Legislature(2015 - 2016)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/16/2016 01:30 PM 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 | |
| Alaska Enterprise Agency Analysis: Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority | |
| Alaska Enterprise Agency Analysis: Alaska Energy Authority | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 16, 2016
1:37 p.m.
1:37:42 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:37 p.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
John Springsteen, Executive Director, Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority (AIDEA); Mike Catsi,
Director, Business Development and Communications, AIDEA;
Brenda Applegate, Controller, AIDEA; Sarah Fisher-Goad,
Executive Director, Alaska Energy Authority, Department of
Commerce, Community and Economic Development.
SUMMARY
ALASKA ENTERPRISE AGENCY ANALYSIS:
ALASKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT AUTHORITY
ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed the schedule.
^ALASKA ENTERPRISE AGENCY ANALYSIS: ALASKA INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT and EXPORT AUTHORITY
1:39:00 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon directed attention to an email sent by
her staff, containing 12 questions (copy not on file) asked
of the enterprise agencies. She explained that each agency
had taken a different approach when considering the
questions. She noted that the presentation being discussed
quoted the questions.
JOHN SPRINGSTEEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT AUTHORITY (AIDEA), stated that he
would be happy to answer questions as he was discussing his
presentation. He added that he had additional staff present
to answer questions of the committee.
Mr. Springsteen discussed the presentation "Alaska's
Development Finance Authority" (copy on file).
Mr. Springsteen turned to slide 2, "1a) What is your
Strategic Vision?"
Mr. Springsteen addressed slide 3, "1a) Strategic Vision":
· Create an investment-ready project portfolio for
the state of Alaska.
· Develop formal project finance banking
relationships with strategic investment partners.
Mr. Springsteen informed that AIDEA was a recipient and
conduit for a variety of Alaska-based business
opportunities and development plans. He furthered that a
number of sizeable projects came across AIDEA's desk, and
the authority played an important role in vetting the
projects and working with project proponents to move ideas
from the early stage to being investment-ready. He thought
that the next step for AIDEA was to prepare a portfolio of
investment-ready projects, and act as an intermediary
between project proponents and sources of project
financing. He mentioned banking relationships with
strategic investment partners.
Mr. Springsteen continued to discuss slide 3, and specified
that AIDEA had existing relationships with domestic and
foreign financing partners on a project-by-project basis.
He thought it was important for AIDEA to improve and
increase regular access to partner capital; whether it was
through private equity, pension funds, hedge funds, or
foreign banks. He believed AIDEA would benefit from more
formal arrangements through ongoing cooperation agreements
with potential project financing partners.
Senator Bishop asked if the project partners included
federal lending agencies.
Mr. Springsteen answered in the affirmative. He explained
that AIDEA engaged federal agencies for funding for large
capital projects in the context of a public-private
partnership. He continued that AIDEA considered the public
benefit of a public funding source, and qualified that
AIDEA was geared more toward private funding sources to
drive state development.
Senator Bishop asked if Mr. Springsteen was familiar with
the federal program involving new market tax credits.
Mr. Springsteen answered in the affirmative, and stated
that AIDEA had the ability to offer new market tax credits.
1:43:13 PM
Senator Dunleavy referred to the second bullet on slide 6:
· AIDEA provides affordable, long-term asset financing
for growing and diversifying Alaska's economy, and
for expanding job opportunities for Alaskans.
Senator Dunleavy wondered if Mr. Springsteen could point to
projects that were successful and that functioned to
diversify the economy.
Mr. Springsteen referred to the Red Dog Mine road and
ports; the Skagway Ore terminal, and the Ketchikan
shipyard. He relayed that AIDEA had partnered with the
federal government on the Camp Denali Readiness Center, at
the joint base Elmendorf-Richardson. He summarized that the
examples were projects that AIDEA had invested in, and were
providing returns and jobs for the state. He went on to
list the loan participation program, which supported
commercial and industrial businesses throughout the state.
He added that AIDEA had the ability to offer different
types of conduit bonds, whereby it accessed financing and
facilitated financing for different businesses. The
activity was similar to AIDEA functions in the beginning,
when it did not have a budget of its own to invest.
Senator Dunleavy asked what Mr. Springsteen considered to
be the largest, most successful project that gave a return
on investment.
Mr. Springsteen gave the example of the Red Dog Mine road
and port.
Senator Dunleavy asked if the road was developed in the
1980s or 1990s.
Mr. Springsteen informed that the Red Dog Mine road was
built in the mid to late 1980s, and was operating starting
in the 1990s.
Mr. Springsteen turned to slide 5, "1b) Value to the state
of Alaska":
AIDEA's mission is established by Statute. The
Authority was created by the legislature as a "public
corporation" to advance the economic prosperity of
Alaskans by diversifying the Alaska economy and
promoting the creation and retention of Alaskan jobs
(See AS 44.88.070)
With this background in mind, staff believes the Board
must counterbalance two competing interests:
-Provide an adequate financial return to the
State in the form of a cash dividend, as
contemplated by the Statute, versus
-Ensure the Authority retains the financial
capability to achieve its economic development
mission of the State.
Mr. Springsteen showed slide 6, "1b) Value to the state of
Alaska (cont'd)":
· AIDEA provides a sustainable and objective economic
development platform on which all opportunities are
vetted for their economic and financial feasibility.
· AIDEA provides affordable, long-term asset financing
for growing and diversifying Alaska's economy, and
for expanding job opportunities for Alaskans.
· AIDEA is a prudent caretaker of the state of
Alaska's financial assets, growing the state's
initial revolving fund investment of $332.5 million
into $1.67 billion.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked what tools were used to consider a
purchase price when AIDEA valued an asset.
Mr. Springsteen qualified that AIDEA went through a due-
diligence process, and carried the value on its books under
generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP); so if
there was orderly divestiture or acquisition, it would use
fair market value metrics.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if realized earnings were captured
on an annual basis, or if AIDEA booked unrealized earnings.
Mr. Springsteen relayed that under the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB), AIDEA was required to
report mark to market value.
1:47:06 PM
Mr. Springsteen read slide 7, "2) When was the Agency
created and how much state funds were invested?"
Mr. Springsteen showed slide 8, "2) AIDEA Creation." He
recounted that AIDEA had been created in 1967, and hoped it
would reach its 50th anniversary the following year.
Mr. Springsteen showed slide 9, "2) AIDEA Revolving Fund
Initial Capitalization (cont'd)":
· AIDEA was funded in the early 1980s with a $166
million loan portfolio and $23 million cash,
which provided initial funding for what is now
known as the Loan Participation Program.
· In the mid-1980s, to assist in the development of
the Red Dog Mine, the Project Development Program
was created and AIDEA received a loan portfolio
and cash totaling $143.5 million to support
financing the DeLong Mountain Transportation
System.
Mr. Springsteen read slide 10, "3)What is the current level
of funding from the Legislature?"
Mr. Springsteen addressed slide 11, "3) Current Legislative
Funding,":
· Operating Budget - $0.00
-AIDEA has historically self-funded its
operations.
· Current Legislatively Assigned Projects
-Interior Energy Project ($57.5 M)
-Ambler Mining District Industrial Access Project
($17.0 M)
· Other Recent Capital Appropriations
-Ketchikan Shipyard ($1.18M)
Mr. Springsteen added that AIDEA was subject to the
Executive Budget Act. He detailed that the appropriation
for the Ketchikan Shipyard was to relocate an electrical
substation.
Mr. Springsteen read slide 12, "4) What is the management
structure of the Agency?"
Mr. Springsteen turned to slide 13, "4) Management
Structure," which depicted a flow chart that showed
different areas of program functions, management, and board
and executive functions. He explained that staff reported
to the AIDEA Board of Directors, which consisted of: the
commissioner of Department of Revenue; the commissioner of
the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development (DCCED); and five successful Alaskan
businesspeople. He continued that he was in charge of
administering and overseeing the authority on behalf of the
board on a day to day basis. The finance and operations, or
"back office" unit, provided administrative services and
support services for AIDEA, including: accounting, IT
support, human resources, procurement, compliance, and
treasury. He described the "front office" unit, which
included: business development, commercial finance, project
development, asset management, and infrastructure
development. Additionally, the front office leaders played
key roles in suitability committees and investment
committees. He specified that the Chief Financial Officer
was critical in all bond issuances for the authority.
Mr. Springsteen turned to slide 14, "4) AIDEA \ AEA &
Consolidated Shared Services." He relayed that AIDEA shared
its back office with the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). He
noted that AIDEA covered 30 percent to 40 percent of back
office costs, while AEA covered 60 percent to 70 percent;
and the ratio was equivalent to the use of the resource. He
added that shared services provided benefits to the
organizations in terms of managing schedules, providing a
broader knowledge base, and separating duties to combat
fraud.
Mr. Springsteen read slide 15, "5) How many employees work
for the Agency? How are they funded?" and noted that he
would discuss three consecutive slides to address the
questions.
Mr. Springsteen showed slide 16, "5) Organizational Chart,"
and shared that AIDEA had 17 (filled) front office
positions which were self-funded.
Mr. Springsteen reviewed slide 17, "5) Organizational Chart
(cont'd)," and reiterated that AIDEA used and paid for 30
percent to 40 percent of back office shared services. He
expanded that there were 32 (filled) positions in the
shared services group.
1:50:15 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked for the total number of positions.
Mr. Springsteen explained that on slide 17, there were 21
authorized positions for the front office, 17 of which were
filled. He continued that for shared services there were 38
authorized positions, 32 of which were filled.
Mr. Springsteen turned to slide 18, "5) Organizational
Chart (cont'd)," which showed a combined flow chart of
AIDEA and AEA that illustrated shared services. Between the
two authorities, there were 85 filled positions, 21
vacancies, and 106 total authorized positions.
Senator Bishop asked if the authority was currently
recruiting or was fully staffed.
Mr. Springsteen stated that there were two positions AIDEA
wanted to fill in the front line staff area, while two
others might go unfilled.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if there was a way to re-
prioritize agency functions or eliminate programs so that
the positions did not have to be filled.
Mr. Springsteen commented that there was a balance between
doing as much as possible with what was available, or
cutting and doing less. He wondered if there was incentive
as enterprise development to have a full staff to execute
the mission of the authority.
Vice-Chair Micciche pointed out the 21 vacancies at the
authority, and he thought there was potentially $2 million
in savings during a difficult time in fiscal history. He
wondered why there was not a substantive reduction being
considered until the state budget had an opportunity to
recover.
Mr. Springsteen believed that AIDEA could execute cuts on
behalf of the legislature. He continued that the authority
was seeking direction regarding budget cuts. He expanded
that if the judgement of the legislature was to focus more
on enterprise development, he would request more staffing;
however, if the judgement was to curtail some authority
activities then AIDEA would adjust accordingly.
Co-Chair MacKinnon thought the matter would be addressed in
a later slide.
1:54:01 PM
Mr. Springsteen read slide 19, "6) Does the Agency generate
revenue?"
Mr. Springsteen discussed slide 20, "6) Excerpt from Annual
Report," which showed a page from the AIDEA annual report
entitled "FY15 Financials".
Mr. Springsteen showed slide 21, "6) Excerpt from Annual
Report (cont'd)," which showed an enlarged section from the
previous slide titled, "Revenues, Expenses and Changes in
Net Position." He detailed that AIDEA's revenue consisted
of loan interest, development project income, and
investment interest in other income. He highlighted the
line "Snettisham Project restricted income," which showed
the project interest expense paid to bondholders, and AEA
reimbursement for costs borne by AIDEA to cover AEA payroll
and shared services costs.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked Mr. Springsteen to look at the
line entitled, "Net increase/(decrease) in fair value of
investments." She acknowledged that it had been a tough
return year, particularly in the third and fourth quarter
of 2015, and wondered if Mr. Springsteen could speak to the
loss of almost $5 million in funds.
Mr. Springsteen pointed out that the net decrease related
to the GASB provision of mark to market, and was primarily
driven by AIDEA's investment portfolio of cash as it
evaluated a project for investment. He was unsure if he was
using the correct accounting terms, but elaborated that the
difference was due to realized but unrecognized gain or
loss. He clarified that there were not actual cash gains or
losses, rather the figure was just a reflection of where
the portfolio was. He added that AIDEA had not sold or
bought anything to recognize the gain or loss.
Co-Chair MacKinnon remarked that in the past year, GASB
required cities and states to start recognizing unfunded
pension liabilities. She wondered if such information was
reflected in the slide.
Mr. Springsteen referred the question to the AIDEA
controller.
1:56:46 PM
AT EASE
1:57:01 PM
RECONVENED
Mr. Springsteen read slide 22, "7) Does the Agency return a
dividend to the state? How much?"
Mr. Springsteen discussed slide 23, "7) Dividend History."
He recounted that since 1995 AIDEA had returned an annual
dividend to the state, and the total declared to date was
approximately $380 million.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if Mr. Springsteen had a
percentage to quantify the dividend total as compared to
total assets invested by the state.
Mr. Springsteen recalled that there had been $332.5 million
dollars originally invested by the state, and estimated
that the total dividends constituted 130 percent of what
was originally invested. He communicated that there was
another view of how AIDEA had used the original investment,
grown the net asset base, and returned a dividend. He
considered that after the original investment of $332.5
million, current net assets of roughly $1.3 billion, and a
return of $380 million in dividends to the state; there was
a total of $1.68 billion, which equated to about a 5
percent annual return.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if the state owned the projects,
or did an entity borrow money under the umbrella of the
state and own the projects.
Mr. Springsteen stated that there was a variety of
structures and arrangements; and the net assets at AIDEA
included investments, loan portfolio, and projects that it
had directly financed. He added that the net assets did not
include conduit issuances.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if the $1.3 billion in net assets
were owned by the state.
Senator Bishop commented that it would be interesting to
see the total generation of cash throughout the different
projects.
Vice-Chair Micciche stated he was enormously supportive of
the mission of AIDEA, and surmised that the dividend had
returned about 3 percent if averaged over ten years. He
wondered if there was a way of quantifying the ultimate
value of jobs and revenue that trickled down from the
projects that AIDEA had sponsored. He recognized that the
calculation would be a huge task.
Mr. Springsteen deferred the question to the business
development and communications officer, who would have
statistics regarding employment and economic multipliers.
2:00:41 PM
MIKE CATSI, DIRECTOR, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND
COMMUNICATIONS, AIDEA, stated that the authority could
generate the data after a comprehensive evaluation of
investments that had been made over the years. He noted
that multipliers changed each year, for each region, and
for each type of project and industry.
Vice-Chair Micciche remarked that AIDEA was created for a
much larger purpose than returning a 3 percent average
dividend over ten years. He wanted to understand the
history of the value of AIDEA, and how the authority
quantified the value.
Mr. Catsi specified that the agency considered direct jobs
created and retained (permanent and temporary), as well as
indirect and induced jobs from each project. He thought the
impact of every job created and impact of every million
dollars invested was considerable, and created a ripple
effect.
Co-Chair MacKinnon referred to slide 21, and pointed out
the net decrease of $4.9 million. She asked if the new
recording of unfunded pension liabilities was included in
the amount.
BRENDA APPLEGATE, CONTROLLER, AIDEA, stated that AIDEA had
implemented the new accounting standards regarding pension
obligation in FY 15 along with the rest of the state. She
specified that the pension obligation was reflected in the
net income reported for the year, but was not included in
the $4.9 million decrease in fair value of investments. She
noted that the pension obligation was included in general
and administrative expense, and furthered that AIDEA had
recognized a total pension expense of $1.249 million for FY
15 (which did not include medical benefits).
2:04:07 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if the amount of pension
obligation would be decreasing, and if AIDEA was
contributing towards the obligation in a different way.
Ms. Applegate conveyed that the authority contributed a 22
percent pension obligation to the state every pay period.
She relayed that there was a cost sharing plan. She was
unsure if the amount would go up or down, but hoped that it
would go down. She thought that AIDEA would get more
information on its allocated portion from the state plan at
the end of the year.
Co-Chair MacKinnon referred back to a bullet on slide 6:
· AIDEA is a prudent caretaker of the state of
Alaska's financial assets, growing the state's
initial revolving fund investment of $332.5
million into $1.67 billion.
Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered if a different number than what
was reflected on the slide had been discussed at another
point in the presentation.
Mr. Springsteen clarified that the $1.67 billion indicated
on the slide included both the net assets and the $380
million that had been given in dividends to the state. When
looking at an enterprise, AIDEA considered the initial
capital provided; then the return on capital employed
included the growth, assets, and dividend.
Vice-Chair Micciche asked for a description of the
difference between the dividend in 2005 versus the dividend
in 2011. He wondered what kinds of factors had resulted in
the 300 percent difference.
Mr. Springsteen stated that multiple factors influenced the
dividend amount, including mark to market accounting
provisions. He remarked that AIDEA had not had a write-down
of assets for an AIDEA-approved project since 2000. He
added that general market conditions also impacted the
dividend.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if taking on new risks or new
projects affected the dividend.
Mr. Springsteen answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Springsteen read slide 24, "8) Is the Agency able to
receive Federal funds? Is the Agency able to leverage
Federal funds?"
Mr. Springsteen addressed slide 25, "8) Use of Federal
Funds":
· AIDEA has the statutory authority to receive federal
funds (see AS 44.88.080 - In furtherance of its
corporate purposes, the authority has the following
powers in addition to its other powers: (9) to
accept gifts, grants, or loans from, and enter into
contracts or other transactions regarding them with,
a federal agency, an agency or instrumentality of
the state, a municipality, a private organization,
or other source).
· Importantly, AIDEA also has the ability to leverage
federal tax-exempt financing as well as tax credit
programs (e.g. New Markets Tax Credits, Investment
and Production Tax Credits).
Mr. Springsteen read slide 26, "9) What are your Agency's
capital assets?"
Mr. Springsteen presented slide 27, "9) Audited Net Book
Values at 6/30/15":
· Development projects - $296,528,000
· Other assets - $37,002,000
· Snettisham Project assets - $78,419,000
Mr. Springsteen summarized that AIDEA's net value of assets
totaled approximately $411 million. With the addition of
the loan portfolio, the total was approximately $600
million. He added that the numbers given were net book
value; and in the case that an orderly liquidation was
considered, fair market value would need to be applied.
2:08:14 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked about AIDEA's total available bond
debt capacity.
Mr. Springsteen stated that the question would be addressed
later in the presentation.
Mr. Springsteen read slide 28:
10a) Does the Agency have bonding authority?
10b) What are bonds issued for?
10c) What is the current outstanding Debt?
10d) What is the bonding capacity?
Mr. Springsteen presented slide 29, "10a) Does Agency have
bonding authority?":
· Yes, taxable and tax-exempt revenue bonds, such as
Industrial Development Bonds, 501(c)(3) Bonds, and
Private Activity Bonds.
· AIDEA also issues general obligation (GO) bonds.
Mr. Springsteen thought it was important to note that the
AIDEA general obligation bonds were solely backed by AIDEAs
assets, which were (by statute) separate from the state.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if there was a moral obligation by
the state.
Mr. Springsteen answered in the negative.
Mr. Springsteen looked at slide 30, "10b) What are bonds
issued for?":
· AIDEA may issue bonds to pay the cost of a project
or development projects or in order to provide money
for the authority's purposes under statute
(AS44.88.080 (7)).
Mr. Springsteen discussed slide 31, "10b) What are bonds
issued for (cont'd)?":
· AIDEA has issued 317 conduit revenue bonds for a
total of $1.36 billion. Bonds issued under this
program include:
-Aircraft/Aircraft facilities
-Bulk Fuel storage and distribution
-Hotels, motels, and lodges
-Office space
-Warehousing/storage
-Retail
-Hospitals/clinics
-Processing/manufacturing facilities
-Car rental facility
-Hydroelectric dams
· Project Revenue Bonds
-Snettisham Hydroelectric facility
· AIDEA General Obligation Bonds
-Delong Mountain Transportation System
-Water and wastewater facility
-Fedex Hangar
-Skagway Ore Terminal
Mr. Springsteen commented that for conduit revenue bonds,
AIDEA was neither an owner nor guarantor, and was solely a
facilitator. Bonds were backed only by the project, or
facility revenue and assets. He discussed the Snettisham
Hydroelectric facility, which was owned by AIDEA but had
bonds backed by project revenues and assets. He added that
for AIDEA general obligation bonds, the authority's assets
and revenues secured bondholders, and the bonds were
separate from the state.
Mr. Springsteen turned to slide 32, "10c) What is current
outstanding debt?":
· Outstanding Debt as of 6/30/2015:
-Total Bonds - $134,655,000
o Snettisham Hydro
o Red Dog Port Facility (Refunding)
o Loan Participation
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if there were figures to quantify
the foreclosure rate or lack of payment rate on some of the
instruments the authority held.
Mr. Springsteen stated that AIDEA had a default rate on
loans that was below that of the current market in the
state. He offered to provide the committee with the exact
figure. He added that AIDEA had not had a write-down on an
AIDEA-approved project since 2000.
Senator Olson asked about the Red Dog Port Facility
"refunding" that was indicated on slide 32.
Mr. Springsteen explained that the bonds for the Red Dog
Port Facility were refunding bonds. He continued that AIDEA
did an early bond issuance with a high rate; after which
someone would issue a refunding bond to pay down the
original bondholders in order to lower the rate on the
bond. The reference to "refunding" on slide 32 had
pertained to refunding high rate bonds with lower rate
bonds.
Senator Olson asked what the affect would be on people
within the borough who were involved in the facility.
Mr. Springsteen clarified that the agreement for the use of
the Red Dog Mine Road and Port was separate from the bond
issuances.
2:12:19 PM
Senator Bishop asked when the Snettisham bonds would
mature.
Mr. Springsteen relayed that AIDEA had recently issued
refunding bonds to save money for Snettisham users in
Juneau. He offered to prepare a schedule of bond maturity
for the committee.
Mr. Springsteen addressed slide 33, "10d) What is the
bonding capacity?":
· AS 44.88.095 places a statutory ceiling of $400
million per twelve month period on AIDEA bond
issuances, excluding refunding bonds.
· Bonds over $25 million require legislative approval.
· Bonds over $10 million require local support.
Mr. Springsteen used the examples of the Bokan and Niblack
mining projects in Southeast as instances of bonds over $25
million requiring legislative approval.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked for clarification regarding the
statute referenced on slide 33 (AS 44/88.095). She wondered
if AIDEA could issue $400 million within any 12-month
period, or if there was a cap of $400 million.
Mr. Springsteen stated that within any 12-month period,
AIDEA could issue only up to $400 million in bonds.
Senator Bishop asked if AIDEA had a ceiling, and if so,
what it was.
Mr. Springsteen stated that the ceiling was a "moving
target" and dependent upon what projects had been provided
with direct finance, and what amount of collateral and
assets were on hand.
Co-Chair MacKinnon thought she understood that there was no
ceiling limit, but rather $400 million in authority over a
rolling 12-month period.
Senator Bishop thought he understood the same thing, but
suggested that Mr. Springsteen had provided a caveat.
Co-Chair MacKinnon referred to a debt/credit report that
had been presented to the committee, which had indicated a
total bond debt calculation of around $7 billion. She was
trying to understand if the state's enterprise agencies
were committing the state, while Mr. Springsteen had
suggested AIDEA's debt was not an obligation of the state.
She wanted to ascertain what the enterprise agencies were
doing with credit and how it might or might not affect the
state's credit rating.
Mr. Springsteen thought part of the value of AIDEA was that
it had some independence and provided obligations only on
its assets, rather than those of the state.
Vice-Chair Micciche asked to address slide 32, and thought
that the outstanding liability on Snettisham was $78
million.
Mr. Springsteen answered in the affirmative.
Vice-Chair Micciche asked for a breakdown of the other
items in the outstanding debt category, to include Loan
Participation, and the Red Dog Port Facility.
2:16:12 PM
Ms. Applegate provided details on the total outstanding
bond debt of $134,655,000 on slide 32. She stated that as
of June 30, 2015; outstanding debt for the Snettisham
Hydroelectric project was $69,955,000. She clarified that
there were other non-bond liabilities related to the
project that brought the total to $79 billion. She
continued that the Red Dog Port Facility refunding bonds
were in the amount of $52,185,000; and bonds related to
Loan Participation were in the amount of $12,515,000.
Mr. Springsteen read slide 34, "11a) Can you identify any
other state entities or private corporations in Alaska that
may provide the same or similar services as your Agency?"
Mr. Springsteen showed slide 35, "11) Similar Agencies":
· There are no state agencies or authorities that
provide the same set of financing tools as AIDEA.
· On a national basis, AIDEA is unique in its
ability to:
-Work with banks
-Issue its own bonds
-Participate in public-private partnerships
through multiple methods
Mr. Springsteen elaborated that AIDEA had a limited amount
of overlap with AEA's Power Project Loan Fund (PPF), under
which it made energy-related loans. He continued that PPF
could be offered at below market rates and terms. In
contrast, AIDEA's energy loans were indexed at market rates
or were made under its loan participation program in
conjunction with Alaska banks and credit unions where
commercial underwriting standards applied. He added that
AIDEA did not offer grants; and did not offer any housing
financial instruments, so did not compete with private
residential mortgage lending or with Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation (AHFC). He noted that AIDEA small business
loans were administered by DCCED.
Mr. Springsteen read slide 36, "11b) Is your agency subject
to the state procurement code?"
Mr. Springsteen turned to slide 37, "Procurement
Regulations":
· Yes in a limited fashion. The state procurement
code, AS 36.30.015(f) reads:
-"…the membership of the Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority, notwithstanding AS
44.88.085, …shall adopt regulations under AS 44.62
(Administrative Procedure Act) …to govern the
procurement of supplies, services, professional
services, and construction for the respective public
corporation and board. The regulations must reflect
competitive bidding principles and provide vendors
reasonable and equitable opportunities to
participate in the procurement process and must
include procurement methods to meet emergency and
extraordinary circumstances. Notwithstanding the
other provisions of this subsection, …the Alaska
Industrial Development and Export Authority, …shall
comply with the five percent preference under AS
36.30.321(a)."
As directed by the state procurement code AIDEA has
established regulations under the Alaska
Administrative Code Title 3 Chapter 100
Mr. Springsteen specified that that AIDEA adopted
regulations to establish competitive bidding processes and
to deal with extraordinary circumstances.
Co-Chair MacKinnon thought that AIDEA was largely operating
outside of the state procurement process.
Mr. Springsteen concurred, and noted that flexibility in
procurement was desirable as AIDEA worked with private
industry to develop in the state.
Mr. Springsteen read slide 38, "12) Does the Agency have
any outstanding liabilities the Legislature should be aware
of?"
Mr. Springsteen discussed slide 39, "Outstanding
Liabilities":
· Total Liabilities at 6/30/2015 - $205,271,000
-Bonds
-Pension Liability
-Advances from State of Alaska
-Liabilities from restricted assets
-Operational liabilities
-Loan Guarantees (contingent liability)
· Commitments to fund projects and loans at 2/29/2016
- $66,506,000
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked how much in advances AIDEA had
from the State of Alaska.
Mr. Springsteen went back to slide 11, pointing out that
current legislatively assigned projects included an
appropriation for $57.5 million for the Interior Energy
Project, and $17 million for the Ambler Mining District
Industrial Access Project. Additionally, there had been an
appropriation of $1.18 million for the Ketchikan Shipyard
project in 2015.
2:20:22 PM
Senator Bishop asked for the fund balance on the Ambler
Road project. Mr. Springsteen shared that the fund balance
was roughly $8.5 million, with $3.6 million approved in
accord with the first part of the environmental impact
statement process.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if there were similar totals for
the Fairbanks Energy Project.
Mr. Springsteen deferred to the Interior Energy Project
team lead - Gene Therriault, Deputy Director, Statewide
Energy Policy Development, Alaska Energy Authority, DCCED. He
conveyed that Mr. Therriault was testifying in another
committee, and offered to provide the information at a
later time.
Mr. Springsteen conveyed that additional slides were part
of an appendix, and solely for the committee's review.
Senator Bishop asked for a high-level prediction of what
AIDEA was considering for bringing new revenue to the
state.
Mr. Springsteen stated that AIDEA continued to look at
mining prospects, as well as oil and gas development
opportunities. He continued that AIDEA had made some
investments to support tourism in the state. He used the
example of the Icy Point Strait dock, a cruise ship dock
for which the authority had loaned funds. He mentioned
early-stage ideas such as a fish processing project that
AIDEA was discussing with the Division of Economic
Development at DCCED. He summarized that there were a
number of concepts that the authority continued to follow,
while it considered timing as conditions were improving in
mining and other markets.
Vice-Chair Micciche referred to slide 41, "Analysis &
Decision-Making," and envisioned that AIDEA had many
projects in different phases. He thought that if the
legislature were to freeze important developments in the
state, it would exacerbate the need for recovery from low
oil prices. He reiterated that he was supportive of AIDEA's
mission, and wondered if there were promising projects
working through the phased approach. He inquired if AIDEA
cultivated investors in the state, or waited for people
with development ideas to approach the authority.
Mr. Springsteen explained that AIDEA had been engaged in
more proactive activity, while soliciting cooperation with
other investors as well as looking towards different
development opportunities in the state. He mentioned
Administrative Order 281 (issued by the governor), and
asserted that AIDEA was looking forward to increased
collaboration for asset review with the Department of
Natural Resources and the Department of Administration.
2:25:01 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon commented that the committee was looking
at systemic ways to change the way the state did business.
She referenced Mr. Springsteen's comments about the desire
to understand what the legislature was asking of AIDEA. She
reiterated that the legislature was looking for system
change and thought it had been alluded to in some of the
questions that had been asked, including regarding bond
debt totals. She was glad to know that AIDEA's endeavors
were not creating additional pressure on the state's credit
rating, and appreciated dividends that had been provided to
the state. She expressed concern over pension liabilities,
as well as high-paid positions in agencies.
Vice-Chair Micciche thought Co-Chair MacKinnon had stated
the matter fairly. He commented that the legislature was
asking every state agency to operate as efficiently as
possible, and did not think that AIDEA should be excluded
from the exercise. He thought it was important to look for
efficiencies without compromising the ability to perform.
He thought that there was a tendency for retraction from
new investment during difficult economic times. He noted
that Fortune 500 companies that operated at the highest
levels were able to identify opportunities during economic
downturns. His goal for AIDEA was to reevaluate any open
positions.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked Mr. Springsteen to make the
committee aware of anything on AIDEA's books that reflected
any projects or loans in default.
Mr. Springsteen agreed to provide the information.
2:28:28 PM
AT EASE
2:31:15 PM
RECONVENED
^ALASKA ENTERPRISE AGENCY ANALYSIS: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY
SARAH FISHER-GOAD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA ENERGY
AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, discussed the presentation "Alaska Energy
Authority," (copy on file). She stated that additional AEA
staff were available to answer questions. She noted that
(AEA) had addressed the questions from the committee by
grouping them into like categories within the presentation.
Ms. Fisher-Goad presented slide 2, "Alaska Energy
Authority":
· AEA is an independent and public corporation of the
State of Alaska, est. 1976
· 44.83.070: "The purpose of the Authority is to
promote, develop, and advance the general prosperity
and economic welfare of the people of the state by
providing a means of financing and operating power
projects and facilities that recover and use waste
energy and by carrying out the powers and duties
assigned to it under AS 42.45."
Ms. Fisher-Goad advised that one of the primary things that
AEA had done upon its formation was to develop and own
large-scale power projects. On a smaller scale, AEA had
also developed district heating projects and small-scale
electrical systems. Additionally, AEA managed the Power
Cost Equalization (PCE) program, which had been in
existence for over 30 years.
Ms. Fisher-Goad showed slide 3, "AEA Programs," which
displayed lists of the programs, projects, and AEA-owned
infrastructure that the authority managed. She detailed
that many of the programs had (in ways) been in existence
since the beginning of the AEA program. She thought power
houses and bulk fuel tank farms had become a primary
purpose of the authority in the early 2000s. She mentioned
Denali Commission funds, the Renewable Energy fund, and the
Emerging Energy Technology Fund program.
Ms. Fisher-Goad turned to slide 4, "AEA's Strategy, Purpose
and Core Values":
· Purpose: To develop and deliver optimal energy
solutions for Alaska's communities
· Mission: To reduce the cost of energy for Alaskans
· Core Values:
o Respectful: Demonstrating high regard for
communities, integrating local perspectives
o Responsible: Being prudent and ethical stewards
of Alaskans' resources
o Innovative: Seeking new ideas and methods and
adapting to changing conditions
o Passionate: Enthusiasm for and commitment to
our work team and improvement
Ms. Fisher-Goad remarked that AEA's return to the state was
about managing the appropriations in existing programs, and
making sure it was providing the best return to the
communities that benefitted from energy programs and
projects.
Ms. Fisher-Goad spoke about slide 5, "Rural Energy
Systems":
· AEA is the state entity that serves rural Alaska
from planning to construction of energy systems and
from utility, bulk fuel and power house training to
emergency response.
Ms. Fisher-Goad commented that AEA's rural energy systems
were one of its more unique areas of operation, and one
with a great deal of history and expertise within the
state. AEA was the only entity to serve rural Alaska
through planning and constructing energy systems for
community utilities, bulk fuel, and powerhouses. She
explained that once the infrastructure was constructed, AEA
had programs with training, circuit-rider assistance, and
emergency response when needed.
2:35:25 PM
Ms. Goad addressed the question of whether a private
corporation or entity could provide similar services to
AEA. She relayed that AEA funding was from federal or state
dollars, and it utilized private contractors for work being
done.
Ms. Fisher-Goad showed slide 6, "Communities Benefit from
Rural Infrastructure Investments," and slide 7,
"Contractors Benefit from Rural Infrastructure
Investments," noting that of the last six Rural Power
System Upgrade (RPSU) projects that AEA had done, almost 70
percent had utilized contractors through a competitive
bidding process.
Senator Bishop had heard from private contractors that they
would like to see more AEA project work within the private
sector. He asked Ms. Fisher-Goad to comment on the matter.
Ms. Fisher-Goad stated that AEA did utilize contractors in
the private sector, and furthered that she had a report
with detailed information about the process that listed
contractors that AEA had used in the past. She reiterated
that 70 percent of projects used contractors after a
competitive bidding process. She drew attention to the
graph on slide 7, noting that the blue section was related
to engineering firms, and the green sections were
representative of the various parts of powerhouse modules.
Ms. Fisher-Goad continued that there were remote utility
workers that were employed by AEA who worked and managed
the projects on behalf of communities. She emphasized that
AEA strove to use the private sector as much as possible
and stated that the purpose of slide 7 was to demonstrate
how much of the work went to the private sector to build
projects. She discussed the ongoing work AEA did with
communities and the significantly increased expense to pay
a complete bid for a project. She thought AEA was
maximizing private sector contractors as much as possible,
and was looking at module labor as one area in to utilize
more private contractors.
2:38:54 PM
Ms. Fisher-Goad continued to discuss RPSU projects. She
discussed earlier work using federal funds from the Denali
Commission, and noted that the powerhouses being updated at
the time were wooden structures in rural Alaska. The Denali
Commission had wanted AEA to work on development of steel-
frame structures, for powerhouses to last for 50 years. She
discussed work that AEA had done to develop a module that
had a greater life span. She recounted building the modules
in Anchorage using contracted work, and then moving the
modules out to the community.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that there were assertions that
individuals who went to work for AEA and then left the
authority and became contractors, while charging more funds
and taking jobs from the private sector. She wondered if
there was a code of conduct or code of ethics that would
prevent such an occurrence.
Ms. Fisher-Goad expressed that she was hearing the
assertion for the first time. She had been with AEA for 15
years, and could not think of an individual that had
previously worked for AEA and later worked as an AEA
contractor. She continued that she had a report that
provided greater detail on the competitive bidding process,
as well as more detail on the amount of bids and who was
awarded. She thought the information would elucidate more
background on AEA's work and its utilization of the private
sector.
2:42:43 PM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if AEA did sole-source
contracting, or if it had a competitive bid process that
compared costs.
Ms. Fisher-Goad stated that AEA had several engineering
contracts and some construction managers that had completed
an up-front and competitive process. She furthered that AEA
had a shared services procurement staff with AIDEA.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if similarities would be found if
the current contracts were examined and compared to a state
payroll list.
Ms. Fisher-Goad agreed to provide the relevant information.
Senator Bishop asked if AEA had a separation package that
included a "no compete" provision for up to a year.
Ms. Fisher-Goad stated that all AEA employees would follow
the Executive Branch Ethics Act, which would limit the work
that an employee could participate in post-employment.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that the issue was brought to her
attention when she served in the other body, and then again
three years previously. She thought the issue was not new.
Ms. Fisher-Goad discussed the reasons for the generation of
the report, which included the subject of competing with
the private sector. She considered that AEA had a
responsibility for the investment that the federal
government and the state had made in the projects. She
suggested that AEA utilized the private sector, but did not
compete with the private sector. She emphasized
implementing a process, and applying public dollars in the
most effective way possible to benefit the communities.
2:46:02 PM
Ms. Fisher-Goad presented slide 8, "Contractors Benefit
from Rural Infrastructure Investments," which depicted a
bar graph entitled "AEA Bulk Fuel Upgrade Combined Project
Summary." She stated that the slide was similar to the
previous slide in showing the amount of work that went to
private sector contractors.
Ms. Fisher-Goad showed slide 9, "Procurement Delegations,"
which showed two flow charts representing AIDEA and AEA.
The slide showed that procurement employees worked on both
AIDEA and AEA. She continued that AEA was subject to the
State Procurement Code for all its projects, such as the
work for the Susitna-Watana Dam project or any of the AEA-
owned assets. She continued that AEA also followed the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) system of rules under
the federally funded procurement process when working with
federal funds.
Ms. Fisher-Goad continued on slide 9, and detailed that
procurements done on behalf of grant recipients (such as
bulk fuel and RPSU projects) would fall under AAC Title 3,
Chapter 108 regulations. The regulations were adopted to
elucidate the process, as the projects were not
specifically subject to the state procurement code. She
noted that AEA procurement regulations were in parallel to
AS 36.30, and also followed the AIDEA non-exempt
procurement rules. She explained that AIDEA had an
allowance in the state procurement code that allowed it to
adopt its own rules to meet specific needs.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if Ms. Fisher-Goad was making a
distinction between procurements done on behalf of grant
recipients, in order to fit a rural community issue.
Ms. Fisher-Goad stated that when AEA developed a grant
agreement, primarily for bulk fuel and RPSU projects, it
was not subject to AS 36.60 (as for non-grant projects);
but rather to the AAC Title 3 Chapter 108 procurement
regulations developed by AEA. She added that because such
projects were grant agreements, AEA worked very closely
with the utility to ensure that it was working with
consideration of the energy infrastructure. She discussed
the level of service present on the grant projects, in
which AEA was able to provide oversight and construction
management if the community did not have the available
staffing.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if a grantee could have its own
procurement rules that had differences from state
procurement rules.
Ms. Fisher-Goad related that there were specific issues
that rural communities may have, and AEA was able to use a
flexible approach in the procurement process to meet the
needs of the community and the project. She used local
knowledge of right-of-way access as an example. She
reiterated that AEA used AAC Title 3, Chapter 108 as a
guiding process.
2:50:57 PM
Senator Bishop asked if AEA had a project that included
building a power plant for Kipnuk, Alaska.
Ms. Fisher-Goad answered in the affirmative.
Senator Bishop asked for the total dollar amount of the
project.
Ms. Fisher-Goad stated that there were several projects
happening in the area: a bulk fuel project, an RPSU
project, and an integrated wind project being worked on by
a private contractor. She agreed to get back to the
committee with the total dollar amount subject to the
Kipnuk project. She continued that there was a staff
recommendation from the Denali Commission to include $1
million in federal dollars to help fund the bulk fuel
facility to ensure relocation took place. She explicated
that there were some erosion issues present at the river,
and the bulk fuel portion of the project was waiting for
approval of the commission to complete funding for the
project.
Senator Bishop requested to have the total cost of the
power plant, with a breakdown of private contractor
involvement and AEA involvement.
Co-Chair MacKinnon concurred, and also wanted to see
information on the multiple projects that were in one
community, in order to see how the projects were awarded.
Ms. Fisher-Goad spoke about slide 10, "Owning and Financing
Energy Infrastructure":
· AEA has bonding authority and administers the Power
Project Loan Fund, as well as owns the Bradley Lake
Hydroelectric Project and the Alaska Intertie.
Ms. Fisher-Goad summarized that AEA had ownership and
participated in financing of energy infrastructure.
Ms. Fisher-Goad turned to slide 11, "State-owned Railbelt
Assets Benefit Ratepayers":
· AEA owns Railbelt energy infrastructure to the
benefit of ratepayers
o Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project provides 10
percent of the Railbelt's power at some of the
lowest
o Alaska Intertie is a debt
connects Northern and Southcentral utilities,
resulting in $60,000 in annual savings to
Fairbanks customers
Ms. Fisher-Goad discussed slide 12, "AEA Power Project Loan
Fund" which showed a spreadsheet entitled "Outstanding
Loans and Loan Commitments as of December 31, 2015." She
referred to earlier comments by Mr. Springsteen (AIDEA)
concerning the Power Project Loan Fund (PPF); and specified
that both the AIDEA Director of Commercial Finance, and the
AIDEA Chief Financial Officer sat on the AEA loan
committee. Further, AEA loan servicing was handled through
AIDEA shared services. She noted that statute required
technical, economic, and financial feasibility studies for
PPF; and the technical feasibility was handled by AEA's
subject matter experts. The AEA hydro-project manager
provided expertise on certain projects, and remote utility
workers and diesel experts also worked to help provide
technical assistance and feasibility analysis needed for
loans. She asserted that PPF was unique, due to the type of
programs as well as the statutory requirements that AEA had
to follow.
2:55:13 PM
Ms. Fisher-Goad addressed slide 13, "AEA Bonding
Authority,":
· AEA has bonding authority to issue revenue bonds for
capital projects
o Prior to 1993, bonds were issued for AEA
projects as part of the energy program for
Alaska
o No fixed
· 44.83.100
o AEA must have a revenue source to issue bonds,
likely a power sales agreement for a power
project
o 44.83.110: AEA can issue an moral obligation
ƒ 44.83.110(h) moral obligations must be
secured by a capital reserve fund with
notice and annual reporting to the state
bond committee and the Legislative Budget
and Audit Committee
o 44.83.100: AEA can enter into an agreement with
a private developer to contract to repay the
debt, including a provision to secure the bonds
(similar to AIDEA)
ƒ Municipal bond bank sets private activity
bonding capacity
Ms. Fisher-Goad stated that AEA did not have the ability to
issue AEA general obligation bonds because it did not
possess the assets or specific revenue source.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked to go back to slide 11, and
wondered how much the state paid for the Alaska Intertie,
and what the return on investment totaled.
Ms. Fisher-Goad thought the asset investment of the
intertie totaled $124 million. She stated that AEA did not
receive any type of revenue or return from the investment.
The utilities that were subject to the intertie agreement
paid for the management and the operation of the intertie.
Senator Dunleavy asked about the $60,000 in annual savings
listed on slide 11, and wondered if it was a result of
Fairbanks having the opportunity to be part of a
hydroelectric concept.
Ms. Fisher-Goad thought the number Senator Dunleavy
referred to was provided directly from the Golden Valley
Electric Association, and was strictly related to purchase
from a Southcentral utility, and did not incorporate
savings from power from the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric
Project.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if the state owned an asset for
which it was receiving zero value for. She acknowledged
that customers were getting $60,000 in savings from the
intertie.
Ms. Fisher-Goad answered in the affirmative. She continued
that the contractual relationship in many AEA projects were
not structured for the state to receive a return on
investment, and offered that the state provided low-cost
stable power to benefit Alaskans.
Senator Bishop wondered about future replacement costs and
thought it would be worth retaining a small portion of
assets for the eventuality.
Co-Chair MacKinnon associated herself with Senator Bishop's
comments.
2:59:24 PM
Vice-Chair Micciche summarized that the Alaska Intertie
made natural-gas-fired excess electricity available to the
Interior. He wanted to see the actual annual savings, and
mentioned high fuel prices. He thought it was important to
consider how to pay for projects when faced with different
economic conditions.
Ms. Fisher-Goad was happy to work with the committee on
statutory changes that would enable AEA to receive some
kind of return on investment. She understood that when the
program was developed, the primary objective had been to
reduce energy costs and provide benefit and value directly
to rate payers.
Vice-Chair Micciche brought up the concept of cost-
recovery, and thought that without it, the ability to help
further communities with infrastructure project needs would
be diminished.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if there was a contract in state
statute with regard to ownership and how the Golden Valley
Electric Association was utilizing the resource for
customers.
Ms. Fisher-Goad was not sure of the specifics of the
structure of the Alaska Intertie, and stated she would
provide the information at a later date. She pointed out a
difference with the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project. She
explained that the power sales agreement required an
obligation for utilities to pay back the initial state
investment equivalent to the bond/debt service. She
recounted that in 2021, approximately $12.5 million would
be paid annually to the state against its original
investment.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked if the amount encompassed a rate
of return, or was without interest.
Ms. Fisher-Goad thought the amount equated to a zero loan
proposal from the funds that were originally invested.
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked Ms. Fisher-Goad to give the
committee information regarding whether it was possible to
modify the intertie contract. She mentioned the Bradley
Lake Hydroelectric Project and also expressed curiosity
about the kilowatt hour charge.
Vice-Chair Micciche wondered about the connection between
AEA and the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program. He asked
if there was communication between the entities, and
wondered if there could be adjustments made when AEA
completed a project and brought down the cost of energy.
Co-Chair MacKinnon related that she had been discussing the
issue with Senator Hoffman, as they both served on the
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee. She noted that
Senator Hoffman was not present to offer comment, and she
ventured that he would argue that the costs were very high
and the PCE component was limited to 500 kilowatts. She
pointed out that the consumer that used in excess of the
limit of kilowatt hours would use a great deal more and pay
a higher cost. She thought the matter would be a valid
conversation topic, as would the subject of contracts.
3:04:50 PM
AT EASE
3:05:07 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that the committee would review
the remaining slides, and asked Ms. Fisher-Goad to provide
a written response to the 12 questions that had been sent
via email on March 11, 2016. She advised that she would
distribute the response to committee members, and suggested
that members send any remaining questions to her office so
as to get answers from AEA.
Senator Olson asked about slide 12, on which $232,000 was
listed for a project in Newtok, Alaska. He wondered if AEA
normally allowed financing to a community that would be
moving to another site.
Ms. Fisher-Goad stated that it was anticipated that the
assets could be moved to the new site when appropriate. She
noted that the facility in Newtok was a well-run utility,
and the community had done a very good job managing the
powerhouse.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that there was good information
in the remaining slides, and restated that she would get
written comments from AEA.
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed the schedule for the following
day.
ADJOURNMENT
3:07:42 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:07 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 031616 AIDEA Alaska Enterprise Analysis Senate Finance.pdf |
SFIN 3/16/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 138 |
| 031616 SFIN AEA Overview.pdf |
SFIN 3/16/2016 1:30:00 PM |
SB 138 |