Legislature(2023 - 2024)SENATE FINANCE 532
01/18/2024 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: Revenue Forecast | |
| 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
January 18, 2024
9:02 a.m.
9:02:55 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stedman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Donny Olson, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Jesse Kiehl
Senator Kelly Merrick
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Adam Crum, Commissioner, Department of Revenue; Dan
Stickel, Chief Economist, Department of Revenue.
SUMMARY
PRESENTATION: REVENUE FORECAST
Co-Chair Stedman commented that the committee would have a
discussion and consider a presentation on the revenue
forecast by the Department of Revenue. He remarked that the
presentation would consider economics and expenditures that
had changed.
^PRESENTATION: REVENUE FORECAST
9:04:02 AM
ADAM CRUM, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, relayed
that he would share the fall forecast presentation of
revenues coming into the state. He noted that Mr. Dan
Stickel, the Chief Economist for the department would be
presenting the forecast. He introduced Acting Tax Director
Brandon Spanos, who had extensive experience with the tax
division as well as the Internal Revenue Service.
Co-Chair Stedman asked Mr. Stickel to include discussion on
the per-barrel credit and the Willow Project.
9:05:15 AM
DAN STICKEL, CHIEF ECONOMIST, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
explained that the department had a white paper and
presentation pertaining to the Willow Project, created the
previous year and based on the spring forecast and was
available on the department's website. He relayed that he
department was in the process of updating the paper with
the fall forecast information, and would be happy to return
for a more in-depth discussion at a later date.
Mr. Stickel discussed a presentation entitled "Fall 2023
Forecast Presentation - Senate Finance Committee" (copy on
file). He reviewed slide 2, "Agenda":
1. Forecast Background and Key Assumptions
2. Fall 2023 Revenue Forecast
• Total State Revenue
• Unrestricted Revenue
3. Petroleum Forecast Assumptions Detail
• Oil Price
• Oil Production
• Oil and Gas Lease Expenditures
• Oil and Gas Transportation Costs
• Oil and Gas Credits
Mr. Stickel showed slide 3, "Forecast Background and Key
Assumptions."
Mr. Stickel referenced slide 4, "Background: Fall Revenue
Forecast":
1. Historical, current, and estimated future state
revenue
2. Updates key data from Fall Revenue Sources Book
3. Official revenue forecast used for final budget
process
4. Located at tax.alaska.gov
Mr. Stickel noted that the fall revenue forecast was
published in mid-December in the Revenue Sources Book
(RSB), which was the forecast that formed the basis for the
governors budget proposal. The department also completed a
spring update to the forecast that typically came out in
March or early April, which would contain a updated set of
revenue forecast assumptions to aid in final budget
decisions. He noted that the RSB did fill a statutory
requirement that the governor provide a revenue forecast as
well as a forecast to underline the ten-year plan, which
came out of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). He
noted that all the revenue forecast going back for decades
could be found on the website tax.alaska.gov.
Mr. Stickel turned to slide 5, "Fall Forecast Assumptions":
• The economic impacts of financial and geopolitical
events are uncertain; DOR has developed a plausible
scenario to forecast these impacts.
• Key Assumptions:
o Investments: Stable growth in investment
markets, 7.45 percent for FY 2024 and 7.20
percent for FY 2025+.
o Federal: The forecast incorporates stimulus
funding as of December 1, 2023, includes updated
estimates of potential IIJA funding.
o Petroleum: Alaska North Slope oil price of
$82.39 per barrel for FY 2024 and $76.00 per
barrel for FY 2025.
o Non-Petroleum: Continued economic growth. 100
percent of capacity assumption for 2024 cruise
season, three-year recovery for fishing industry,
minerals prices based on futures markets.
Mr. Stickel reminded the committee that the forecast was
one discreet scenario within a range of potential outcomes,
and always subject to potential uncertainty. The slide
outlined the key assumptions that were included in the fall
revenue forecast. He explained that the 2024 forecast of
investments used actual data through the end of October,
plus the 7.45 percent for the remainder of the fiscal year.
He noted that returns through the end of October had been
very poor but returns in the months of November and
December had been very strong. If the investment forecast
was done currently there would be a more robust investment
revenue for 2024 in particular.
Mr. Stickel noted that the forecast had followed the
futures market projections for the oil price forecast, with
prices decreasing over the next few years then stabilizing
around $70/bbl by the end of the forecast period. He noted
that the cruise ships and tourism forecast was based on
1.64 million annual visitors, similar to the previous
years record levels. He commented that 2023 was a poor
year for the fisheries values and prices, and there was an
assumption of a three-year recovery period for the
industry. For the mining industry, the forecasts price
outlook was based on futures market projections.
9:10:22 AM
Mr. Stickel considered slide 6, "Relative Contributions to
Total State Revenue: FY 2023," which showed a graphic
depiction of the relative value of various state revenue
sources for FY 23. He pointed out the three primary sources
of state revenue as federal, investment, and petroleum. //
He noted that Alaska did not have a statewide sales or
income tax at the personal level. He noted that while they
were relatively small, the industries outside three primary
revenue drivers were important to the economy of the state
and added up to 7.4 percent of total state revenue for 2023
Mr. Stickel displayed slide 7, "Relative Contributions to
Total State Revenue: FY 2024," which showed a similar
depiction as the previous slide but for revenues for FY 24.
He cited the top three revenue sources, which were
collectively estimated to provide a little over 89 percent
of total state revenue. He commented that federal revenue
was always significant, but was expected to be nearly half
of all state revenue in FY 24 with the inclusion of various
spending packages. All other revenue sources were at a
little over 10 percent.
Mr. Stickel showed slide 8, "Fall 2023 Revenue Forecast."
Mr. Stickel looked at slide 9, "Unrestricted Revenue
Forecast: FY 2023 and Changes to Two-Year Outlook," which
showed a table that summarized some of the key changes to
the unrestricted revenue forecast. He noted that the oil
price forecast for Alaska North Slope (ANS) oil had
increased by $9.39/bbl for FY 24 and by $6/bbl for FY 25.
The increases reflected updates to the futures market and
the most recent market activity. He noted a small decrease
to the Permanent Fund Transfer for the FY 25 forecast based
on the final performance for FY 23. The transfer for FY 25
as a known number for budget purposes. He pointed out an
increase of $228 million for the FY 24 forecast, and an
increase of $87 million for the FY 25 forecast. The higher
oil price was the primary reason for the increases,
slightly offset by lower oil production and higher company
spending.
Mr. Stickel addressed slide 10, "Total Revenue Forecast: FY
2023 to FY 2025 Totals," which showed a table with total
state revenue with all sources for FY 23 and revenue
forecast for FY 24 and FY 25. He noted that in the forecast
in the budget, revenues were broken down into four
categories of restriction. Unrestricted General Fund (UGF)
revenues could be appropriated by the legislature for any
purpose and were often the focus of budget and revenue
discussions. He explained that Designated General Funds
(DGF) were revenues technically available for
appropriation, but were customarily appropriated for a
specific purpose. He used the example of Alcohol Tax
revenue, which were customarily appropriated for drug and
alcohol treatment and prevention programs. He mentioned
other restricted revenues, which were dedicated in some way
and not available for appropriation. All federal revenues
were considered restricted revenues used for specific
purposes.
Mr. Stickel pointed out that for FY 23, total state revenue
from all sources was $15.5 billion. There was a forecast
$12 billion for FY 24, and $15.6 billion for FY 25. The UGF
portion was $7 billion for FY 23, and there was a forecast
of $6.5 billion for FY 24 and $6.3 billion for FY 25.
Mr. Stickel addressed the investment revenues for FY 24,
which showed some fairly large declines, particularly in
the DGF and other restricted categories. He noted that the
forecasts used actual returns through the end of October,
which showed some negative returns. If the forecasts were
updated based on the most recent information, there would
be a much more robust picture for FY 24.
9:16:21 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman noted that the legislature had passed
legislation limiting the draw of Unrestricted General Funds
from the earnings of the Permanent Fund to five percent. He
asked how $3.5 billion related to the legislation.
Mr. Stickel noted that a later slide would address Co-Chair
Hoffman's question.
Mr. Stickel advanced to slide 11, "Unrestricted Revenue
Forecast: FY 2023 to FY 2025 Totals," which showed a table.
He noted that investment revenue was one of the two largest
sources of unrestricted revenue, estimated to contribute
$3.6 billion in FY 24 and $37 in FY 25. Petroleum revenue
generated $3.1 billion of unrestricted revenue in FY 23 and
there was a forecast of $2.4 billion in FY 24 and $2.1
billion in FY 25. The various non-petroleum revenue sources
were expected to contribute about $455 million in
unrestricted revenue in FY 24 and $485 million in FY 25. He
noted that the following few slides would address the three
categories in more detail.
Mr. Stickel looked at slide 12, "Unrestricted Investment
Revenue: FY 2023 to FY 2025 Totals," which showed a table.
He pointed out that the Permanent Fund transfer alone was
expected to account for between 49 and 62 percent of the
states unrestricted revenue over the ten-year forecast. It
contributed $3.4 billion in FY 23 and was estimated to
contribute $3.5 billion in FY 24 and $3.7 billion in FY 25.
There was a small amount of other unrestricted general fund
revenue, which was primarily earnings on the General Fund
cash balances, which contributed about $98 million in FY 23
and was forecast to contribute slightly lower amounts in FY
24 and FY 25. The UGF revenue on the table represented the
trailing market value 5 percent of the Permanent Funds
value, which was a pretty stable revenue source. Any
earnings above or below the fund was shown as restricted
revenue, and could be more volatile from one year to the
next.
Co-Chair Hoffman thought Mr. Stickel had made an important
point, and thought it would be good to have the five-year
calculation as a slide for the public to understand.
9:20:05 AM
Mr. Stickel showed slide 13, "Unrestricted Investment
Revenue: Percent of Market Value (POMV) Transfer Forecast":
• Permanent Fund total return for FY 2023 of 5.18
percent.
• The statutory POMV rate changed to 5 percent
beginning FY 2022.
• For FY 2019 FY 2021 this rate was 5.25
percent.
• Forecast assumes Permanent Fund's long-term total
return expectation of 7.20 percent for FY 2025+; 7.45
percent for FY 2024.
• Differing Permanent Fund returns and petroleum
deposits could significantly alter actual POMV
amounts.
Mr. Stickel noted that there was a forecast for the percent
of market value (POMV) transfer for the following ten
years. The official forecast expected the transfer to be
fairly stable at around $3.5 billion per year. The slide
was based on real 2024 dollars, and in nominal terms the
draw would increase to about 4.4 billion by the end of the
forecast period. He reiterated that the forecasts used
actual revenue at the end of October in the official
forecast calculation, and if it were to be updated with
more current information the transfer would be a little
higher. The graph on the slide showed a high case and low
case that represented a tenth percentile probability of how
high or low the transfer could be if investment markets
were to over or under perform from the official forecast.
Senator Kiehl referenced the low case on the POMV transfer
graph on the slide. He recalled the previous year the
Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC) was in committee
and shared concerns about some scenarios where the Earnings
Reserve Account (ERA) ran short. He thought that APFC had
referenced the scenario with a likelihood of over 10
percent. He asked Mr. Stickel to address the departments
risk assessment.
Mr. Stickel explained that the slide was developed with the
assumption that the ERA would be able to pay out the POMV
every year. The department was not considering any
potential ERA failure on the slide.
Commissioner Crum followed up to say that part of APFCs
initial concern regarding the ERA balance had to do with
POMV draw distribution in future years, along with
inflation-proofing. He recalled that APFC had considered a
low, mid, and high case risk assessment.
Senator Kiehl interpreted that DOR was assuming that if the
low case were to materialize, the state would pause
inflation-proofing and there would be a 10 percent chance
it would be okay.
Commissioner Crum noted that the slide only addressed the
POMV draw. He mentioned further information in the RSB.
Senator Bishop asked if there had been discussion in the
department related to legislation collapsing the POMV into
the corpus of the Permanent Fund.
Commissioner Crum shared that the topic had been an ongoing
discussion and shared that there had been an outstanding
resolution of the APFC Board of Trustees since 2001. He
mentioned a paper from 2020 addressing the matter. He
mentioned modernizing the principles of the two funds.
There had been a conversation with the governor, but he was
not aware of where the matter stood in terms of
legislation. He mentioned robust markets and positive
upticks in the fund balances. He thought the conversation
would be ongoing.
Co-Chair Stedman noted that the committee would be having
presentations from the APFC. The committee would consider
several issues related to the Permanent Fund, including the
ERA and sustainability. He referenced the chart on slide
13, and asked if there was an assumption of 2.5 percent
inflation going forward.
Mr. Stickel answered affirmatively.
Co-Chair Stedman noted the 7.2 percent assumed return and
retaining purchasing power.
Mr. Stickel answered affirmatively.
Co-Chair Stedman thought it was necessary to be aware that
the draw rate was above the return rate plus inflation. He
thought it important to look at the draw rate if
contemplating combining the funds.
9:26:31 AM
Mr. Stickel referenced slide 14, "Unrestricted Petroleum
Revenue: FY 2023 to FY 2025 Totals," which had a table
showing the four main sources of petroleum revenue. He
explained that the state levied a property tax on all oil
and gas property in the state, which generated a little
more than $125 million per year. He noted that there was
also a municipal tax on the property as well, which
generated $480 million for municipalities in FY 23 and
about $448 million in FY 22. The state levied a corporate
income tax on qualifying corporations doing business in the
state that generated $312 million from oil and gas
corporations in FY 23, and was forecast to generate $240
million in FY 24 and $300 million in FY 25.
Mr. Stickel continued that the oil and gas production tax,
which was the states severance tax on petroleum, for North
Slope production was a net profits tax with a gross minimum
tax floor. He mentioned tax credits that could apply
against the net profits portion of the tax. At current
prices, it was forecast that some but not all companies
would be paying at or above the tax floor. The production
tax was expected to bring in about $938 million in the
current fiscal year, and about $642 million in FY 25.
Royalties from oil and gas production on state land brought
in about $1.2 billion in FY 23, and about $1.1 billion was
forecast for FY 24. In addition to the UGF portion of
royalties, there was also a significant royalty revenue
that was considered restricted revenue, including the
portions deposited into the Permanent Fund and the School
Fund. He noted that later in the presentation there would
be details about some of the key assumptions underlying the
petroleum revenue forecasts.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if Mr. Stickel would address
production tax.
Mr. Stickel relayed that he was happy to do it or revisit
the topic after the petroleum revenue assumptions.
Mr. Stickel turned to slide 15, "Unrestricted Non-Petroleum
Revenue: FY 2023 to FY 2025," which showed some additional
detail on the non-petroleum revenue forecast. He pointed
out that the largest portion was taxes, and typically the
corporate income tax was the largest portion. Corporate
income tax from non-petroleum companies generated $124
million in FY 23 and was forecast to generate $130 million
for FY 24 and $160 million for FY 25. The increase was
expected to continue beyond FY 25, which was a broad-based
assumption based on general economic growth as well as
recovery from sectors like mining and tourism. He listed
other significant taxes such as the Mining License Tax,
Insurance Premium Tax, Fisheries Tax, and excise taxes. In
addition to taxes, there were other non-petroleum revenues,
including a variety of things like licenses and permits,
fines and forfeitures, charges for services, and dividends
from state-owned corporations.
Mr. Stickel showed slide 16, "Petroleum Forecast
Assumptions Detail."
Mr. Stickel displayed slide 17, Petroleum Detail: Changes
to Long-Term Price Forecast," which showed DOR's ten-year
oil price forecast from the fall forecast, as well as a
comparison to the previous forecast. He noted that the
department had utilized futures market projections for as
many years as were available. The fall price forecast had
been generated on December 8, using prices from the first
five trading days in December. He reminded that the fall
revenue forecast represented an increase to the FY 24 price
of a little over $9/bbl, with a little over a $6/bbl
increase for FY 25. Later into the revenue forecast, the
price forecast was increased by a smaller amount and
actually came even with the spring forecast towards the end
of the forecast period.
Co-Chair Stedman shared that the committee would be
requesting that the Legislative Finance Division (LFD)
generate budgets with an oil price of $60/bbl. He thought
the financial industry seemed to use $60/bbl to look at the
oil and gas industry in Alaska and other areas in the
country. He shared that the committee wanted to get a good
idea of the sensitivity to any net or deficit.
Mr. Stickel noted that page 81 of the RSB had a sensitivity
analysis table for the next three fiscal years, and a more
robust ten-year version of the table that was provided to
LFD. He offered to provide the material to the committee.
Co-Chair Stedman affirmed that the committee would be
looking at the following two to three years rather than ten
years out. He mentioned considering the budget after the
governors changes were submitted in February.
9:34:24 AM
Mr. Stickel highlighted slide 18, "Petroleum Detail:
Nominal Brent Forecasts Comparison as of December 11,
2023," which showed a line graph showing how DOR's oil
price forecast compared to different sources. He noted that
there was a version of the graph that had been updated the
previous day, which he could provide to the committee. He
noted that DORs forecast compared to price forecasts from
the U.S. Energy Information Agency, the most recent futures
market data, and an average of analysts forecast. He added
that DORs forecast was generally in line with other
sources, and the most recent version was even closer. He
continued that in general, the different sources suggested
a long-term price of $70/bbl to $80/bbl for the long term,
and the DOR forecast also fell in line in the same range.
The current futures market outlook for the next couple of
years was within a dollar of the revenue forecast as of the
previous day.
Mr. Stickel looked at slide 19, "Petroleum Detail: UGF
Relative to Price per Barrel (without POMV): FY 2025,"
which showed a graph based on the sensitivity tables,
showing how UGF revenue would change if the price of oil
was higher or lower than the revenue forecast. He noted
that a one dollar increase or decrease from the $76/bbl
price would represent around a $45 to $50 million change in
UGF revenue. He explained that given that the state had a
progressive fiscal system, once there were higher prices
closer to $100/bbl, the metric went up to about $75 million
per dollar change in oil price. Once there was a lower
price of around $50/bbl, the metric went down to about $25
million per dollar of oil price change.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if there were things in play in the
calculations that changed the metric over the past few
years. He recalled that there were other things going on in
the expenditure side that were altering the metric.
Mr. Stickel identified that the production forecast had
decreased a little. One major change was a forecast of
significantly higher company spending for lease
expenditures, which impacted the threshold between the
minimum tax floor and the next profits tax.
Senator Bishop asked if Mr. Stickel had a list of approved
allowable deductions for capital expenditures on the North
Slope.
Mr. Stickel relayed that there was detailed statutory
guidance and regulations to support the allowable
deductions.
Senator Bishop asked for Mr. Stickel to provide the
information.
Co-Chair Stedman thought that [the states list] was
generally what was allowable by the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) as a capital expenditure versus an operating
expenditure.
Mr. Stickel affirmed that generally for lease expenditures,
the department followed IRS guidance, but had a specific
set of over a dozen exclusions of what was not an allowable
expenditure. There were also supporting regulations.
Mr. Stickel addressed slide 20, "Petroleum Detail: North
Slope Petroleum Production Forecast," which showed a line
graph comparing the forecast for the North Slope oil
production with a high and low case for the following ten
years. He noted that over FY 24 through FY 26 there was
fairly stable production, with a little under 500,000
barrels per day. The stability was a combination of natural
decline of mature fields, offset by additional drilling in
the fields. He explained that in FY 27 and beyond, the
trend of additional drilling and natural decline was
overlaid by new productions from new development. Pikka and
Willow were added to the production forecast on a risked
basis.
9:40:28 AM
Mr. Stickel advanced to slide 21, "Petroleum Detail:
Changes to North Slope Petroleum Production Forecast,"
which showed a line graph that showed how the forecast
changed from the prior spring forecast. The forecast was
reduced for FY 24, FY 25, and FY 26; and increased for FY
27 and beyond based on the increased confidence in new
fields like Pikka and Willow.
Co-Chair Stedman mentioned FY 25 and asked how much of the
decline was in Prudhoe Bay.
Mr. Stickel did not have the number readily available, but
offered to provide the information at a later time.
Mr. Stickel looked at slide 22, "Petroleum Detail: North
Slope Allowable Lease Expenditures," featured a graph that
showed how allowable lease expenditures had changed over
the past two years, with a ten-year forecast for operating
and capital expenditures. He commented that the
expenditures were an important measure of planned
investment in the state and were also important because the
lease expenditures were deductible in the production tax
calculation. In FY 23, North Slope capital expenditures
were $2.3 billion and operating expenditures were $2.6
billion. Both amounts represented a rebound from the
previous two years, when oil prices had been lower and
Covid-19 impacts had led to reduced activity. He expected a
large jump over the following two years comprised of major
investments in new fields and increased drilling in
existing fields. Capital expenditures were forecast to
exceed $4 billion in FY 25 and FY 26. After the new fields
like Pikka and Willow were online, capital expenditures
were forecast to be stable and just under $3 billion per
year.
Mr. Stickel explained that companies had pulled back on
operating expenditures as much as possible during the
Covid-19 pandemic, but there were some increased operating
costs due to inflation and other factors. There was also an
overlay of the cost of operating the new units being
developed.
Co-Chair Stedman asked about unallowable lease expenditures
and carry-forwards.
Mr. Stickel explained that the slide showed all lease
expenditures allowed for tax purposes. A portion of the
expenditures would be applied against a tax liability in
calculating production tax. If a company did not have
sufficient liability, a portion of the allowable lease
expenditures would carry forward to count against future
production tax liability. The numbers represented all lease
expenditures that were allowed for tax purposes.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if Mr. Stickel was going to address
carry-forward credit accumulation.
Mr. Stickel did not have a specific slide to address Co-
Chair Stedman's question. He referenced table 8.4 of the
RSB for discussion. Line 23 of the table enumerated the tax
value of any of the carry forward annual losses as well as
any outstanding credits held by the companies.
9:45:24 AM
Co-Chair Stedman thought the committee would need
assistance tracking the accumulation of the carryforwards
that were up against current revenue in a given year.
Mr. Stickel explained that the carry-forward lease
expenditures were primarily being earned by companies that
were not yet in production, and were doing exploration in
the state. The carry-forward lease expenditures would be
able to be used to potentially offset future tax
liabilities once the companies came into production.
Co-Chair Stedman asked Mr. Stickel to address companies
that had revenue in the scenario.
Mr. Stickel described a "donut hole" situation, in which a
company with sufficient current revenue and production to
be paying above the minimum tax floor was able to use all
allowable lease expenditures to reduce its production tax
value (PTV), which was the subject of the net profits tax.
9:49:21 AM
Mr. Stickel thought it would be helpful to address how the
PTV functioned.
Co-Chair Stedman thought the information should be included
in the RSB. He noted that the RSB was a live document that
had continuous edits and improvements.
Mr. Stickel agreed to consider options for adding as much
clarity as possible.
Mr. Stickel spoke to slide 23, "Petroleum Detail: North
Slope Transportation Costs," which showed a bar graph. He
noted that the two biggest components were marine
transportation costs and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAPS)
tariffs.
9:56:21 AM
Senator Bishop asked if there should be increased revenue
to the state in the upcoming fiscal year due to lower
transportation costs.
Mr. Stickel replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Stickel referenced slide 24, "Petroleum Detail: Tax
Credits for Purchase Detail Source: DOR Fall 2023 Revenue
Forecast," which showed a bar graph looking at tax credits.
Commissioner Crum thanked the legislature for working with
the governor's office in previous years to pay down the
liabilities.
9:59:28 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman asked how much the state had paid in tax
credits cumulatively.
Mr. Stickel replied that it was $3 billion.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for Mr. Stickel to break down the
total tax credits
Mr. Stickel agreed. He noted that table 8.4 in the RSB had
a ten-year history. He agreed to provide more detailed
information.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for Mr. Stickel to include Cook
Inlet.
10:00:50 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if, in the viewpoint of the
administration, the tax credits had been a valued
experience that was positive to the state.
Commissioner Crum felt it was hard to quantify.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if the $3 billion in credits
included Cook Inlet.
Mr. Stickel relayed that the department had some
information
Mr. Stickel turned to slide 25, "Thank You."
Mr. Stickel displayed slide 27, "State Petroleum Revenue by
Land Type" which showed a table of how state revenue
benefited by land type.
Co-Chair Stedman surmised that "all oil was not equal."
Mr. Stickel agreed.
10:05:56 AM
Senator Bishop asked Mr. Stickel asked about other federal
lands.
Mr. Stickel replied that it was more theoretical, and
stated that the National Petroleum Reserve and Alaska
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) had special provisions.
Senator Bishop asked, for historical purposes, and wondered
whether the split had recently changed.
Mr. Stickel replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Stickel highlighted slide 28, "Petroleum Detail:
Changes to North Slope Petroleum Production Forecast."
Mr. Stickel looked at slide 29, " Petroleum Detail: North
Slope Allowable Lease Expenditures," which was similar to a
previous slide.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if Mr. Stickel had an estimate of
when the state would return to status before 2020.
Mr. Stickel deferred to the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development (DOLWD)
Senator Kiehl asked about the Alaskan employment trendline
as related to slide 29.
Mr. Stickel did not have that information.
Commissioner Crum recalled that there was a 2.6 percent
employment growth in the state.
Senator Kiehl asked if the North Slope jobs had the same
increase.
Commissioner Crum did not know the answer.
Co-Chair Stedman suggestion the question be asked of the
department.
10:10:04 AM
Mr. Stickel addressed slide 30, "Petroleum Detail: North
Slope Transportation Costs," which was a bar graph with
similar information from a previous slide but with a longer
time horizon.
Commissioner Crum remarked on the instability of financial
markets.
Co-Chair Stedman discussed committee business.
ADJOURNMENT
10:13:00 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:12 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 011824 S.FIN Fall 2023 Forecast Presentation 01.18.24.pdf |
SFIN 1/18/2024 9:00:00 AM |