HOUSE BILL NO. 250 "An Act relating to the renewable energy grant fund and recommendation program; and providing for an effective date." SARAH FISHER-GOAD, EXECUTIVE, ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY (AEA), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, referenced the new fiscal note dated 3/14/12. She stated that there was no adjustment with respect to the funding that was required by AEA to manage the program. The fiscal note reflected a general fund fiscal note, when the program first passed under HB 152 in 2008. Subsequently, AEA had received funding from the last and current fiscal years to spend up to $2 million of miscellaneous earnings from the fund to manage the program. The fiscal note had been adjusted in order to have the funding source be the Renewable Energy Fund, which was represented in the first column. She remarked that both the general fund and general fund miscellaneous earnings were reduced, so the Renewable Energy Fund funding source was used in place. The remainder of the fiscal note was for informational purposes only. 2:29:27 PM Co-Chair Stoltze believed the program was effective and did not want to involve too many bureaucrats. Representative Edgmon wondered if the original intent of HB 152 was to take the administrative costs from the funds of the program. Co-Chair Thomas responded in the negative, because the goal amount of the program had not yet been achieved. Representative Edgmon wondered if $2 million would come from the governor's budget for the program. Co-Chair Thomas replied in the negative. Ms. Fisher-Goad added that there were interest earnings that had been credited to the fund. She noted that there had been $8.3 million in earnings on the fund, and $3.2 million had been used through FY 12. Representative Edgmon wondered if the administrative costs would increase over time. Ms. Fisher-Goad replied that AEA was currently content with the staffing levels to manage the projects and program. Representative Edgmon supported the legislation. He expressed frustration related to processing and administration of the program. 2:33:07 PM Ms. Fisher-Goad replied that the agency had been sensitive to the issue. She noted there was a certain amount of discussion with grantees in the beginning of the process. There had been about 70 projects in the past year and there had been no delays related to staffing. She would be happy to discuss any concerns for and from specific grantees. Representative Edgmon was concerned that there would not be enough staff for the program. Co-Chair Thomas did not believe anyone had taken any money out of the program. Ms. Fisher-Goad replied that the agency had reallocated work, and there was a new project manager to deal with new projects in the railbelt. The agency was sensitive to the issue and would like be conservative, but did not want to be overstaffed coming in. Representative Doogan had been an opponent of the program since it had started, but was a supporter now. Representative Gara asked for a comparison of the number of employees at the start of the program and present day. Ms. Fisher-Goad did not have the specifics on hand. She explained that there had been a lot of new activity when the program had started, and recently staffed up in areas evaluating reimbursement requests to ensure that a thorough job was done. Representative Gara noted that inadequate staff could create a time lag, but a larger staff could strongly evaluate proposals in order to make calculated decisions. Ms. Fisher-Goad replied that she was confident in the technical staff, and felt that intense effort was made in order to get grants out by August. 2:40:25 PM Representative Gara spoke about a disappointment in the past. He wondered whether the agency had sufficient staff to support $50 million in projects properly. Ms. Fisher- Goad replied that the first round, $453 million worth of requests. She stressed that there were still many active grants, so past money had not necessarily "disappeared." Representative Gara remarked that the original $100 million was not intended to be spent in one year, but used as projects were evaluated. He furthered that $50 million a year became $25 million a year. He felt that the funding had disappeared, but the projects had not disappeared. Ms. Fisher-Goad stated that when the $100 million was provided, AEA went through an application process. Therefore, there was no ability to only solicit for $50 million. The agency only solicited funds based on the statutory program. She pointed out that there were over $400 million worth of requests. She did not feel there was a proper way to set the money aside. Co-Chair Stoltze asked if there was opposition to the bill. Co-Chair Stoltze discussed the individuals available for testimony. He CLOSED public testimony. Co-Chair Thomas MOVED to report CSHB 250(ENE) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CSHB 250(ENE) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with one new fiscal impact note from the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development. 2:46:34 PM AT EASE 2:47:56 PM RECONVENED