04/06/2010 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB271 | |
| HB306 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 306 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | SB 271 | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 6, 2010
3:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lesil McGuire, Co-Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Co-Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice Chair
Senator Hollis French
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Gary Stevens
Senator Thomas Wagoner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 271
"An Act relating to interest on certain underpayments or
overpayments for the oil and gas production tax, to certificates
for certain oil and gas production tax credits for qualified
capital expenditures, and to alternative tax credits for
expenditures for certain oil and gas development and exploration
activities for the oil and gas production tax; relating to the
use of the oil and gas tax credit fund to purchase certain tax
credit certificates; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 306(RES)
"An Act declaring a state energy policy."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 271
SHORT TITLE: OIL AND GAS PROD. TAX: CREDITS/INTEREST
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/10/10 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/10/10 (S) RES, FIN
04/05/10 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/05/10 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/06/10 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HB 306
SHORT TITLE: STATE ENERGY POLICY
SPONSOR(s): ENERGY
01/19/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/10 (H) ENE, RES
01/26/10 (H) ENE AT 3:00 PM BARNES 124
01/26/10 (H) Heard & Held
01/26/10 (H) MINUTE(ENE)
01/28/10 (H) ENE AT 3:00 PM BARNES 124
01/28/10 (H) Heard & Held
01/28/10 (H) MINUTE(ENE)
02/02/10 (H) ENE AT 3:00 PM BARNES 124
02/02/10 (H) Moved CSHB 306(ENE) Out of Committee
02/02/10 (H) MINUTE(ENE)
02/05/10 (H) ENE RPT CS(ENE) 7DP
02/05/10 (H) DP: RAMRAS, DAHLSTROM, PETERSEN, TUCK,
JOHANSEN, EDGMON, MILLETT
03/08/10 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/08/10 (H) Heard & Held
03/08/10 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/12/10 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/12/10 (H) Moved CSHB 306(RES) Out of Committee
03/12/10 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/15/10 (H) RES RPT CS(RES) 8DP 1NR
03/15/10 (H) DP: GUTTENBERG, EDGMON, TUCK, KAWASAKI,
SEATON, P.WILSON, JOHNSON, NEUMAN
03/15/10 (H) NR: OLSON
03/17/10 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/17/10 (H) VERSION: CSHB 306(RES)
03/18/10 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/18/10 (S) RES, FIN
04/06/10 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
PAT GALVIN, Commissioner
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of SB 271.
REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGMON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 306.
CHRIS ROSE, Executive Director
Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP)
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 306.
BILL POPP
Anchorage Economic Development Corporation (AEDC)
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 306.
MICHAEL NAVE
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 306.
SARAH FISHER-GOAD, Deputy Director
Operations
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 306.
STEVE HAGENSON, Executive Director
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 306.
BRIAN KANE, Legislative Legal
Legislative Affairs Agency
Alaska State Legislature,
POSITION STATEMENT: Was available for questions on HB 306.
ELIZABETH OUTTEN, Statewide Energy Coordinator
Alaska Conservation Alliance
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 306.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:33:05 PM
CO-CHAIR McGUIRE called the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 3:33p.m. Present at the call to order were
Senators Huggins, Stevens, French, Wielechowski, Wagoner, and
McGuire.
SB 271-OIL AND GAS PROD. TAX: CREDITS/INTEREST
3:33:43 PM
CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE announced consideration of SB 271.
PAT GALVIN, Commissioner, Department of Revenue (DOR), gave an
overview of SB 271, the governor's oil and gas tax credits bill.
He said the bill deals with three primary themes, the first is
to increase tax incentives available for activities that will
result in more oil and gas jobs, the second is to provide all
taxpayers with the full value for incentives currently offered,
and the third is to provide fairness in administration of the
production tax. This goes to the provision dealing with the
application of interest for underpayment of taxes due to a
retroactive application of a regulation.
SENATOR STEDMAN joined the meeting.
3:36:04 PM
COMMISSIONER GALVIN said SB 271 consists of four main
components: one is that it establishes a 30 percent credit for
well-related expenditures (infield drilling) that would fill an
existing space in the oil and gas credit area where they already
provide a blanket 20 percent credit for capital expenditures
across the board. If it takes place outside of existing areas of
activity they provide either a 30 or a 40 percent credit. This
credit is intended to target well related expenditures within
existing fields. Second, it eliminates the current requirement
that the capital credits must be spread over two years and
allows them to be used in the year in which they are earned. The
third one is to eliminate the current reinvestment requirement
(taxpayer must demonstrate that they are reinvesting in the two
subsequent years) for those taxpayers who want the state to buy
their credit when they don't have current production tax
obligations to put their credit up against. They have found it
could provide a barrier to companies who are looking to partner
on individual exploration projects where they may come in as an
investor for a particular well program and then see what happens
after that. Their impression of their ability to get full value
of the credit will be based upon whether they expect to make
additional investments in the future. Finally, it provides a
waiver of interest when retroactive regulations are put in place
that result in an underpayment in a past tax return.
3:39:45 PM
COMMISSIONER GALVIN provided more detail to the first component,
the 30 percent credit for infield drilling. They saw the overall
level of investment and well activity raising after ACES passed,
but not the number of wells being drilled. This provision raises
the 20 percent credit currently available for all well-related
work to 30 percent for well-work within existing units. It also
provides a 30 percent credit for certain well-related operating
costs that currently don't qualify for any credit.
3:41:59 PM
SENATOR WAGONER asked what would insure the state will get
additional production for that additional 10 percent credit.
COMMISSIONER GALVIN answered there is no guaranty that the
activities qualifying for the credit will be additional, because
they can't easily identify what they would have done otherwise.
However, the department recognizes that they have seen the level
of activities among explorers increase, so they anticipate that
these credits for this particular type of activity will
encourage more of it.
3:43:35 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN said he sees it as more of a 50 percent credit.
Several years ago when they did PPT [revising the state oil tax]
legislative consultants cautioned that if the state moved the
credit from the 25 percent base tax it would be offering credit
that wasn't needed, and he didn't recall ever discussing a
credit as high as 30 percent. So he thought as they go down this
road they should have some cash-flow modeling.
3:46:29 PM
COMMISSIONER GALVIN said he would agree if they were looking at
increasing the capital credit across-the-board from 20 to 30
percent. But here they are trying to incentivize specific
activities similar to the existing exploration incentive credit
program which is at 30 percent and sometimes a 40 percent for
particular activities. They have modeled the fiscal impact of
this based upon the expected spending they are seeing in the
next couple of years. While they expect it to go up, they have
estimated $250-300 million per year in additional credits being
generated by this activity that would qualify for these credits.
SENATOR STEDMAN said he understands these credits are targeting
Prudhoe Bay, Kuparuk, and Alpine, the older side of the field
with a lot of heavy oil and comparatively lower operating costs
(where most of the oil and the money are). Consultant David Wood
had done some work in that area and testified in Finance about
concerns with some of the timing and placement of the
incentives.
3:49:07 PM
SENATOR FRENCH said his question goes back to the ACES debate
and the model that was done by Rich Ruggerio [Gaffney Cline] and
Bob George that showed high profitability for Prudhoe and
Kuparuk wells of 50 percent and under almost any taxation
structure. He wondered where that level of profitability plays
into the governor's calculation of the size of the stimulus that
is necessary, given that drilling wells there is "like shooting
fish in a barrel."
COMMISSIONER GALVIN said the economic modeling they did during
the ACES session was based on numbers the companies
(particularly BP) provided, and he thinks those were an accurate
reflection. He did not believe those particular wells needed
this kind of credit, but he further expects a second wave of
well work that will be less economic - because either the costs
are higher or the production profile would be less attractive -
and those wells are not being drilled. This credit seeks to
provide a broader economic uplift, looking to bring on some
activities (infield drilling) that are currently being passed
over.
3:52:17 PM
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked how the $350 million fiscal note is
apportioned between new wells and what they expect to be drilled
because of this credit remembering the increase from the 20-30
percent in the old wells that would have been drilled anyway.
COMMISSIONER GALVIN answered they don't have any projections,
and technically the fiscal note is indeterminate for this bill.
It is the balance between the additional credits that the state
would incur because of the additional activity with the
offsetting additional production; so he couldn't give him an
accurate revenue impact.
3:53:45 PM
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI echoed Senator Stedman in that it is
important to do some kind of modeling to figure out what the
state is really getting for the $350 million. He would have a
hard time supporting giving it away for wells that would be
drilled anyway, but if they are going to get new wells out of
it, he would be more supportive. He asked how much more oil
would be going into the pipeline and how much more revenue would
be generated because of these credits.
COMMISSIONER GALVIN said he appreciated the sentiment and felt
that they would model this if they could, but without additional
detail from the companies they can't do it. However, they do
know that the increased credits in the exploration areas are
working, and that kind of credit doesn't exist for infield
drilling, and they think it is worth trying.
3:56:32 PM
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI commented that it is hard for him to make
a big policy call without this information, and now he is
hearing that the commissioner cannot give him any confidence
that one single well will be drilled as a result of this credit.
COMMISSIONER GALVIN responded that he can't say specifically how
much activity is going to be created, but he can say this credit
will result in more favorable economics for the wells being
evaluated for a decision. That will increase the likelihood that
more wells will be drilled and that more production will occur.
3:57:47 PM
SENATOR WAGONER asked if this credit doesn't result in any wells
being drilled, then the state isn't out any money, right?
COMMISSIONER GALVIN responded yes.
SENATOR WAGONER asked what history he has about the wells that
have been drilled over the past five years, so they can use it
for comparison.
COMMISSIONER GALVIN said he will have to look at how detailed
their information is on specific incremental production that
results from drilling activities.
3:59:03 PM
SENATOR FRENCH wondered if they had looked at the Kuparuk
experience where prior to the PPT tax revisions in 2006 the
severance tax was nearly zero.
COMMISSIONER GALVIN replied that they don't see this as falling
in the rubric of lower taxes means higher production. Rather
they see this as investment results in a credit off your current
tax bill. It changes the dynamic significantly in terms of
investment decision making.
SENATOR FRENCH asked where the $250 to $300 million comes from -
from projecting the current level of infield drilling activity
or does it envision some modest increase?
4:00:29 PM
COMMISSIONER GALVIN answered that it actually breaks the current
level of total expenditures down into activities that are
considered to potentially be subject to this credit.
4:01:38 PM
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked where he gets the information to
make these projections and based on these projections do they
expect an increase, a decrease or the same amount of drilling
compared to now.
COMMISSIONER GALVIN answered that their information comes from a
variety of sources. The projected overall expenditure comes from
the companies, themselves, that under the current tax system
have to project spending levels for a number of years in the
future. They get a bit more detail on past spending from other
past reports and have tried to differentiate well-related costs
from non-well related costs.
4:03:09 PM
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked again if he expects an increase, a
decrease or the same amount of drilling in future years.
COMMISSIONER GALVIN replied that the level of overall
expenditure is expected to increase, which would lead them to
expect additional wells will be drilled. It is a combination of
new exploration and development wells and what would be
considered infield drilling type programs, but they don't have
information that there is going to be an increase in any of
those individual segments.
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked what level of increase they expect.
How many years out does this information go? Is it public? Can
he get a copy of it?
COMMISSIONER GALVIN replied that it is part of the department's
revenue forecast.
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked what the projected increase is over
the next five years without this credit.
COMMISSIONER GALVIN replied the overall (capital) expenditure is
expected to go up about 10 percent a year, but that would
include things that don't qualify for these credits.
CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE pointed out that if no investment is made no
tax credit is given. It's a question of whether or not the state
feels it's worthwhile to "partner in the risk." She said this
committee has been looking at a number of tax credits and that
she has heard from industry that ACES is broken. She thanked the
governor for bringing stakeholders together to discuss how
corporate behavior could be influenced in a way that would net a
positive outcome for the state.
4:07:09 PM
SENATOR HUGGINS said the commissioner listed the items based on
a letter from the House asking for some adjustments, but there
have to be some things that didn't make the cut. He asked if
there is anything else he could share with the committee that
might be "objective fixes."
COMMISSIONER GALVIN replied that they looked at lowering the
progressivity level from the current .4 percent or changing the
kick off point. Some of the others were more technical, such as
working with the definition of lease expenditures and the way
the facility sharing costs are incurred or accounted for.
4:08:41 PM
SENATOR HUGGINS said the item that intrigued him is the
technique of "bracketing the progressivity." He asked if they
looked at that.
COMMISSIONER GALVIN replied that was looked at before the
session; the other body had also proposed a similar methodology.
Currently, if the production tax value per barrel goes over
$30/barrel, the progressivity rate applies to the entire stream.
The concept would be rather than applying the progressive rate
to the entire stream to apply it to that portion of the stream
above $30/barrel. If you just shear off the bottom $30 with
prices where they are now, that amounts to dropping
progressivity from .4 percent to .2 percent. It means at the
higher end of the progressivity you'll be at a lower state take.
In looking at the question of progressivity, the department
always asked if it would result in more activity (investment,
jobs and production). There seemed to be less connection between
the benefit being provided by that change and the expectation of
increased activity. So, they gravitated more to credits.
4:11:58 PM
SENATOR HUGGINS asked if he thought the timing of these
incentives would positively impact the big gas pipeline,
particularly in the context of a successful instate gas pipeline
and some petrochemical industry.
COMMISSIONER GALVIN answered that he can see it in two different
ways; for example, impacting those who are investing in
exploration almost exclusively for gas in the Foothills right
now. To the extent that the credits will provide incentives to
them, that would be a positive.
One of the limitations to the exploration incentive credit
program is that the activity has to be a certain number of miles
from an existing well, and given the seasonal nature of Alaska's
drilling program, a producer might start drilling one year but
have to wait to finish it the next year and would not get the
same exploration credit for that pad. This measure would benefit
that type of activity. Also, to the extent that a producer is
looking to use these credits for additional infield drilling and
that enhances their expectation of future gas production, it
will decrease their perceived reservoir risk associated with a
long-term commitment on a pipeline. To that extent it could have
an incremental value.
4:14:51 PM
SENATOR WAGONER asked how much development has to happen in a
new field prior to this credit kicking in and being applicable
to each well - for instance at Pt. Thomson.
COMMISSIONER GALVIN replied basically none. Development is not
directly defined as to an existing field or a developed field.
It applies to "all wells."
4:15:28 PM
SENATOR FRENCH asked if the oil industry supports this bill.
COMMISSIONER GALVIN said he believes so. A number of new
entrants spoke very positively with regard to access to the new
credits and the cash back from the state.
4:16:31 PM
SENATOR FRENCH remarked that he didn't see a lot of people in
the audience.
COMMISSIONER GALVIN responded that if he wanted to invite the
industry to comment, he thought they would be here.
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if this bill passes, does it end the
oil tax debate once and for all.
COMMISSIONER GALVIN replied this is an attempt to address the
concerns that have been raised, and from his perspective it will
send a very positive message that the state is responsive to
industry's concerns. But it is up to the legislature to decide.
4:17:44 PM
SENATOR HUGGINS commented that North Dakota is booming and asked
if the commissioner is familiar with what they are doing.
COMMISSIONER GALVIN said he is not aware that they have any
particular program in place and he suspects the boom is driven
by the resource. Comparing Alaska with any of the Lower 48
states isn't really a fair comparison because they don't own the
resource themselves and don't have the same levers available to
them as Alaska does. Also their relationship to the industry
isn't the same.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked why Alberta is so "upside down."
4:19:37 PM
COMMISSIONER GALVIN replied what he understands from Alberta is
they had a couple things happen to them almost simultaneously to
form a sort of overheating of the industry. The oil sands had a
huge influx of activity, and in that time they significantly
changed their fiscal system by creating tiers. If you come into
it now it is different than a couple of years ago. Then when the
oil prices came down, everything started to implode and their
fiscal system looked out of place. Beyond that he hadn't spent a
lot of time comparing their system to ours.
CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE invited the commissioner to look at what other
jurisdictions are doing with regard to taxes and tax credits
over the Interim.
4:22:05 PM
CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE closed public testimony and set the bill aside.
HB 306-STATE ENERGY POLICY
4:22:27 PM
CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE announced consideration of HB 306 [CSHB
306(RES) was before the committee].
REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGMON, sponsor of HB 306, related that
last year a stakeholders' group met every month to consider all
the various aspects of putting a state energy policy together.
The group had membership from the supply and demand side of the
energy equation, the academic side, the Denali Commission, as
well as the Resource Development Council and members from the
conservation community. In December they emerged with an energy
policy and that energy policy, while it has been amended
somewhat, is before them in HB 306. It passed the House with
great vigor.
4:24:47 PM
CO-CHAIR MCGUIRE said the committee enjoyed working with him on
this issue and the policy language in the Senate bill mirrors
the policy in this bill. She said that Senator Huggins had taken
a leadership role on the subject of nuclear energy and the
potential Alaska has there, and the Senate bill was amended to
reflect that. She asked what he thought about adding
"alternative energy" alongside "renewable energy".
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON replied that it is worth considering.
4:26:03 PM
CHRIS ROSE, Executive Director, Renewable Energy Alaska Project
(REAP), introduced himself. He listed the members of the
Stakeholder Advisory Panel that was put together by the co-
chairs of the House Special Committee on Energy. He said it
started with a relatively small document that grew to seven
pages. All realized that what they were really after was a
comprehensive energy policy that would set up sidebars for
planning decisions and goals down the road.
4:29:27 PM
BILL POPP, Anchorage Economic Development Corporation (AEDC),
said the design was to develop an overarching energy policy that
would be the foundation for establishing energy goals and then
plans while taking into account regional differences. State
government would be aligned in a unified set of strategic goals
which would help in developing a comprehensive energy plan to
achieve them. The policy leaves a lot of room for new thinking
and new direction.
4:30:57 PM
MR. ROSE said it has four key steps: establishing the energy
policy, developing strategic goals, creating the plan to achieve
the goals and implementing programs and projects. People always
came back to the fact that they were establishing an energy
vision for the state and not talking about projects and plans.
The bill is entitled "State Energy Policy" and has five goals,
number five was added by the House for the State to become a
leader in natural gas production, and that is where the
renewable alternative energy policy is in the bill.
4:32:40 PM
MR. POPP turned to the guiding principles that pushed this
process and said the future success of the Alaska statewide
economy is tied to available, reliable and affordable energy for
residential, commercial and industrial users. Energy is key to
the future of economic growth in Alaska. They also recognized
that worldwide supply and demand for fossil fuels and concerns
about global climate change will affect the price of fossil
fuels in the future. Oil is already being seen in the mid-$80s
when just a few months ago it was down in the $30s and a little
over 1.5 years ago it was up near $150 a barrel. Assuring
stability in energy prices and energy availability is paramount.
They don't have to guarantee the lowest prices, but Alaskans
shouldn't have to be paying the highest prices either.
4:33:48 PM
MR. ROSE related that a few years ago the Tri-Borough Commission
(the Mat-Su Borough, the Municipality of Anchorage and the Kenai
Peninsula Borough) developed a private-sector oriented Energy
Policy Task Force to deal with the issues Mr. Popp just
mentioned. After meeting for about four months, they were able
to come up with the policy they presented to the stakeholder
group, and a large portion of the portfolio included renewables.
The policy was developed initially for South Central Alaska, but
was broadened into a statewide policy.
4:35:28 PM
MR. POPP said the policy that has been passed out of the House
promotes energy efficiency and conservation as a key premise as
something that can be done immediately; it promotes development
of renewable and non-renewable energy resources and recognizes
the state has a portfolio of available energy sources. It
orients towards market forces as to what solutions float to the
top on a statewide-one-size-fits-all basis, but recognizing
regional differences. It promotes economic development through
long term sources of energy that are going to be vital to
communities statewide in the coming decades.
It supports energy research education and work force development
so that Alaska can take advantage of the full value chain of
energy development, not just the end cost of delivered energy.
Research could be monetized and the educational aspects would be
important to establishing Alaska as a center for energy
research, as wells as the work force development pieces to
establish these energy infrastructures and develop and deliver
them cost effectively. It supports the coordination of
governmental functions and promotes a better regulatory process
so that regulations are developed within the umbrella of an
energy policy and not in an individual agency's vacuum. This
will bring an overall coordination and efficiency that is
currently lacking at all levels of state government when it
comes to energy policy.
4:37:50 PM
MR. ROSE concluded that both the task force and the House have
put together a document that establishes a long term vision that
can be used to develop and achieve energy goals. A lot of the
work done on bills such as SB 220 complement this work, but a
lot of things have yet to be addressed; and having this policy
pass is going to be a key element to making sure the best energy
resources are available to Alaskans - something that has been
missing.
4:39:10 PM
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI said one difference between the House and
Senate versions is that the intent is written into the House
version and the Senate version includes a letter of intent. He
asked how they feel about this.
MR. POPP responded that he feels the intent needs to have the
force of law, otherwise it becomes subject to the whims of a
given year's policy.
4:40:36 PM
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked Michael Nave if the administration
had any opinion on the question of intent versus having policy
in statute.
MICHAEL NAVE, Department of Law (DOL), replied that the
department understands that it is a policy statement and
therefore, that is how they've been analyzing it.
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI said bluntly when his staff met with DOL
staff, the DOL was adamant that they did not want the intent in
law, but would prefer it as intent. He asked if that position
has changed.
MR. NAVE answered no, that was the request and it was understood
that this was a policy statement.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if he has an opinion or preference on
whether or not this should be policy in law or policy in intent.
MR. NAVE said his opinion is that this statute as written is a
statement of policy.
4:42:26 PM
SARAH FISHER-GOAD, Deputy Director, Operations, Alaska Energy
Authority (AEA), said regarding concerns about having the policy
in Title 44.99 rather than in un-codified law as in SB 220, that
the preference is to have it as it is in SB 220. Part of the
reason is that AS 44.99 hasn't been amended to add new policies
for several years which was due to the potential for litigation.
She had offered the staff some language that would address some
of the concerns the department has with SB 220, and they are
catching up with where HB 306 comes in. She believed the
confusion came up when Senator McGuire mentioned that the Senate
bill "mirrored" the House bill. She added that two other minor
changes will help with policy language.
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI said he thought he just heard that DOL has
no problem with HB 306 as policy and asked if she heard
something different.
MS. FISHER-GOAD replied that her understanding is that they
prefer SB 220, and HB 306 would be OK with the suggested
amendments.
4:45:34 PM
STEVE HAGENSON, Executive Director, Alaska Energy Authority
(AEA), commented that he was not a member of the committee, but
they invited him to participate. He enjoyed the interaction he
had with staff from both bodies and the work group. He thought
they produced a quality document.
4:46:20 PM
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if he supports HB 306.
MR. HAGENSON answered yes.
4:46:52 PM
BRIAN KANE, Legislative Legal, Legislative Affairs Agency,
Alaska State Legislature, said he was available for questions.
4:47:13 PM
ELIZABETH OUTTEN, Statewide Energy Coordinator, Alaska
Conservation Alliance, said they support both HB 306 and SB 220.
They show a commitment to long term energy planning and it
continues to put Alaska on an economically viable sustainable
stable energy path to the future, and provides the very much-
needed vision to help guide the state's energy decisions. The
Alliance strongly supported including provisions encouraging the
state and public focus on energy efficiency first, and it has
identified it as a priority issue for this session. They support
the establishment of statewide energy efficiency codes to
decrease energy use in public buildings through efficiencies and
educating the public about opportunities and support that is
available to them to be more energy efficient.
MS. OUTTEN said they also support the renewable energy
development provisions because Alaska has so many opportunities
to meet its energy needs with renewable energy. Finally, they
also support the provisions that help Alaska become a leader in
energy development and deployment of new energy technologies.
The Alliance had identified emerging technology development and
deployment as a priority issue for this session. They were
excited to see these provisions included in SB 220.
4:49:26 PM
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI closed public testimony.
4:49:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON closed by thanking everyone for the time
and work they put into this document and emphasized the
importance of putting the goals and objectives in the front part
of the bill into policy.
SENATOR HUGGINS thanked Representative Edgmon for his effort.
4:51:50 PM
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI echoed those comments and finding no
further business to come before the committee, he adjourned the
meeting at 4:51 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 306 - Bill Packet.pdf |
SRES 4/6/2010 3:30:00 PM |
HB 306 |