was not aware of that issue.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if AGDC was seeking gas sales
contracts that would exceed the use of instate natural gas.
Mr. Fauske replied that AGDC was not engaged in that
activity.
In response to a question from Co-Chair Kelly, Mr. Fauske
stated that the vote was 5 to zero for the formation of the
subsidiary. He explained that there were two board members
who were not present for the vote.
Mr. Dubler looked at slide 2, and stated that he was happy
to answer questions.
Mr. Dubler highlighted slide 3, "AGDC's Role in Alaska
LNG":
Signatory to the Joint Venture Agreement governing the
Alaska LNG project
Hold the state's 25 percent equity interest in the LNG
facility (downstream component) of the integrated
project
Member of the Sponsor Group, Management Committee
(ManCom) and the Project Steering Committee (PSC)
Participate in integrated project decisions
Participate in commercial negotiations related to
marketing, expansion, third-party access and domestic
gas supply
Plan and develop off-takes for in-state gas deliveries
3:14:40 PM
Senator Dunleavy queried the number and locations of the
offtakes. He remarked that the pipeline would run through
his district. Mr. Dubler replied that he was certain for
three offtakes: Fairbanks, Big Lake, and Nikiski. The other
offtakes faced the issue of the cost of the kit, and the
cost of the pipe to run the spur line to the community.
Senator Dunleavy wondered if there were five offtakes. Mr.
Dubler replied that the bill required a minimum of five
offtakes, but it was a matter of whether there was a need
for more use as the project was agreeable to more offtakes.
Senator Dunleavy queried the estimated cost of the
offtakes. He remarked that the more offtakes increased the
cost of the project. Mr. Richards explained that the
offtake kit was originally grouped into four sizes, based
on the volume of gas to be taken off the line. The offtake
kits ranged from $13 million to $38 million. The
transmission lines would be an additional cost, which did
not include local distribution and inclusion in the
communities.
Vice-Chair Micciche assumed that the price of the offtake
costs included pressure regulation and odorization. Mr.
Richards replied in the affirmative.
3:19:12 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche remarked that the original special
session call included a gas reserves tax, but was
subsequently eliminated due to letters from producers. He
wondered if AGDC had a role in negotiating of the gas sales
agreements, whether those producers would withdraw from
AKLNG. Mr. Dubler asked for a restatement.
Vice-Chair Micciche stated that the original call for the
special session included a gas tax, but the producers sent
letters. He wondered if AGDC had a role in negotiating the
agreements. Mr. Dubler replied that AGDC was not involved
in the agreements.
Vice-Chair Micciche surmised that AGDC had no knowledge of
the negotiations. Mr. Dubler replied that AGDC was involved
in the withdrawal agreement to the extent of the purchase
of TransCanada's share in AKLNG.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the role of AGDC in the
withdrawal negotiations. Mr. Dubler replied that AGDC was
in the room for those negotiations, but AGDC had broad
powers to enter into agreements.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether AGDC would be expected
to be a party and signatory on the withdrawal agreements.
Mr. Vassar replied that AGDC had the power to involve in
the negotiations, but were not necessarily expected to be
part of the negotiations.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered how the state would not be
burdened by too much gas that may not sell. Mr. Vassar
responded that the withdrawal provision stated that the
remaining parties would have expanded authority under the
agreement to take over the withdrawing party.
3:25:24 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that the role of AGDC outlined in
the Heads of Agreement (HOA) (copy on file) was
specifically related to the LNG portion of project
expansion. She queried the names of individuals within AGDC
with expansion and third party negotiation skills. Mr.
Dubler responded that there were various individuals with
the related experience. He stated that Dale Kleppin had
worked for many years with BP. Lesil Wilcox also had
experience with BP, and had run the ASAP project in 2010.
Steve Pratt was a commercial analyst at AGDC, who had
worked extensively with the Regulatory Commission of Alaska
(RCA) and small communities. He stated that there was a
contractor on Sussex Economic Advisors related to utility
work.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if anyone of those individuals
had worked on a pipeline, or the expansion agreements. Mr.
Dubler replied that he did not believe any of the
individuals had worked on those aspects.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stressed that the primary role of AGDC
was supposed to be LNG, but there were secured contractors
for other activities. She wondered if there was work plan
to commercialize the third party expansion. Mr. Dubler
replied that the expansion would occur after first gas and
first commercial operations. At that point, the company
that was running the pipeline would be in charge of the
expansion. He remarked that there was a detailed project
that dictated how an expansion would occur.
3:30:03 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at Appendix A of the HOA. She
read from the HOA:
The potential expansion of any component of the Alaska
LNG Project, excluding the modification of an
installed Alaska LNG Project liquefaction train or
installation of a new liquefaction train would be
addressed in the agreements to be developed during
Pre-FEED reflecting the following principles.
Co-Chair MacKinnon hoped that there would be the
appropriate personnel to handle the commercial aspects of
the buyout. Mr. Dubler replied that AGDC was currently
negotiating the buyout agreements.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked what expertise was involved in
those negotiations. Mr. Dubler replied that there was
counsel that have worldwide LNG experience; AGDC staff; and
DOR who were involved in the negotiations.
Mr. Fauske shared that TransCanada was willing to
contribute twelve seconded employees.
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered if the state of Alaska and
AGDC were aligned on the subject of expansion and third
party access. Mr. Dubler replied that AGDC had supported
DNR. He stated that DNR had led the effort on negotiation
and third party access, as the gas owner and regulator in
charge of overseeing the development of the state's
resources.
Vice-Chair Micciche asked if the state and AGDC had aligned
principles. Mr. Dubler replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon quoted page 21 of the HOA:
Any Alaska LNG party may initiate the process for
expansion of any component of the Alaska LNG Project.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried AGDC's total budget.
3:34:42 PM
BRUCE TANGEMAN, ALASKA GASLINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (via
teleconference), shared that the operating budget for the
instate pipeline corporate side was approximately $10
million. The AKLNG participation component was almost $3
million.
Co-Chair MacKinnon announced that the combined state
investment total AGDC budget was approximately $13 million.
Mr. Tangeman agreed.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered why AGDC did not have actual
hired commercial expertise to expand or allow for third
party entry. She understood that the TransCanada secondees
would only be employed by AGDC for a limited period of
time. Mr. Fauske replied that the project was not currently
in the midstream or upstream portion. He stated that AGDC
was assisting DNR and others to address different size
pipes; the right of way access; and other issues. He stated
that the discussion of hiring new people was related to the
successful passage of the current bill, which would then
transfer the work to AGDC. He stressed that the expansion
was a key negotiation at the commercial level and with the
administration working on the AKLNG project. He remarked
that that there was a variety of agreements, including
expansion.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stressed that TransCanada currently had
the expansion expertise, and the state was proposing a
buyout of that expertise. She understood that AGDC was the
recipient of that receipt. Mr. Fauske did not hear the
question.
Co-Chair MacKinnon restated her question. She wondered if
AGDC was the intended recipient of the expansion expertise.
Mr. Fauske replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if Mr. Fauske signed the HOA.
Mr. Fauske responded in the affirmative.
3:38:39 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that during Pre-FEED, the state
was supposed to understand expansion and third party
access. She wondered if AGDC was prepared to develop those
commercial agreements. Mr. Fauske deferred to Mr. Dubler.
Mr. Dubler responded that AGDC was currently participating
in those negotiation agreements. He stated that there was a
budgetary differential to accommodate the buyout of
TransCanada, and to replace some of the TransCanada buyout.
3:39:32 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon suggested that AGDC secure a plan for
securing the commercial expertise. Mr. Dubler agreed to
provide that information.
Mr. Fauske remarked that Mr. Klepin had been significantly
involved in expansion discussions. Mr. Dubler agreed.
Mr. Fauske he stressed that AGDC had the commercial
expertise, but agreed to enhance the system if so desired.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the number of individuals from
AGDC were on the AKLNG project team. Mr. Richards replied
that there would be a slide that addressed that number. He
wondered if her desired number was related to the governing
structure and project delivery method.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stressed that there were partners that
were advancing the AKLNG project. She wondered if there
were any state employees that had a role on the project.
Mr. Richards replied that AGDC did not have anyone on the
project management team, which was led by Steve Butt and
ExxonMobil.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the reasoning behind AGDC's
nonparticipation on the management teams. Mr. Richards
responded that AGDC was attending the meetings of the
Project Steering Committee. He explained that there were no
individuals on the project management team, because at the
time of SB 138's passage, AGDC's expertise was focused on
the ASAP project. He stated that after SB 138, AGDC hired
Fritz Cruzen who had worked with ConocoPhilips. He stated
that Mr. Cruzen had filled the expertise related to AKLNG.
3:44:52 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if all of the team locations were
in Alaska. Mr. Richards replied that the project management
team was a group of 138 co-venture employees who were
seconded on a temporary basis, with headquarter in Houston,
Texas. He furthered that there were some team members
located in the cities of the major contracting development.
He stated that the pipeline portion of the team was led by
Willy Parsons. He stated that the gas treatment facility
portion was led by AECOM in Denver, Colorado. He concluded
that the LNG facilities was led in Houston.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether Alaskans had traveled into
the markets to witness the happenings at the team level for
AKLNG. She felt that the state may not be as involved as
possible, with the extensive investment. Mr. Richards
replied that Fritz Cruzen was on the Project Steering
Committee, and attended meetings across the major
subproject groups.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if there was a missed
opportunity to have Alaskans develop the project outside of
the state. Mr. Richards replied that he was asked to be
nominated in the project management team. He remarked that
an individual was recently nominated.
Vice-Chair Micciche noted that TransCanada currently held
two leadership positions. He wondered if those positions
would shift after Alaska takes over TransCanada's role. Mr.
Richards replied that the HOA outlined that the assignment
of individuals to the Project Management Team was through a
nomination process. The co-venture members could nominate
individuals who could meet the job functions and duties as
outlined. He stated that AGDC could nominated skilled
individuals to those positions. He shared that the Project
Management Team desired AGDC representation.
3:50:00 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche wanted the state to hold an appropriate
level of representation on the Project Management Team. He
wondered if AGDC had a similar goal. Mr. Richards replied
in the affirmative.
Senator Bishop remarked that there was some concern about
expertise. He wondered if the legislature had adequately
funded the AGDC budget, to ensure the expertise. He asked
if there was a possibility to recruit the expertise, given
the current economic climate. Mr. Richards replied that
AGDC originally wanted to create a bureaucracy, but rather
utilize the resources available in Alaska in the
contracting arena. He noted that the organizational chart
showed that AGDC, corporately, had a small number of
technical and commercial personnel. He stressed that AGDC
relied on the contracted expertise.
Senator Bishop stressed that AGDC should have the best
available personnel.
Senator Olson queried the difference in employee
distribution between the ASAP project and the AKLNG
project. Mr. Richards replied that, at the time of ASAP's
inception, he was the only technical employee of AGDC. He
stated that ASAP had built a project management team in a
similar function as AKLNG. He stated that ASAP had 12
senior credentialed technical managers with worldwide
construction, pipeline, and arctic experience. He announced
that over approximately one to two years there were
approximately 1 million labor hours expended through
approximately 220 individuals to develop the pipeline and
treatment facility. He explained that, on the AKLNG
project, AGDC had the one AKLNG employee: Fritz Cruzen. He
stated that there would be further hired employees and
contractors to meet the needs starting at mid-stream.
3:55:15 PM
Senator Olson wondered if there were any current seconded
employees. Mr. Richards responded that there were no
current seconded employees in the AKLNG project.
Senator Olson noted that ASAP had not had a recent strong
focus. He felt that AGDC did not have a significant focus
on AKLNG, with only one person represented on the Steering
Committee. Mr. Richards responded that the work on ASAP was
significantly curtailed, because the major work effort was
complete. He remarked that ASAP had highlighted activities
that AGDC would complete that would be of benefit to any
pipeline project. He stated that there was additional field
work and engineering for AKLNG. He stressed that AGDC had a
responsibility for only the LNG portion of the plant. He
stressed that AGDC had relied on Mr. Cruzen to turn to the
team of technical expertise in the contracting realm.
Mr. Fauske furthered that Mr. Cruzen was available for
comment.
Senator Dunleavy felt that the major producers would retain
their most skilled personnel. He wondered how AGDC would
compete with those skilled individuals. Mr. Richards
replied that an Alaska project attracts individuals that
want to be involved. He stated that there were some who
were nearing the end of their careers who wanted to
experience Alaska. He stressed that Alaska was seen as an
important step, because of the magnitude and significance
of the AKLNG project. He stated that there were many
extremely experienced individuals who had approached AGDC.
3:59:26 PM
Mr. Dubler discussed slide 4, "Alaska LNG Project
Participation":
AGDC holds State's interest in downstream: LNG
Facility
TransCanada holds State's interest in mid-stream:
Pipeline and GTP
Mr. Dubler highlighted slide 5, "Governance Related
Issues":
Equity Alignment: State's share of gas in the project
(25 percent) is not equal to its current equity in the
integrated project:
State, through AGDC, holds 25 percent in the
downstream (LNG plant)
TC holds 25 percent in the midstream (pipeline
and GTP)
State's resulting equity in the integrated
project is ~ 12.5 percent
Voting Rights: State doesn't have full voting
participation in all project decisions:
State, through AGDC, votes on downstream issues
TC votes on mid-stream issues
If TC exits, AGDC would have full voting rights
on each project component and in all integrated
project decisions
Mr. Dubler explained that the slide showed some governance
issues.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if there were any decisions
that did not have consensus between the state and
TransCanada. Mr. Dubler replied in the negative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that Commissioner Myers had
attempted to describe different perspectives on casting the
vote. She understood that, originally, TransCanada would be
kept, rather than the state stepping into a political role.
She queried an example of how a future decision would place
the state at odds with a good business decision for
TransCanada, but a better decision for the state. Mr.
Dubler did not know of any example, but agreed to provide
that information.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stressed that it was helpful to
understand the differing interest in TransCanada. Mr.
Dubler remarked that the state was concerned with keeping
the costs low. He stressed that TransCanada had not taken
any cost risk.
Co-Chair MacKinnon shared that TransCanada was extremely
professional, and had not severed a relationship with the
state.
4:05:04 PM
Senator Bishop wondered if the state would have full voting
rights, upon approval of the bill. Mr. Dubler replied in
the affirmative, and specified that the state would have
the full 25 percent voting rights.
Senator Bishop asked if Mr. Fauske would be the voting
representative for the state. Mr. Dubler replied that the
voting right, depended on the issue. He explained that
there were certain items that were resolved at various
levels. He stated that the important decisions at AGDC were
governed by a strict protocol with the board.
Senator Bishop surmised that more than one person could
cast the vote depending on the subject. Mr. Dubler
responded that each vote would have one person voting, but
there may be different people at each vote.
Senator Bishop asked if the problem would be addressed with
the AGDC board before the problem was addressed with the
project team. Mr. Dubler replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at the organizational chart. She
wondered who was voting and who had voting authority. She
noted that there were four decision makers in the chart
plus the governor at the top of the chart. She wanted to
understand how AGDC was determining who would cast the
vote. She wanted to know who specifically was casting the
vote. She wondered what would occur if the AGDC board did
not agree with the plan to buyout TransCanada. Mr. Dubler
replied that AGDC would vote "no."
4:10:00 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked what would happen to the AKLNG
project, if the board disagreed with the plan. Mr. Dubler
replied that most of those items did not have a vote in the
project aspect.
Co-Chair MacKinnon requested the flow chart for the
decisions. Mr. Dubler agreed to provide that information.
Vice-Chair Micciche stressed that the committee did not
want to torture AGDC. He stated that the committee wanted
to understand who was voting and who was in charge of the
project in the state.
Co-Chair MacKinnon agreed with Vice-Chair Micciche's
comments.
4:15:11 PM
Senator Olson felt that there was a lack in technical
qualifications in AGDC. Mr. Dubler replied that AGDC had
qualified individuals, and agreed to provide resumes.
Senator Olson felt there had to be more qualified
individuals.
4:17:45 PM
AT EASE
4:18:30 PM
RECONVENED
4:18:43 PM
Mr. Dubler highlighted slide 6, "Project Governance." The
left box demonstrated the participants in the Sponsors
Group.
Mr. Richards discussed slide 7, "Project Management Team
(PMT)." He stated that TransCanada currently had two
individuals in the leadership structure of the PMT.
Mr. Richards looked at slide 8, "Project Management Team
(PMT)."
Project Management Team (PMT) created by Alaska LNG
co-venture partners (CoVs) to lead day-to-day project
development
PMT is led by ExxonMobil's Steve Butt and staffed with
other CoV employees who have been seconded to the
project
CoVs nominate employees based on skills and experience
PMT evaluates nominees and Management Committee
approves
Positions are filled using a "best player plays"
approach
Secondees salary and expenses covered by project
AGDC is active at all governance levels -Sponsors,
ManCom and PSC
AGDC does not currently have employees seconded to PMT
PMT hires engineering and specialist contractors to
advance design efforts
Vast majority of project work is done by
contractors under the supervision of the PMT
4:24:36 PM
Mr. Richards discussed slide 9, "Project Management Team
(PMT)":
Staffing Principles
Leverage existing company strengths -ensure
"right person, right job" or "best player plays"
Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) parties can
nominate employees for any position
Ensure all parties are represented at leadership
levels
Locate teams for maximum effectiveness; co-
located with major contractors where appropriate
Appointments to leadership roles require
unanimous approval of the parties
4:25:21 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon requested a written statement of how
AGDC was engaging with the different components. Mr.
Richards agreed to provide that information.
Mr. Richards continued to look at slide 9.
Mr. Richards looked at slide 10, "TransCanada's Role Alaska
LNG":
Hold the state's 25 percent interest in the project's
mid-stream: pipeline and gas treatment plant (GTP)
Fund pre-FEED cash calls associated with the state's
mid-stream interest
12 secondees, primarily pipeline Subject Matter
Experts (SME), in the Project Management Team
Leadership team, Pipeline Project Manager (1 of
9)
Key role, Pipeline Facilities Engineering Manager
(1 of 18)
Environmental, Regulatory, and Land (ERL) (1 of
32)
Gas Treatment Plant sub-project (1 of 17)
Pipeline sub-project (8 of 36)
Mr. Richards highlighted slide 11, "TransCanada's Role
Alaska LNG":
TransCanada (TC) is not expected to build the pipeline
that will be managed by the PMT
If TC exits the project, the PMT will seek nominations
for the vacated positions
TC has offered to allow its PMT employees to remain
during a transition period
All CoVs, including AGDC, can nominate employees to
fill those positions
AGDC has individuals qualified to nominate for
Pipeline and GTP openings
Mr. Richards looked at slide 12, "AGDC Technical Team-
Skills":
AGDC's technical staff:
Senior credentialed professionals with industry
and mega-project backgrounds
Arctic pipeline and facilities design,
construction, and operations experience
Alaska-specific design and construction
experience
Major capital project management expertise
Working knowledge of technical and regulatory
assets owned by AGDC
4:30:42 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if AGDC would provide a plan
for third party expansion by March 1, 2016. Mr. Richards
agreed to provide that information.
Mr. Richards highlighted slide 13, "AGDC Technical Team -
Results":
AGDC completed development of the Alaska Stand Alone
Pipeline (ASAP) Project:
Completed Pre-FEED and FEED for North Slope gas
treatment facility, 733-mile mainline, and 30-
mile Fairbanks lateral pipeline
Completed Class 3 cost estimate and project
execution plan
Delivered on time and under budget
Core technical team still engaged on an interim
basis pending state policy decisions
Mr. Richards looked at slide 14, "AGDC Ability to Assume
TC's Role":
Currently holds state's interest in LNG facility -a
complex and expensive component in the integrated
project
Already assumed TC's role in coordinating the FERC
NEPA process
Engaging on mid-stream technical issues currently
Technical staff available to fill PMT positions as
necessary:
Subject Matter Experts (SME) based in Alaska
Key roles in prior Alaska pipeline projects,
including TAPS
Dedicated professionals committed to SOA
interests
Vice-Chair Micciche requested the prior year's meeting
minutes. Mr. Richards agreed to provide that information.
4:35:09 PM
Mr. Richards addressed slide 15, "Alaska LNG Appropriations
to Date." He explained that the top portion of the slide
was the capitalization of the AKLNG fund, with SB 138. The
capitalization provided funding for AGDC's participation in
AKLNG for FY 14 and FY 15, based on the cash call
expectations. He furthered that there was DOR project
financing report in the fund, and a Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF) field study.
The total fund capitalization was $69.835 million. He
shared that the chart was intended to show AGDC spending
through FY 16, so some of the numbers indicated projections
through the remainder of the year.
Vice-Chair Micciche queried if AGDC was funding the 15
seconded positions from TransCanada until May 2016. Mr.
Dubler replied that AGDC would not take on those costs,
rather the project would take on the costs, and TransCanada
would be reimbursed by the lead party of the project.
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered if there would be an
evaluation to determine whether all employees would be
needed. Mr. Dubler replied that the team would constantly
analyze their staffing needs.
Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the individual who would make
that decision in the organizational chart on whether the
secondees remain on the project. Mr. Dubler replied that
the lead party would make the determination.
Co-Chair MacKinnon surmised that the seconded employees'
retention decision would be made inside the project. Mr.
Dubler agreed.
4:39:13 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon looked at page 2, Section 2 of the bill,
which showed authorization of $5 million for program
receipts as reimbursement for field work. She wondered if
that was related to recent discussion. Mr. Richards replied
with page 15 of the bill, which showed the final line of
reimbursement due to AGDC for AKLNG project work of $2.75
million. He stressed that it was an estimate for work that
AGDC had performed for the AKLNG project.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if the state had received any
other reimbursements from the project. Mr. Richards replied
that the state had not received any other reimbursements
for the project.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if it was believed that the state
needed $5 million of program receipt authority, or as shown
on slide 15, $2.5 million. She wondered if there were other
state contributions inside of the $5 million requested
receipt authority. Mr. Richards responded that AGDC had
another responsibility for the instate natural gas pipeline
fund. He stated that AGDC anticipated the AKLNG project
reimbursing that fund for a payment for an exchange of
information that the AKLNG project had purchased from AGDC.
Mr. Dubler highlighted slide 16, "AGDC Special Session
Appropriations":
Capital Appropriation ($144,045.0)
•$68,445.0 -Reimburse TransCanada and "buy-out"
their mid-stream interest
•$75,600.0 -Fund state's full 25 percent share of
remaining pre-FEED
Receipt Authority ($5,000.0): Statutory Designated
Program Receipts (SDPR)
•Allow AGDC to be reimbursed for Alaska LNG
related field work conducted on behalf of the
project
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that there would eventually be
more clarity on the $5 million receipt authority.
Mr. Richards addressed slide 17, "AGDC Special Session
Appropriations." He explained that DNR had represented that
the anticipated TransCanada payment was approximately $108
million. The slide reconciled the $108 million to the
current request.
Senator Bishop looked at the increase in the scope change.
He asked what that increase would be. Mr. Dubler replied
with slide 18, "Pre-FEED Scope and Budget Changes":
Pre-FEED scope and schedule will increase by $182
million to $694 million:
State's total share is $173 million --$66 million
liquefaction plant, $107 million mid-stream (GTP
and pipe)
Advancing work into pre-FEED is important to have
the best information available to complete
internal review and make FEED decision
Project is maturing through the stage-gate
development process
Moving some activities from FEED to Pre-FEED to
facilitate better design and decision making
4:45:44 PM
Senator Bishop felt that accelerating the regulatory issues
in the beginning would result in accelerated construction.
Mr. Richards replied that accelerating the regulatory
process was intended to provide more clarity in making
informed decisions.
Mr. Dubler stated that slide 9 would address some of
Senator Bishop's concerns.
Mr. Richards discussed slide 19, "Pre-FEED Scope and Budget
Changes":
Scope changes are designed to improve project
economics, permitting outcomes and the quality of
information available for FEED evaluation:
Component level optimization to lower capital
costs and improve project economics ($57 million)
Increase scope of geotechnical and geohazard work
at GTP and LNG sites ($29 million)
Increase regulatory and pre-bid work on FEED
contracting; complete weather delayed off-shore
field work ($66 million)
Bring 48 inch pipe deliverables up to 42" level
of development ($30 million)
4:48:18 PM
AT EASE
4:48:52 PM
RECONVENED
4:48:57 PM
Senator Olson wondered how much longer Rigdon Boykin would
be contracted with the state. Mr. Fauske replied that his
contract was through December 31, 2015.
Senator Olson felt that Mr. Boykin wanted AGDC to head up
marketing. Mr. Fauske replied that AGDC was not actively
seeking the marketing aspect. He stated that marketing was
a DNR function.
Senator Olson wondered if DNR had the expertise to market
the gas. Mr. Fauske responded that DNR was advocating for
money to obtain that expertise.
Senator Olson commented that only one entity should market
on the state's behalf.
Vice-Chair Micciche stated that TransCanada had been
significantly involved in the state. He expressed
gratefulness for TransCanada's investment in the state.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if there were any closing
comments.
Mr. Richards stated that AGDC was created as an independent
corporation. He appreciated the support of the committee.
Mr. Dubler thanked the committee.
Co-Chair MacKinnon thanked all of the testifiers, and those
who were listening.
Senator Dunleavy requested an updated organizational chart,
and a review of the bill where the administration feels
that there could be fiscal notes.
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that appropriation bills did
not historically have fiscal notes.
Senator Olson expressed concern about the delivery of
information. He felt that the process and progress should
provide more timely information. He stressed that the board
members were even unaware of some information.
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed the following day's agenda.
SB 3001 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
4:58:18 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 4:58 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 3001 102815 AGDC Org Chart.pdf |
SFIN 10/28/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SB3001 |
| SB 3001 102815 AGDC S Finance Committee.pdf |
SFIN 10/28/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SB3001 |
| 102815 SB 3001 Governor's Letter to AKLNG Team October 14, 2015.pdf |
SFIN 10/28/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SB3001 |
| SB 3001 102815 Articles of Incorporation of AGDC Gas Aggregator Co..pdf |
SFIN 10/28/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SB3001 |
| SB 3001 102815 AGDC Asset Holding Corporation.pdf |
SFIN 10/28/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SB3001 |
| SB 3001 110115 Pipe size briefing 10-28-2015 v4 (2).pdf |
SFIN 10/28/2015 9:00:00 AM |
SB3001 |