Legislature(2015 - 2016)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/17/2015 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 |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Lazard Interim Report | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 17, 2015
9:05 a.m.
9:05:56 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Peter Micciche, Vice-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
ALSO PRESENT
Randall Randall Hoffbeck, Commissioner, Department of
Revenue; George W. Bilicic, Vice-Chairman of Investment
Banking, Lazard Freres and Co., LLC.
SUMMARY
^PRESENTATION: LAZARD INTERIM REPORT
9:06:59 AM
RANDALL RANDALL HOFFBECK, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, testified that the passage of SB 138 had created a
requirement for identifying financing options for a gasline
project on the North Slope, as well as a plan for
municipalities, regional corporations, and other
individuals within the state to be able to participate in
the project. He said that Lazard had been hired as the
financial consultant for the state and to help create a
report detailing the various available options. He added
that a second and final report would be available later in
2016 and would be more project specific.
9:07:50 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether the administration had
given the Lazard group any information that would affect
how the presentation was delivered to the legislature. She
asked whether TransCanada had been included in the project,
were there debt considerations, and had the administration
changed the intent of SB 138.
Mr. Hoffbeck responded that there had been no changed made
to the legislation. He reiterated that the report was a
general report on financing options, and was not specific
to any particular aspect of the project.
9:08:38 AM
GEORGE W. BILICIC, VICE-CHAIRMAN OF INVESTMENT BANKING,
LAZARD FRERES AND CO., LLC, presented the presentation,
"Lazard Interim Report Overview - Discussion Materials". He
spoke to the disclaimer and shared that he would be
summarizing the majority of the report in an immediately
useful manner.
9:10:11 AM
He referred to Slide 1, "Introduction", which provided a
table of contents listing the topics that would be covered
during the meeting:
Introduction
Today's meeting will cover the following topics:
· An introduction to Lazard and its AKLNG Project
(the "Project") Team
· An overview of Lazard's role on the Project
· A discussion of selected topics from the Interim
Report, including the following:
o Project objectives and background
o Preliminary Project financing considerations
for the State
o Preliminary criteria for evaluating
potential Project financing plans
· A discussion of recommended next steps in
preparation for the delivery of the Final Report
in Fall 2015
· Appendix materials, including the following:
o Selected additional Lazard professionals
o Selected Lazard team member biographies
9:10:51 AM
Mr. Bilicic presented Slide 2, "The Lazard Tradition,"
which outlined the history of the company and its founding.
Lazard has been providing independent financial advice to
select clients globally for over 150 years under the
tenants of Global Scope, Relationships, Experience,
Creativity, Advice, and Independence. He shared that
Lazard, founded in 1850, was well known in the investment
banking community, and had consisted of three houses spread
across the globe until the late 1990s. He relayed that the
company was publicly traded with a market capitalization of
approximately $6.5 billion. He related that the firm was a
client focused global firm, and was conflict-free -
providing only advice. He offered that a large part of the
firm's heritage was in representing governments.
9:12:11 AM
Mr. Bilicic referred to Slide 3, "Lazard's Global
Presence," and noted that the firm operated in major
business capitals worldwide and provided both domestic and
cross-border advisory services. He asserted that the firm
would be bringing all of its expertise, from across the
globe, to work for the state.
9:12:52 AM
Mr. Bilicic presented Slide 4, "The Lazard Team," which
offered Lazard's core execution team for the AKLNG Project
and reiterated that the team would draw on the experience
and expertise of Lazard's global network of professionals,
on an as-needed basis.
9:13:17 AM
Mr. Bilicic reviewed Slide 5, "Role of Lazard," and
explained as the state's financial consultant, Lazard would
analyze and report on potential financing alternatives for
state participation in the project, including potential
direct participation on behalf of residents, municipalities
and/or regional corporations. He explained that the role of
the firm had been mandated by SB 138 and Department of
Revenue request for proposals for an advisor. The role of
Lazard was as follows:
· Formulate a range of potential financing
alternatives and evaluative criteria
o Analyze, for example, key potential risks,
potential impact on the State's debt capacity
and long-term debt rating, potential for
participation of various Alaska stakeholders
and tax implications associated with each
alternative
· Collaborate with stakeholders, including the State,
Alaska Gasline Development Corporation, ExxonMobil,
ConocoPhillips, BP, TransCanada, State advisors and
other constituents
· Develop specific recommendations designed to
maximize benefits to the State
· Deliver Interim Report by January 20, 2015
· Deliver Final Report in Fall 2015
· Participate in State Legislative sessions
9:15:08 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon understood that the final report was
supposed to be delivered simultaneously with long-term
contract options.
Mr. Bilicic responded that the report would contain project
viability assumptions.
Commissioner Hoffbeck interjected that Co-Chair MacKinnon
was correct in her understanding.
Co-Chair MacKinnon expressed concern for the timeline on
the report. She wondered how any delays would affect
financing contracts for the project.
Commissioner Hoffbeck responded that the project would
continue to move forward even in the absence of the ADGC
board members. He anticipated that the appointees to the
board would be before the committee soon. He shared that
Lazard would be engaging in the process more highly towards
the end of the legislative session, with the bulk of the
work occurring over the summer of 2015.
Mr. Bilicic added that that report would be delivered in
2015, but given the timeline for construction and
completion, many things would change as time passed. He
said that an objective of the firm's work product would be
to create a modular analysis of the financing, so that
financial adjustments would be made in concurrence with any
changes in the construction plans.
9:18:24 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether the report could be
expected regardless of the contract options.
Mr. Bilicic stated that the firm would be on-time in
delivering the report. He believed that the firm could
write a report that would make certain assumptions about
contract terms, and would still be informative for the
state.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that the legislature wanted to
assure that the integrity of the timeline remained intact.
Commissioner Hoffbeck said that the department had the same
goal.
9:19:29 AM
Mr. Bilicic presented slide 6, "Lazard Assignment - High-
level Process Timeline," which had been designed to reflect
the final report timeline.
9:20:16 AM
Mr. Bilicic explained that the next section of the
presentation was intended to give a brief overview of the
topics covered in the interim report: preliminary financing
considerations for the state in evaluating its potential
investment in a project, and preliminary evaluative
criteria. He acknowledged the long history of attempts to
commercialize North Slope natural gas and the project's
potential impacts on the state, including from a financial
and budget perspective, and a resource perspective. He
added that the firm would continue to follow the state of
global LNG market dynamics.
9:21:58 AM
Mr. Bilicic presented Slide 7, "AKLNG Project - State
Objectives," which reflected that the state's participation
in the project was motivated by its desire to meet a
variety of different objectives; how each of these
objectives would eventually be realized would depend on a
variety of different factors. The slide listed the states
objectives as follows:
· Develop Natural Resources for Maximum benefit to the
state
· Replenish Reserve Accounts
· Realize Investment Returns
· Support State Budget
· Stimulate in-state Job Growth
· Provide Investment Opportunity for in-state
Individuals and Entities
· Provide Natural Gas to Alaskans
· Support Local Municipalities
9:23:14 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche asked whether moving stranded gas as
encouraging additional production in the North Slope could
be considered an objective.
Mr. Bilicic replied that the issue would be taken into
account and had been referenced in the report.
9:23:58 AM
Mr. Bilicic presented Slide 8, "AKLNG Project Economic
Overview," and noted that the project had an expected
overall cost of $45 - $65 billion (midpoint estimate of $55
billion), while the state's portion (assuming 25 percent
participation) was expected to cost $11.3 - $16.3 billion
(midpoint estimate of $13.7 billion). The slide reflected
$400 million for the pre-front end engineering and design
(2014-2015), $1.8 billion for front end engineering and
design (2016-2018), and $52.8 billion for engineering,
procurement, and construction (2019-2003). He reiterated
that the project costs were subject to change due to
changes in underlying costs and market dynamics. He
explained that the firm had relied on a report prepared by
the engineering firm Black and Veatch, and their model for
cost estimates and project cash flows, when examining the
economics of the project.
9:25:46 AM
Senator Bishop asked whether the firm had taken the Black
and Veatch models at face value, or had corresponding
models been run.
Mr. Bilicic responded that the Black and Veatch model was a
sufficient model on which the firm could base advice.
9:26:40 AM
Mr. Bilicic moved to Slide 9, which examined the cumulative
projected cash flows to the state over time. While the
state's upfront investment to fund construction of the
project was considerable, the investment was also projected
to generate material future cash flows. He shared that
during operations the project's revenues would be off-set
by operation maintenance expenses and overhead. He noted
that in 2026, positive cash flows were projected and would
off-set initial spending. He furthered that when the
project became operational the financial position of the
state and other owners would be materially de-risked.
9:28:30 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche asked whether the graph included loss
earning opportunity prior to 2027, and investment earnings
post 2027.
Mr. Bilicic replied that the graph only reflected the
project itself, and did not account for other investments.
He relayed that the evaluative criteria for the returns to
the state would be discussed later in the presentation.
9:29:56 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche assumed that the X and Y axis on the
slide would require a more extreme scale if the lost
opportunity and earning potential were included.
Mr. Bilicic replied that if all of the factors, both
positive and negative, were taken into account, the scale
would be different. He said that there would be a slide
presented at the end of the presentation that would reflect
the factors through the lens of the evaluative criteria. He
reiterated that the slide contained a very high-level
economic overview of the project.
9:31:23 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon pointed out to the committee that the
projections did not include TransCanada as part of the
project through fruition. She wondered how the slide would
look with the debt being purchased by someone else.
Mr. Bilicic replied that the analysis on the slides assumed
the state had all of 25 percent, and did not take into
account having a partner or sharing ownership interest. He
asserted that the slide was not intended to suggest
anything about arrangements with TransCanada.
Co-Chair MacKinnon understood that the legislature had
passed a bill including TransCanada as a partner. She asked
why that information was not part of the analysis.
Mr. Bilicic stated that the final report would take into
account the different financing alternatives, which would
include the potential of partnering with TransCanada and
finding other financing sources.
Co-Chair MacKinnon expressed concern that the December 2015
deadline for the involvement of TransCanada was quickly
approaching.
Mr. Bilicic replied that the TransCanada arrangement would
be examined in detail, but that the firm had yet to
establish a point of view on the matter.
9:34:23 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon argued that legislation had passed
establishing TransCanada as a partner; therefore,
TransCanada should be included in the firm's evaluation.
Mr. Bilicic said that in the interim report the firm had
tried to outline all of the possibilities for potential
financing, including the TransCanada arrangement.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether the administration had
instructed Lazard not to include TransCanada in the high-
level overviews.
Mr. Bilicic responded that no one had restricted the firm
in any respect. He relayed that the firm intended to give
an independent view of the project.
9:36:10 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche offered that it would be helpful for
the report to evaluate a range of partnership
possibilities.
Mr. Bilicic assured the committee that the final report
would make clear all of the options and the evaluations,
and the pros and cons of those options. He felt certain
that the conclusion of the final report would include more
than one financing plan.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asserted that the committee wanted to
understand the different dynamics that could affect the
profitability of the project and the state's expenditures
for the project.
Mr. Bilicic responded that that was the firm's objective
for creating the report.
9:38:16 AM
Mr. Bilicic presented Slide 10, "State of Alaska Financial
Overview":
· As of FY 2014, the State had ~$15.8 billion in its
budget reserve funds (i.e., the Congressional Budget
Reserve Fund and the Statutory Budget Reserve Fund)
· Over 2015 - 2017, the State's unrestricted general
fund expenses are projected to exceed unrestricted
general fund revenues by an average of ~$3.0 billion
· Over 2018 - 2024, annual expenses of $5.6 billion
are projected; revenue projections assume long-term
oil price of ~$118.58/barrel (vs. January 2015 spot
price of $48.87/barrel)
· By 2023, the State projects it will fully deplete
its budget reserve funds, creating a fund deficit
Mr. Bilicic relayed that the chart illustrated the need for
the state to have a new revenue source in the future. He
furthered that the chart depicted a material weakening of
the state's financial position in the coming years, which
was the period in which the project would need to be
financed. He noted that the projections were sensitive to
the assumed price of oil.
9:39:33 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked which budget forecast the firm had
used in their projections.
Mr. Bilicic believed that the firm had used the December
2014 DOR budget forecast.
9:40:25 AM
Senator Bishop commented that the firm would stand behind
the information presented in the final report.
Mr. Bilicic agreed. He thought that the state was looking
to affect real change with the project, and that Lazard was
eager to assist.
9:41:34 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche referred to Slide 10, and relayed that
there was doubt surrounding the survival of the state's
reserve accounts.
Mr. Bilicic agreed and noted that Lazard was mindful of the
need for an updated financial overview that would take into
account the shifting market.
9:42:57 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon said that the volatility of the price of
oil made the assumptions on Slide 10 particularly valuable.
9:43:23 AM
Mr. Bilicic presented Slide 11, which he explained was a
simplified view of the areas of risks and potential
mitigants within the project:
Potential Areas Of Risk
· Development
· Cost overruns
· Commercial
· Regulatory
· Commodity price
· Over-supply/competing projects
· Demand
· Other
Potential Mitigants
· Ongoing/iterative assessment of Project
feasibility
· Risk transfer provisions/third-party contracts
· Partner/sponsor marketing
· Political support and strategy
· Take-or-pay contracts/hedging strategy
· In-depth market analysis
· Delivery flexibility
· Other
9:45:16 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether the firm had identified
both short-term and long-term risks.
Mr. Bilicic explained that there was not usually a lot of
capital available in the early stages of development for
big projects, and smaller infrastructure projects. He said
that the capital that was available for those projects was
expensive; sponsors usually handled the capital for
themselves for such projects, or through equity partners.
He furthered that when it then became clear that a project
was going to be to be built, the value proposition swung
dramatically. He relayed that there was a value gap between
"green field" and "brown field" projects; brown field
projects had a lot of investors, green field projects did
not. He said that a later slide would illustrate how risk
in the project was higher for the state in the beginning
because there were so many unknown variables.
9:48:01 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche referred to several recently cancelled
LNG projects, and surmised it was due to the retraction of
capital from investors who were reassessing their finances
due to the value of oil. He asked how much current oil
prices figured into projections, versus assumptions
projected 25 years forward.
Mr. Bilicic related that the firm would advise the state to
examine the long-term average prices, the current price of
oil did not matter. He believed that the project could
provide the opportunity to reconsider the underlying
commodity price driver because of the nature of the
resource. He cited an LNG project in the Lower 48, which
applied Lower 48 gas prices to its index. He said that the
global oil price might not be a significant driver. He
added that in the LNG market the user was generally using
the product for gas distribution customers in a gas
utility, or burning the LNG in a gas power plant. He
thought that it would be difficult for nuclear power plants
to be built in the future and sustained as a resource, and
that a 24/7 renewable energy solution had yet to exist,
which he believed would drive the market in the future. He
related that oil was not a great generation resource going
into the future.
9:51:27 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered what safeguards the state
should put in place during the project's evaluation phase
in order to ensure against overexposure.
Mr. Bilicic opined that it would be impossible to eliminate
risk, but risk could be mitigated, which was primarily done
through rigorous independent analysis such as what Lazard
was currently formulating.
9:54:18 AM
Senator Bishop asked whether the risk would be weighted in
the final report.
Mr. Bilicic responded that he did not know. He shared that
the factors involved were typically difficult to weight,
and weighting them could create confusion or be misleading.
He said that the firm would identify the areas that they
believed were the most important areas of risk.
9:54:59 AM
Mr. Bilicic explained that the next section had been
intended to provide an overview of the framework with which
Lazard believed the state should use when thinking about
the projects and was meant to identify options in an
"outcome agnostic" manner.
9:55:44 AM
Mr. Bilicic presented Slide 12, "Preliminary Financing
Considerations". The state's financing strategy with
respect to the project would be largely determined by the
state's overall project funding requirement, its available
sources of funds and the "optimal" capital structure (e.g.,
debt/equity mix); these determinations are interrelated and
should be evaluated together, as illustrated on the slide:
1. The State must identify sources of funds (internal
and/or external) to provide the capital required to
invest in the Project
Source of Funds
State of Alaska
Permanent Fund
Power Cost Equalization Endowment (PCE) Fund
Other Funds
Balance Sheet/Borrowing Capacity
Alaska Entities & Individuals
Alaska Retirement Management Funds
Native Corporations
Municipalities
Residents
External Sources
Third-Party Equity Investors
Third-Party Lenders
Public Equity/Debt
Export Credit Agencies
2. The State can structure its economic interest in
the Project via a mix of debt and equity financing
structures
State Structuring Alternatives
Debt
Equity
3. Construction of the Project is expected to require
~$13.7 billion of capital in the scenario in which the
State invests in the Project on its own
State Financing Need
Gas Treatment Plant
$3.1 billion
Pipeline
$3.7 billion
LNG Plant
$7.0 billion
Total
$13.7 billion
9:57:43 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked for further explanation about PCE
as a funding source.
Mr. Bilicic said that PCE had simply been listed as an
option.
Co-Chair MacKinnon noted that there were potential
statutory issues related to using PCE funds for the
project.
9:58:28 AM
Mr. Bilicic moved to Slide 13, "Potential Project Funding
Sources", which further highlighted the various funding
sources potentially available to the state. He shared that
Lazard would be examining and evaluating the fund sources
in their final report.
9:59:37 AM
Senator Bishop asked whether federal loan guarantees could
be incorporated into the report.
Mr. Bilicic replied that support from governmental entities
should be considered, but he was not currently aware of
anything specificly available to the state.
Senator Bishop noted that he was referring to the 2004
Defense Military Authorization Spending Bill where a loan
for a different pipeline had been guaranteed.
10:01:09 AM
Mr. Bilicic moved to Slide 14, "Description of Structuring
Alternatives":
The State will need to evaluate the optimal financing
structure via which potential sources of funds are
invested in the Project. In general, the State could
structure these funds as either debt or equity
interests in the Project. More specifically, a
spectrum of structuring alternatives exists for both
debt and equity; each alternative offers different
risk and return profiles, as well as other
characteristics related to seniority/priority, payout
structure, governance rights and other features.
10:01:45 AM
Senator Bishop clarified that the "recourse debt' listed in
the slide would be considered the lowest cost debt. He
queried which of the equities would be the least expensive.
Mr. Bilicic replied that recourse would be the least
expensive, but would involve recourse to the state. He
suggested that recourse debt might not be the best course
of action for the state. He furthered that contingent
rights to equity tended to be cheaper, and that common
equity ownership could be the best way forward.
10:03:35 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether Lazard would be providing
an all-cash scenario under which the proposals could be
evaluated.
Mr. Bilicic responded that such a scenario would be done.
He added that the least expensive scenario would be to
finance the entire project with debt, but that the project
would need equity for support.
10:04:22 AM
Mr. Bilicic moved to Slide 15, "Illustrative Financing Cost
- Project Lifecycle":
The risk related to the Project's expected cash flows
will vary over time. In the early stages of the
Project's development lifecycle, financing costs are
likely to be highest, due to the perceived risks
associated with realization of the Project and,
therefore, future Project cash flows. As the Project
advances in its development lifecycle, the certainty
of future Project cash flows should increase and the
perceived risk associated with the Project should
decrease accordingly, leading to lower financing
costs.
10:05:36 AM
Mr. Bilicic moved to Slide 16, "Other Considerations":
The State might consider other alternatives to lower its
cost of capital, shift/mitigate risk, or otherwise
achieve its financing objectives. These alternatives
could include the following:
· Credit Support
o Guarantees by financially strong third parties
could potentially lower the overall cost of
debt associated with financing
· Insurance/Risk Mitigation
o The State could purchase insurance to provide
downside protection for various aspects of the
Project to shift certain risks to third parties
· Equity/Debt Syndication
o The State could syndicate (i.e., market to
third parties) its interest in the Project to
spread risks posed by the Project to other
parties and to provide liquidity to the State
at later stages of Project development
10:06:36 AM
Mr. Bilicic explained Slide 17, "Preliminary Selected
Evaluative Criteria." The slide noted that the final report
would provide specific analysis and recommendations with
respect to the project funding sources and capital
structure alternatives available to the state. The various
funding sources and capital structure alternatives would be
evaluated against the following criteria, among others, to
develop a recommended financing approach to the state:
potential impact on debt capacity/opportunity cost,
potential impact on Alaska credit rating, key risks, cost,
execution flexibility/feasibility, alignment of interests
among key parties.
10:08:00 AM
AT EASE
10:08:18 AM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Micciche spoke of the natural gas produced in
the Lower 48 due to fracking. He wondered how the state
would deal with the politics of the gasline, once it became
involved.
Mr. Bilicic replied that conversations concerning the
sequencing of finding customers for the LNG, and when
construction should start, were important. He said that the
structure of the state's ownership interest would need to
be clearly defined.
10:13:29 AM
Mr. Bilicic moved to Slide 18, "Recommended Next Steps":
In preparation for the delivery of the Final Report in
Fall 2015, Lazard will focus on the following areas of
analysis and interaction, among others:
· Continued participation in State legislative session
during Spring 2015, as required/requested
· Continued monitoring of global LNG market dynamics
other items, current commodity pricing environment
· Continued monitoring of Project developments (e.g.,
marketing agreements, offtake agreements,
partnership agreement, etc.) and potential impacts
on analysis of financing alternatives
· Further analysis of potential sources of funds
providers to gauge interest in and return
expectations for Project participation
analysis and interaction with key stakeholders,
including the Alaska Legislature
· Further analysis of potential capital structure
alternatives
alternatives via analysis and interaction with key
stakeholders, including the Alaska Legislature
· Further refinement of evaluative criteria
· Formation of potential financing alternatives (i.e.,
combinations of sources of funds and structuring
alternatives)
· Analysis of implementation issues associated with
potential financing alternatives
· Assessment of financing alternatives against
evaluative criteria
· Identification of optimal financing alternatives via
iterative process (i.e., in consideration of
evaluative criteria, implementation issues and other
factors)
· Drafting of Final Report
Department of Revenue and State advisors
10:15:07 AM
Senator Bishop asked how imperative it was for the state to
maintain its AAA credit rating.
Mr. Bilicic replied that he did not want to comment on what
the state's rating should be. He did not think that the
project would require AAA credit from any of the involved
parties. He shared that the issue would be commented on in
the final report.
10:16:32 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered how complicated it would be to
consider a sliding scale of through put, and whether
smaller diameter options would be part of the report.
Mr. Bilicic responded that Lazard had not been
contemplating a downsized project, but that capital and
cash-flow movement would be examined and guidance from the
legislature on the information covered in the report was
welcomed.
Co-Chair MacKinnon interjected that she had an interest in
exploring the AKLNG project versus the ASAP project.
10:18:46 AM
Mr. Bilicic moved to Slide 19, "Illustrative Process
Overview":
In preparing the Final Report, Lazard will identify a
range of potential discrete financing plans for State
investment in the Project; among other things, these
financing plans will consist of recommendations for
how the State should fund and structure its
investment. To determine the optimal financing plan
for the State, these alternatives will be iteratively
refined in consideration of the evaluative criteria
(as further developed) and potential implementation
issues (e.g., legal, regulatory, etc.)
Mr. Bilicic concluded that he could answer any remaining
questions.
10:20:55 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed housekeeping.
ADJOURNMENT
10:21:37 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:21 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 021715 AKLNG Project - Lazard Presentation.pdf |
SFIN 2/17/2015 9:00:00 AM |
AKLNG |