Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124

04/07/2010 01:00 PM House RESOURCES

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Continued at 6:30 pm Today --
Heard & Held
Moved CSHB 337(RES) Out of Committee
Waived Out of Committee
<Bill Hearing Canceled>
Scheduled But Not Heard
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
        SB 305-SEPARATE OIL & GAS PROD. TAX/ DEDUCTIONS                                                                     
1:12:06 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN announced that the  first order of business would                                                               
be SENATE BILL  NO. 305, "An Act  relating to the tax  on oil and                                                               
gas production;  and providing for  an effective date."   [Before                                                               
the committee was CSSB 305(FIN).]                                                                                               
1:12:55 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON  announced that amendments  on the bill  must be                                                               
submitted by  4/8/10 in  order to  be introduced  on 4/9/10.   He                                                               
said the  schedule for  the meeting  would be  to recess  at 3:00                                                               
p.m. and return to a call of the chair to hear HB 337.                                                                          
1:14:27 PM                                                                                                                    
MILES  BAKER,  Staff  to  Senator   Bert  Stedman,  Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature, introduced  SB 305 on  behalf of the  Senate Finance                                                               
Committee, sponsor.   He stated that the current tax  rate of oil                                                               
and gas activities is based  on the combined British thermal unit                                                               
(Btu)  value of  oil and  gas.   However,  oil and  gas can  have                                                               
vastly different values  on a Btu basis.   The current structure,                                                               
in  conjunction with  the uncertainty  of future  prices, exposes                                                               
the state to  significant financial risk under a  major gas sale.                                                               
In addition, this structure creates  economic instability for any                                                               
entity  that  chooses  to  participate   in  the  development  or                                                               
financing of a  natural gas pipeline in Alaska.   Senate Bill 305                                                               
separates oil and natural gas  for the purpose of calculating the                                                               
progressivity portion of the production  tax under AS 43.55.  The                                                               
intent of  the bill is  for progressivity surcharges for  oil and                                                               
Cook  Inlet and  in-state gas  to  be calculated  together -  but                                                               
distinctly  separate from  export gas  - instead  of the  current                                                               
practice  where  oil   and  gas  are  combined.     However,  the                                                               
progressivity mechanism  is unchanged,  and remains based  on 0.4                                                               
percent of  the production value  that exceeds $30 per  barrel of                                                               
oil, and  $30 per  Btu barrel equivalent  for gas.   Furthermore,                                                               
the base  tax rate is unchanged  at 25 percent of  production tax                                                               
value.   Mr. Baker gave a  description of the effect  of the bill                                                               
by saying it is "kind of  creating two separate 'buckets' that we                                                               
use to do  our progressivity calculation.  Instead  of having one                                                               
state-wide progressivity  calculation, we would have  two ... the                                                               
first would be  based on oil, Cook Inlet gas,  and other in-state                                                               
gas with the progressivity calculated  together, and the non-Cook                                                               
Inlet gas used in state would be treated as it is now."                                                                         
1:16:43 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. BAKER  continued to explain  that the reason for  this change                                                               
is because there is some gas  being produced in the state and the                                                               
lower value of  that gas is combined with the  higher valued oil,                                                               
and that brings down the value of  the revenue to the state.  The                                                               
bill, by splitting  out oil and gas, would  preclude producers of                                                               
gas to use that "dilution" against  their oil tax liability.  Mr.                                                               
Baker clarified that  the intent of the bill is  not to create an                                                               
additional tax liability, but the  estimated cost of the dilution                                                               
effect ranges from  $40 million to $170 million per  year.  Thus,                                                               
the state  is currently  giving up anywhere  from $50  million to                                                               
$200  million a  year.   Again,  splitting oil  and gas  directly                                                               
represents a tax  increase, but this mechanism  will separate the                                                               
two for the purpose of a future  major gas sale, and not have the                                                               
impact affect the  current minimal in-state gas  use.  Therefore,                                                               
the two  buckets allow  for the dilution  effect for  current in-                                                               
state  gas, and  for a  separate calculation  in the  event of  a                                                               
major gas sale, or for export gas.                                                                                              
1:19:41 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN  asked whether the  effect on state  general fund                                                               
revenue is about $2 billion.                                                                                                    
1:20:07 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  BAKER,  in  response,  called   attention  to  the  document                                                               
provided  in  the   committee  packet  titled,  "SB   305:    The                                                               
Separation of  Oil from Gas  for the  Oil & Gas  Production Tax,"                                                               
from Logsdon &  Associates, and dated 4/7/10.  He  said the chart                                                               
on  page 13  shows oil  and gas  price parity  relationships, and                                                               
that the  $2 billion  figure shown  in scenario 3  is based  on a                                                               
$120 oil  price and an  $8 gas price, which  is a parity  that is                                                               
equivalent to  current prices,  and what  the U.S.  Department of                                                               
Energy (DOE)  projects for  the time period  at the  beginning of                                                               
production from a gas pipeline.   Therefore, with a $120 price of                                                               
oil  and  an $8  price  of  gas  parity,  under the  current  tax                                                               
structure  and without  the separation  of  how progressivity  is                                                               
calculated, the annual  tax reduction from combining  oil and gas                                                               
is estimated to be $2 billion.                                                                                                  
1:22:01 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  observed the  estimate on page  13 assumes                                                               
that gas is taxed separately  at 25 percent plus progressivity to                                                               
generate  $1.1 billion  in tax  revenue.   He  asked whether  the                                                               
sponsor has  confidence that  this tax rate  would produce  a gas                                                               
1:22:45 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. BAKER asked for the question to be restated.                                                                                
1:23:29 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON restated his  question, and added, "Did the                                                               
sponsor ... the Senate Finance  Committee, believe that it was in                                                               
the  realm of  possibility that  we would  get a  gas line  at 25                                                               
percent profits  tax plus progressivity?"   He agreed  that there                                                               
is  a discrepancy  in  numbers; however,  most  of the  testimony                                                               
heard by the committee asserts that  those numbers are based on a                                                               
tax rate that would never produce a gas pipeline.                                                                               
1:24:43 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  BAKER recognized  that with  the  price parity  projections,                                                               
there is  concern that by  going into an open  season negotiation                                                               
with the  current tax  structure, there would  be a  negative tax                                                               
rate on Alaska's  gas.  He opined the sponsor  feels that, at the                                                               
minimum, the  tax should be zero,  and that the state  should not                                                               
go into negotiations "starting that  far behind the power curve."                                                               
Furthermore, it  was also recognized  that the  gas progressivity                                                               
structure, if  left the same  and affected by rates,  slopes, and                                                               
triggers, was all  "set up on oil, those were  never conceived to                                                               
be the potentially proper progressivity  mechanism that you would                                                               
want if  you were going  to tax your  gas separately."   Thus the                                                               
sponsor realized  that all  of those  factors have  to be  on the                                                               
table  for negotiation  under  the terms  of  a conditional  open                                                               
season.    In fact,  royalty  rates,  progressivity, and  all  of                                                               
Alaska's  tax   structure  would  be   part  of  what   would  be                                                               
negotiated.  He  concluded that splitting oil and  gas results in                                                               
a tax  structure that does not  work well for gas,  however, this                                                               
action  acknowledges the  state's  intent to  treat  oil and  gas                                                               
separately for the first time.                                                                                                  
1:27:23 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  NEUMAN, noting  the approaching  open season,  recalled                                                               
that one of the inducements  of the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act                                                               
(AGIA)  was to  lock in  the tax  rate for  up to  10 years.   He                                                               
questioned the wisdom of locking in  the present tax rate when it                                                               
would  have a  negative  impact  on general  fund  revenues.   In                                                               
addition, he opined  the bill does not change  tax structure, but                                                               
looks at  oil taxes and  gas taxes  differently as they  are both                                                               
energy producing  components that are treated  differently on the                                                               
world market, and have different values.                                                                                        
1:28:57 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON  referred to the previous  presentation of these                                                               
estimates and pointed out that the  $2 billion estimate was not a                                                               
prediction, but a  number "carried out to a  worst case scenario,                                                               
and somewhere  in between  zero, and this  number, is  what we're                                                               
basically gambling."   He stressed that  testimony by consultants                                                               
on the  related House bill  was identical and the  estimates were                                                               
used illustratively.                                                                                                            
1:29:57 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GUTTENBERG  asked   whether  the  Senate  Finance                                                               
Committee explored  any scenarios  or alternatives that  create a                                                               
floor, "so  that it  would never  go below  that rate,  on either                                                               
side, or both, or a combination [there]of."                                                                                     
1:31:13 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. BAKER related that the  Joint Committee on Legislative Budget                                                               
and Audit (JBUD)  hired Dr. David Wood, David  Wood & Associates,                                                               
United  Kingdom,  to  create  a  robust  model  of  Alaska's  tax                                                               
structure,  taking into  consideration all  of the  variables and                                                               
unknowns.   This model  has been  presented to  other legislative                                                               
committees;  and in  fact, the  first point  of his  analysis was                                                               
that  Alaska's coupled  tax  structure  is fundamentally  flawed.                                                               
Furthermore,  the   analysis  indicated   that  there   are  many                                                               
incentives used to encourage production,  and Alaska must address                                                               
the  decoupling  issue and  regressive  taxes,  such as  property                                                               
taxes and royalty taxes, that are  "built-in at the base level of                                                               
their business."   Although Dr. Wood could  address the mechanics                                                               
of  the tax  structure at  the legislature's  request, Mr.  Baker                                                               
opined  that the  sponsor  of  the bill  decided  "to tackle  the                                                               
1:35:24 PM                                                                                                                    
PATRICK  GALVIN,  Commissioner,   Department  of  Revenue  (DOR),                                                               
informed the committee the decoupling  issue is complex with many                                                               
aspects to explore.  He advised  that his presentation is from "a                                                               
very high  level [and  I] tried to  boil down what  I see  as the                                                               
issues, the policy issues, that are  presented by this bill."  In                                                               
addition, significant  analysis has  been done this  session, and                                                               
the presentation  attempts to  cover the  key points  relative to                                                               
the legislature's decision-making process.                                                                                      
1:36:44 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  NEUMAN asked  whether this  is  an issue  of which  the                                                               
department is aware.                                                                                                            
1:37:00 PM                                                                                                                    
COMMISSIONER GALVIN  said yes.   The "dilution effect"  was built                                                               
into  the system  as  an intended  result of  the  "net base  tax                                                               
system with the progressivity element."   In fact, the department                                                               
testified in  2007 as to its  impact on incentives for  heavy oil                                                               
development and the  gas project.  Furthermore,  in January 2008,                                                               
the department cautioned  that revenue from a gas  line, based on                                                               
prices then,  would result in a  reduction of oil taxes  of about                                                               
$1 billion  per year; in  other words,  that was presented  as an                                                               
incentive  for gas  line development.   Since  then, oil  and gas                                                               
prices have  caused the projection  of the dilution effect  to be                                                               
much greater than anticipated, and  the department now recognizes                                                               
that there  are significant advantages,  in terms of  the state's                                                               
fiscal policy, of  having the combination of oil  and gas working                                                               
together.  Commissioner Galvin  acknowledged, however, that there                                                               
are extreme situations concerning  the price differential between                                                               
oil  and gas  that need  to  be addressed,  hence the  decoupling                                                               
solution.   Although there are  less extreme ways to  address the                                                               
situation, such  as a minimum  tax mechanism, the  Senate Finance                                                               
Committee pursued  decoupling, thus DOR has  completed additional                                                               
analysis of SB 305.                                                                                                             
1:40:10 PM                                                                                                                    
COMMISSIONER  GALVIN  continued  to explain  that  his  testimony                                                               
today will provide  a context in which to look  at the decoupling                                                               
issue,  clarify where  the state  currently  is in  the gas  line                                                               
development process,  and examine  expectations for the  next few                                                               
years.  Open season for  the Alaska Pipeline Project (APP) begins                                                               
April  30,  and  Denali  -   The  Alaska  Gas  Pipeline  (Denali)                                                               
submitted its  plan to the  Federal Energy  Regulatory Commission                                                               
(FEC) today.   The open seasons  will go through the  summer, and                                                               
negotiations on agreements will continue through this year.                                                                     
1:41:10 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  GUTTENBERG  surmised  the only  decoupling  issue                                                               
facing the state now is with AGIA and not the Denali project.                                                                   
1:41:42 PM                                                                                                                    
COMMISSIONER  GALVIN  clarified  that the  decoupling  bill  will                                                               
affect the  economics of  either project  because it  will become                                                               
the  law  of  the  land.    He  agreed,  however,  that  the  tax                                                               
inducement in AGIA is not available for the Denali project.                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG  confirmed that decoupling  changes the                                                               
state's tax law for all projects.                                                                                               
1:42:45 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN asked how decoupling changes the tax structure.                                                                 
1:43:21 PM                                                                                                                    
COMMISSIONER GALVIN  explained that  the current  system combines                                                               
oil and  gas and taxes  them as a whole  because oil and  gas are                                                               
produced  together.   In  contrast,  wood  and coal  have  energy                                                               
value, but they are not produced  with oil.  However, oil and gas                                                               
come out  together, and if  the state  is going to  have separate                                                               
systems to tax them, then the  state's current tax system must be                                                               
changed,  and SB  305 takes  half of  the calculation  - revenue,                                                               
less cost, equal profit - and splits  those costs in a way yet to                                                               
be determined.   The result will be different  economics for oil,                                                               
for  gas,   and  for  the   taxes  on  the   underlying  profits.                                                               
Commissioner Galvin  observed, "Regardless  of whether  the rate,                                                               
the progressivity rate, the kick-off  rate for progressivity, are                                                               
changed, the fact of the matter is,  we're going to end up with a                                                               
different tax system for oil then  we have now, [and a] different                                                               
tax system for gas then we have now."                                                                                           
1:44:52 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN opined that is the intent of the bill.                                                                          
COMMISSIONER GALVIN agreed.                                                                                                     
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN pointed  out other gas and  gas line developments                                                               
that are underway.                                                                                                              
1:45:44 PM                                                                                                                    
COMMISSIONER GALVIN  returned to  upcoming events related  to the                                                               
gas line projects  and advised that the department  is looking at                                                               
precedent   agreements,    full   commitments    from   shippers,                                                               
sanctioning  the   project,  and  entering   into  transportation                                                               
services agreements, all effective around  2014.  Between now and                                                               
then there  will be ongoing discussions  about project economics,                                                               
the cash  flow needed  by producers, and  the relative  risks the                                                               
state  is  willing   to  bear.    At  the   conclusion  of  these                                                               
discussions   will  be   agreement  on   the  amount   of  fiscal                                                               
predictability  that the  producers  are going  to  need to  make                                                               
commitments.   He  disagreed with  the initial  premise that  the                                                               
state's "take,"  including property  taxes and royalty  rates, is                                                               
up for  negotiation.   Conversely, Commissioner  Galvin expressed                                                               
his  belief  that  "fiscal certainty,  fiscal  predictability  is                                                               
something that  the producers have clearly  stated they require."                                                               
However, the department  looked at the economics  of the project,                                                               
in  terms of  cash  flow,  and believes  that  under the  state's                                                               
current system,  as of now,  there is  adequate cash flow  to the                                                               
producers.  He  stressed that the state's position  should be one                                                               
of not conceding the question of  whether a change in the state's                                                               
cash flow is required.                                                                                                          
1:48:34 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN recalled  that one of the  inducements under AGIA                                                               
is that  a participant in the  first open season gets  a "lock-in                                                               
on your tax rate."                                                                                                              
COMMISSIONER GALVIN clarified that the  applicable rate is on the                                                               
gas production tax.                                                                                                             
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN  said his point is  that the state may  make full                                                               
commitments for shipping gas until  2014 at a locked-in rate, but                                                               
continue to change  rates for the fiscal  predictability that the                                                               
producers need.                                                                                                                 
1:49:40 PM                                                                                                                    
COMMISSIONER  GALVIN explained  that AGIA  legislation assures  a                                                               
10-year  fiscal   certainty  aspect  to  gas   production  taxes;                                                               
however, producers  have consistently said  10 years is  not long                                                               
enough, and  there is still  uncertainty.  Regardless  of whether                                                               
producers qualify  for the  AGIA inducement,  he said  he expects                                                               
producers will  ask for more durability  and predictability after                                                               
the open  season.   The question remains  about how  flexible the                                                               
state will be in terms of its negotiation position.                                                                             
1:50:40 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR   NEUMAN   noted   the   Commissioner's   reference   to                                                               
assumptions and stated  his concern is with the law  as it stands                                                               
1:50:51 PM                                                                                                                    
COMMISSIONER GALVIN said he was  not contradicting current law at                                                               
1:51:01 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  expressed his  belief that  Alaska's Clear                                                               
and Equitable Share (ACES) inducement  for gas was the difference                                                               
between the  tax rate during the  first open season and  what was                                                               
subsequently negotiated.                                                                                                        
1:51:34 PM                                                                                                                    
COMMISSIONER  GALVIN  advised  that  the inducement  is  the  gas                                                               
production tax  obligation not the  tax rate, but  the obligation                                                               
under  the  current system  that  sets  the  ceiling.   He  said,                                                               
"Whatever  the  obligation,  the gas  production  tax  obligation                                                               
that's  under the  current  system  in place,  is  what sets  the                                                               
1:52:37 PM                                                                                                                    
COMMISSIONER  GALVIN, in  response to  Representative Guttenberg,                                                               
said he  would explain  the difference between  the rate  and the                                                               
obligation  later  in his  testimony.    He  then turned  to  the                                                               
subject of  the primary  considerations of  today, and  said that                                                               
there will  be a  period of uncertainty  during open  season when                                                               
there  will  be ongoing  discussions  in  regard to  the  state's                                                               
fiscal system, and  what needs to be in place  for the long-term.                                                               
For  example, if  the state's  interest can  be protected  during                                                               
this  period by  achieving a  gas  pipeline, and  by securing  an                                                               
appropriate share of  revenue from oil and gas  production once a                                                               
gas  pipeline  is  in  place.    On  this  issue  there  are  two                                                               
considerations:    1. whether  our  fiscal  system is  attractive                                                               
enough to get a gas  pipeline project; 2. whether the potentially                                                               
locked-in portion  of the fiscal  system is set at  an acceptable                                                               
level  for   the  state.     To  address   these  considerations,                                                               
Commissioner Galvin  said the  department modeled  the provisions                                                               
of  SB 305,  in comparison  to the  status quo,  using broad  and                                                               
varied comparisons  from an oil  price range  of $40 to  $200 per                                                               
barrel and  a gas  price parity range  of $6 to  $26.   The model                                                               
also assumed  oil production of  500 thousand barrels of  oil per                                                               
day (500  MMbl/d); a 4.5 billion  cubic feet per day  (Bcf/d) gas                                                               
pipeline;  operating expenses  (OPEX)  of  $2.2 billion;  capital                                                               
expenses (CAPEX) of $2.2 billion.                                                                                               
1:56:05 PM                                                                                                                    
COMMISSIONER GALVIN  displayed a  PowerPoint presentation  by the                                                               
Alaska   Department  of   Revenue  titled,   "Comments  on   CSSB
305(FIN)," and  dated 4/7/10.   Slide  5 titled,  "In all  of the                                                               
Cases Run:   CSSB305(FIN) Results in a Lower  "Locked-in" Gas Tax                                                               
Obligation,"  illustrated two  buckets, one  of taxes  defined by                                                               
the bill and  one of the status  quo.  Because the  bill does not                                                               
set a  cost allocation,  there are a  variety of  cost allocation                                                               
methods that  can be  used by  the model,  such as  an individual                                                               
basis, or formulas  using a Btu barrel equivalent  (BOE) basis or                                                               
a point  of production (PoP) basis.   He described some  of these                                                               
methods  and  cautioned  that "you  get  two  different  numbers,                                                               
wildly different numbers, and we'll show you that."                                                                             
1:58:49 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN  asked the commissioner  to identify  the colored                                                               
areas on the  slide.  He then observed that  the problem with Btu                                                               
equivalents is  that not all oil  and gas are the  same; in fact,                                                               
there  is a  tremendous variation  depending on  the presence  of                                                               
natural  gas  liquids.   To  try  to  base  the  model on  a  Btu                                                               
equivalent simply  using "60  percent of your  costs for  gas, 40                                                               
percent for  oil, well that  gas could  be so much  different ...                                                               
that's  the issue  I've always  had  with Btu  equivalent....   I                                                               
don't think it's an appropriate way to do it."                                                                                  
1:59:46 PM                                                                                                                    
COMMISSIONER GALVIN  explained that if  the gas stream  is broken                                                               
down into  its Btu equivalents, more  value is given to  gas that                                                               
has liquids in  it, when compared to other gas,  and it will take                                                               
less of  it to equate  to one barrel  of oil.   This is  a method                                                               
that allows one to recognize that  there is a difference in value                                                               
and quality  that can  be set on  a volume basis.   On  the other                                                               
hand, the  PoP value method  can be used,  which is based  on the                                                               
dollar value of the commodity  itself.  He advised that different                                                               
cost allocation  methods are  used for  analysis and  because the                                                               
bill  does not  specify which  cost  allocation method  is to  be                                                               
used, the  department has  "no magic  that I'm  going to  come up                                                               
with,  through a  [regulatory] process  that's going  to somehow,                                                               
empirically come  up with one.   But if you don't  like Btu basis                                                               
... then it would be best to have that in the statute."                                                                         
2:02:18 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN restated  his point that the  department is using                                                               
Btu equivalencies that  are based on a percentage of  gas and oil                                                               
out  of a  well,  in volume,  yet the  Btu  values are  different                                                               
across just about every oil and gas field.                                                                                      
2:02:48 PM                                                                                                                    
COMMISSIONER GALVIN assured  the committee that the  Btu value is                                                               
established based  upon the quality  of the product;  however, he                                                               
acknowledged that  at this time,  there is a cause  for confusion                                                               
during his  presentation when he gives  examples and assumptions.                                                               
He returned  to slide 5  and noted  that the assumption,  for the                                                               
purpose of  the model, is  that the cost allocation  would either                                                               
be on a  BOE or a PoP  basis, simply to make  the presentation of                                                               
the results of the model easier.                                                                                                
2:04:17 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON  observed that the PoP is  the net after                                                               
the tariff and asked, "Is  that counting upstream or ... upstream                                                               
and downstream, or just downstream?"                                                                                            
2:04:53 PM                                                                                                                    
COMMISSIONER GALVIN said for a  gas pipeline, it includes the gas                                                               
treatment plant, the main pipeline,  and smaller pipelines to the                                                               
market.  Those  are the only costs being deducted  from the sales                                                               
price to  establish the PoP  value.  Gathering  lines, processing                                                               
plants, and wells  are the costs that must be  allocated; thus it                                                               
needs  to be  determined which  of the  upstream costs  are being                                                               
incurred  to produce  both  oil and  gas, and  how  much will  be                                                               
deducted from oil revenue and how  much will be deducted from gas                                                               
revenue.    Therefore,  for  a point  of  production  basis,  the                                                               
percentages of  the value  of the  gas and the  value of  the oil                                                               
determine the way the costs are  split.  He stressed that this is                                                               
not  what the  tax is  based on,  but these  are the  two methods                                                               
being used in the model.                                                                                                        
COMMISSIONER  GALVIN, in  response to  Co-Chair Neuman's  earlier                                                               
question,  said   that  on   slide  5   the  bar   identified  as                                                               
CSSB305(FIN) is  the separate gas  tax and the separate  oil tax,                                                               
using the same tax rates that are  in current law.  The taxes are                                                               
illustrated  as separate  because the  bill calculates  the taxes                                                               
separately.   To do that, the  costs must also be  separated, and                                                               
the cost allocation  will make the adjustment.  Slides  5, 6, and                                                               
7 do  not use numbers,  but merely  compare the relative  size of                                                               
the bars.                                                                                                                       
2:07:46 PM                                                                                                                    
COMMISSIONER  GALVIN stated  the  right hand  bar represents  the                                                               
status quo  under the current  combined tax system, and  there is                                                               
no separate gas portion or oil  portion.  However, because of the                                                               
AGIA tax inducement, the department had  to come up with a way to                                                               
derive the gas production tax  obligation so it could be compared                                                               
to  some future  law that  may  be in  place.   In  fact, in  the                                                               
present  regulations,  there is  a  method  to attribute  current                                                               
production  tax  obligations between  oil  and  gas, so  the  gas                                                               
production  tax  can  be  established  for  AGIA  tax  inducement                                                               
purposes.    Therefore,  slide  5  shows  that  for  all  of  the                                                               
different  price  relationships,  the  gas  tax  being  locked-in                                                               
without changes is always higher than  the tax set by the passage                                                               
of the proposed decoupling statute.                                                                                             
2:09:44 PM                                                                                                                    
COMMISSIONER  GALVIN, in  response to  Co-Chair Neuman,  said the                                                               
current system, under  ACES, is the combined  production tax that                                                               
results in  a single number  for oil  and gas together,  that the                                                               
producer  owes  to the  state.    For  example,  an oil  and  gas                                                               
producer has a  gas line, prepares its taxes,  and determines its                                                               
tax  obligation to  the state  is  $5 billion.   The  department,                                                               
under  current  regulation,  uses  the relative  PoP  value,  and                                                               
determines how  much is the oil  portion and how much  is the gas                                                               
portion.  Thus the $5 billion  may be divided into $2 billion for                                                               
gas and $3 billion for oil.  In  the same example, if oil and gas                                                               
are  separated and  calculated differently,  the gas  tax portion                                                               
will be less than $2 billion in every price comparison.                                                                         
2:11:57 PM                                                                                                                    
COMMISSIONER GALVIN continued  to slide 6 titled, "In  All of the                                                               
Cases Run:  CSSB305(FIN) Raises  Oil Taxes," and pointed out that                                                               
in all  of the models that  were run, the separate  oil tax under                                                               
the proposed decoupled law is  larger than the attributed oil tax                                                               
under the  status quo.  Furthermore,  in 90 percent of  the cases                                                               
the combined tax  obligation of separate oil and  separate gas is                                                               
larger than when  the two are combined under the  status quo.  It                                                               
is important to  understand that while the  overall state revenue                                                               
is increased  by separation, the  portion that is "fixed"  by the                                                               
AGIA open  season is  always lower  under SB  305 than  under the                                                               
status quo.                                                                                                                     
2:13:39 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN asked whether the regulations are written yet.                                                                  
COMMISSIONER GALVIN said the regulations are final.                                                                             
2:13:50 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  NEUMAN  surmised  that  the regulations  are  final  on                                                               
evaluating PoP, yet  Btu values are different.   He asked whether                                                               
the  regulations tell  industry  and the  department  how to  tax                                                               
those different rates and volumes,  based upon Btu equivalents at                                                               
the PoP.                                                                                                                        
COMMISSIONER GALVIN said yes.                                                                                                   
2:15:03 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  NEUMAN asked  for examples  from  different fields  for                                                               
comparison.   In  response to  Commissioner Galvin's  request for                                                               
clarification, he remarked:                                                                                                     
     You have your point of  production ... at the meter ...                                                                    
     the point  of production, and  then your value  of that                                                                    
     is based on market values,  so you've got that point of                                                                    
     production value.   Then,  because the  Btu equivalents                                                                    
     are different between different  oil and gas fields ...                                                                    
     that produce  both oil and  gas, and because  those Btu                                                                    
     values are so much different  between each one of those                                                                    
     wells,  what I'd  like to  see  is a  chart that  talks                                                                    
     about ... the Btu value...                                                                                                 
COMMISSIONER GALVIN  agreed to  provide information  on potential                                                               
oil and  gas mixes, the potential  heat value of the  gasses, and                                                               
the calculation method for establishing that value.                                                                             
2:16:30 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  NEUMAN observed  that  the  Gubik field  has  a lot  of                                                               
methane,  and so  has a  very low  Btu value,  but possibly  high                                                               
levels  of  gas.    Therefore,  the low  Btu  value  would  be  a                                                               
disincentive to  exploration.  Co-Chair Neuman  said this subject                                                               
would be discussed at another time.                                                                                             
2:17:46 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  P. WILSON  understood Commissioner  Galvin to  be                                                               
saying that if  gas and oil taxes are separated,  the state would                                                               
make more money because it would make more on oil.                                                                              
COMMISSIONER GALVIN agreed.   He referred back to page  13 of the                                                               
presentation by  Logsdon & Associates,  and pointed out  that the                                                               
gas is not  being taxed differently, but that the  oil is getting                                                               
the full  brunt of  the tax  against it.   He  said, "The  oil is                                                               
paying full progressivity at that  price and it's not getting the                                                               
benefit of  the gas  reducing the  progressivity against  the oil                                                               
tax."   In fact, by decoupling,  the state is increasing  the oil                                                               
tax.   He opined this change  is not necessarily wrong,  but that                                                               
is "the  mechanics of it."   In  addition, he clarified  that the                                                               
part  being locked-in  at open  season is  not the  "so-called $2                                                               
billion loss", but is the gas production tax obligation.                                                                        
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN observed that is the dispute with the numbers.                                                                  
COMMISSIONER GALVIN  stated the legislature's economists  are not                                                               
disputing his statements - they have yet to testify on this.                                                                    
2:21:09 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON also  referred to page 13 of  the report by                                                               
Logsdon & Associates, and asked  whether the amount attributed to                                                               
gas  tax  is higher  because  of  the  way the  regulations  read                                                               
regarding the PoP value.  In  all of the scenarios, the gas alone                                                               
tax is $1.1 billion.                                                                                                            
2:22:09 PM                                                                                                                    
COMMISSIONER GALVIN said yes, and  added that if the numbers from                                                               
page 13 are  projected onto slide 5,  at a $120 oil  price and an                                                               
$8 gas  price, the separate oil  tax (green) section of  the left                                                               
bar would be $6.4 billion and  the separate gas tax (red) section                                                               
would  be $1.1  billion.   The  red and  green sections  combined                                                               
would  be $7.5  billion.   The  bar on  the right  would be  $5.5                                                               
billion in total size, as  the regulations take that $5.5 billion                                                               
and divide  it between oil  and gas;  in fact, he  estimated that                                                               
the  red section  would be  $1.2  billion and  the green  section                                                               
would be $4.3 billion.                                                                                                          
2:23:32 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  NEUMAN noted  some of  these comparisons  are shown  on                                                               
subsequent slides.                                                                                                              
2:23:50 PM                                                                                                                    
COMMISSIONER  GALVIN  directed  attention   to  slide  8,  titled                                                               
"Example Cases," and  indicated that estimates on page  13 of the                                                               
Logsdon &  Associates report are  based on splitting costs  by 90                                                               
percent to  oil and 10  percent to gas  (90:10).  He  stated that                                                               
this  ratio  represents  "an extreme  allocation  that  does  not                                                               
reflect either  point of production  or a BOE  equivalent basis."                                                               
He further  explained that  of the  illustrated four  graphs, the                                                               
first being a  BOE cost allocation at $120 oil  and $8 gas, which                                                               
is  a  15:1 price  relationship.    The  second  was a  PoP  cost                                                               
allocation at  15:1.  The third  graph was a BOE  cost allocation                                                               
at $120  oil and  $15 gas,  which is  an 8:1  price relationship.                                                               
The fourth  was a PoP  cost allocation at  8:1.  The  first graph                                                               
also illustrates  a total tax  difference of about $3  billion to                                                               
the  state, exclusively  because the  oil tax  is almost  double.                                                               
The attributed gas portion under  the status quo is $1.2 billion,                                                               
but the  separate gas tax is  less, and that is  the portion that                                                               
would be locked-in at open season.                                                                                              
2:26:54 PM                                                                                                                    
COMMISSIONER   GALVIN  pointed   out   the   second  graph   that                                                               
illustrated the PoP  method of cost allocation, and  said that in                                                               
this case, $600  million in total state tax revenue  is lost, oil                                                               
is  reduced to  $7 billion,  and gas  increases to  $900 million.                                                               
Thus,  the results  of the  proposed  bill are  dependent on  the                                                               
regulations, but  regardless of which,  the gas tax  generated is                                                               
2:28:05 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN said  he thinks that is what the  bill sponsor is                                                               
trying to show.                                                                                                                 
COMMISSIONER GALVIN agreed it is a significant tax increase.                                                                    
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN recognized the different values of PoP and BOE.                                                                 
2:28:39 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  observed that regardless of  the scenario,                                                               
if the  tax is  decoupled the amount  of gas tax  is going  to be                                                               
less than  the amount  attributed to gas.   Therefore,  the state                                                               
would lock-in  at open season  a smaller  amount of gas  tax than                                                               
under either allocation scheme under AGIA.                                                                                      
COMMISSIONER GALVIN said yes.                                                                                                   
2:29:57 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE P.  WILSON opined  decoupling would raise  the oil                                                               
COMMISSIONER GALVIN agreed.                                                                                                     
2:30:22 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON interjected that  the significant action is                                                               
that the  state would be  raising the  oil tax but  lessening the                                                               
gas tax  and, at open  season, under AGIA, guaranteeing  that the                                                               
companies will  have the tax liability  on gas as the  law exists                                                               
at  that  time;  thus  the  tax attributable  to  gas  under  the                                                               
combined status  is higher,  and if separated,  there is  a lower                                                               
tax liability.                                                                                                                  
COMMISSIONER GALVIN  said yes.                                                                                                  
2:31:14 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN indicated  that the regulations do  not take into                                                               
account "higher oil tax productions."                                                                                           
2:31:49 PM                                                                                                                    
COMMISSIONER   GALVIN    clarified   that    the   aforementioned                                                               
regulations deal with attributing  the current tax obligation for                                                               
the  purposes of  the AGIA  tax inducement.   The  department has                                                               
produced a  book on how  to value the gas  and oil, and  what the                                                               
tax  value   is;  however,  the   department  has   not  produced                                                               
regulations that  put in place  a cost allocation method  for all                                                               
oil and gas, which the bill requires it to do.                                                                                  
2:33:08 PM                                                                                                                    
COMMISSIONER  GALVIN  directed  attention   to  slide  9  titled,                                                               
"Observations,"  and  stated  that CSSB  305(FIN)  increases  oil                                                               
taxes,  and in  almost  all  cases increases  total  oil and  gas                                                               
taxes.    It  provides  a   higher  starting  point  for  further                                                               
discussions  with  producers;   however,  it  negatively  affects                                                               
projected gas pipeline economics.   In addition, it would lock in                                                               
a lower  gas tax ceiling,  which enhances  the value of  the AGIA                                                               
tax inducement,  but reduces the  state's flexibility  after open                                                               
season.   He then  advised that  the bill  could be  passed after                                                               
open season without conflicting with the AGIA tax inducement.                                                                   
2:35:16 PM                                                                                                                    
The committee took an at-ease from 2:35 p.m. to 2:36 p.m.                                                                       
2:36:23 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR BERT STEDMAN,  Alaska State Legislature, said  he has not                                                               
had an  opportunity to review  the presentation  by the DOR.   He                                                               
noted  that over  the last  three months  there has  been concern                                                               
about the potential  of a cross-subsidy at the time  of the first                                                               
large gas flow from Alaska's oil  and gas basin.  About two years                                                               
ago, the  Joint Committee on  Legislative Budget and  Audit hired                                                               
Dr. Wood to  study the issue of the tax  structure within the oil                                                               
basin,  and to  consult with  the legislature.   Senator  Stedman                                                               
said the  concern of some legislators  was about the way  the oil                                                               
tax  is structured.   In  fact, during  the discussion  about the                                                               
Petroleum Production  Tax (PPT), legislators took  the discussion                                                               
of  gas  off of  the  table  and  concentrated  on the  oil  tax,                                                               
eventually transitioning from the  Economic Limit Factor (ELF) to                                                               
PPT,  and then  to ACES.   At  the time  PPT was  written, former                                                               
Governor Murkowski was  adamant that progressivity was  not to be                                                               
included in  the tax.   However, during the development  of ACES,                                                               
the  legislature  included  a  component of  PPT  which  was  the                                                               
multiplier  Btu equivalency  that is  part of  the tax  structure                                                               
today.   As a matter of  fact, the legislature has  never taken a                                                               
policy  position  on  the  gas   tax  itself  and  as  the  state                                                               
approached open  season, there was  interest in  discussing three                                                               
issues of a  gas tax: the subject  of HB 305, the  gas tax level,                                                               
and progressivity  on gas.  The  legislature, administration, and                                                               
the  industry   agreed  that   sufficient  information   was  not                                                               
available at  that time  to develop legislation  on the  base gas                                                               
tax, or on progressivity.   However, one component remains in the                                                               
current tax legislation.                                                                                                        
2:40:54 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR STEDMAN  further recalled  that early  in 2010,  Mr. Tony                                                               
Palmer, vice-president  for Alaska gas  development, TransCanada,                                                               
Alberta,  Canada,   gave  a   presentation  to   the  legislature                                                               
regarding  open  season  and  revealed a  range  of  tariffs  and                                                               
forward  price expectations  for oil  and  gas from  the DOE  for                                                               
2020-2030.  The tariffs and  price expectations were entered into                                                               
a  model, and  the offset  to the  state's gas  revenue "actually                                                               
took out the  royalties and then removed part of  the revenue off                                                               
of  oil."   Senator  Stedman  then  had  Dr. Wood  complete  more                                                               
detailed  analyses  that  showed  the state  would  be  facing  a                                                               
significant  revenue offset  and  basically giving  away its  gas                                                               
revenue,  when  the price  ratio  between  gas and  oil  spreads.                                                               
Historically, the price ratio has  been between 8:1-10:1, but the                                                               
state's tax structure is based  on energy equivalency, about 6:1,                                                               
thus if the price of gas and oil  is in the range of 8:1 with oil                                                               
being  more  valuable,  the state  is  "relatively  comfortable."                                                               
However, in  the last three  years the ratio has  been 14:1-20:1,                                                               
and there  are significant revenue  offsets at 15:1.   Today, DOE                                                               
expectations are 15:1-17:1, and  Dr. Wood can provide projections                                                               
on how this would have affected the state's treasury.                                                                           
2:43:51 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  STEDMAN  expressed his  belief  that  the ratio  staying                                                               
around 15:1  versus around  8:1 is more  probable.   Clearly, DOE                                                               
forecasts and  expectations are in  the higher  range; therefore,                                                               
the  state's position  is  unknown.   At the  time  of the  "open                                                               
season lock-down  day on May  1," the  state will still  have the                                                               
ability  to decouple,  but the  impact or  flexibility from  that                                                               
action  is substantially  higher  today because  under AGIA,  the                                                               
flexibility surrounding the gas tax  is lost.  He maintained this                                                               
is the cause  for urgency and it is in  the state's best interest                                                               
to negotiate  with two  separate revenue  streams.   In addition,                                                               
Dr.  Wood  has modeled  the  ability  for  the state  to  predict                                                               
outcomes, and illustrated  that when the price  multiple is moved                                                               
from 8:1-9:1  to 15:1-20:1, there  are huge changes in  cash flow                                                               
resulting in significant financial damage  to the state; in fact,                                                               
when   oil  volumes   are  removed   predictions  become   almost                                                               
2:46:38 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  STEDMAN  opined  members  of  the  legislature  did  not                                                               
recognize the magnitude  of the state's possible  loss, of around                                                               
$2  billion,  when  the  ratio  is 15:1.    He  argued  that  the                                                               
probability of an outcome that is  not in the state's interest is                                                               
substantially  higher than  the other  way around.   Furthermore,                                                               
the  dynamics of  a global  market  for shale  gas and  liquefied                                                               
natural  gas (LNG)  arise  as Alaska  is  "locked-in a  position,                                                               
under  AGIA, where  we  can't, we  don't  have the  flexibility."                                                               
Senator Paskvan, who  did not experience the PPT,  ACES, and AGIA                                                               
processes, was  asked to help look  at the legal aspects  of this                                                               
matter  because,  as Senator  Stedman  said,  "Frankly, I'm  very                                                               
confident,  that what's  going  on here  is  a world-class  petro                                                               
dollar shell  game being played  on the State of  Alaska, there's                                                               
actually  no  doubt   in  my  mind."    He   cautioned  that  the                                                               
legislature  will   be  provided   with  charts,   formulas,  and                                                               
regulations, but the fiscal regime  of every hydrocarbon basin in                                                               
the world comes  down to the amount of cash  flow to the industry                                                               
and the sovereign - the state  and federal government - and urged                                                               
the committee to watch the cash flow.                                                                                           
2:49:40 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  STEDMAN  provided the  example  of  today's multiple  of                                                               
20:1, which  are an  $85 oil price  and a $4  gas price.   Thirty                                                               
days after  the gas is turned  on, he predicted DOR  would report                                                               
no increase  in revenue, that no  revenue was made from  the gas,                                                               
and  that the  oil revenue  has declined.   Nowhere  else in  the                                                               
world is  hydrocarbon given  away; in  fact, troubled  basins are                                                               
incentivized  through tax  relief,  royalty  relief, and  perhaps                                                               
progressivity, but  the hydrocarbon is  not given away.   Senator                                                               
Stedman concluded that  after all of the analyses,  the answer is                                                               
found  in  the cash.    The  bill is  not  an  incentive for  the                                                               
industry and will not affect open  season, but it will affect the                                                               
state's ability to protect its  revenue stream from the marketing                                                               
of its gas.                                                                                                                     
2:51:54 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN  referred to the  variance in  differentials over                                                               
time and pointed out  that the ratio in 1982 was  20:1.  He asked                                                               
for the effect of present-day  competition, pointing out that was                                                               
not an  issue for energy in  the '80s.  Today  there is financial                                                               
support from  the government for  hydro, solar, and  wind energy;                                                               
in fact,  the world has  changed, and  the market in  America has                                                               
2:53:45 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  JOE PASKVAN,  Alaska State  Legislature, addressing  the                                                               
previous point regarding the difference  between the price of the                                                               
commodity  and the  Btu equivalency,  said historically  there is                                                               
deviation from the  6:1 benchmark.  He  questioned what magnitude                                                               
of risk  that would make to  the state, considering that  the DOE                                                               
forecasts a ratio  of 14:1-18:1 for 100 percent of  the time into                                                               
the  future.   He  advised that  at 12:1  the  production tax  is                                                               
eliminated, at  15:1 the  royalty revenue  is eliminated,  and at                                                               
20:1  savings would  be used  to  export the  resource.   Senator                                                               
Paskvan said he  reviewed this situation, "looking  at it through                                                               
the  legal  eyes,"   and  his  alert  to   the  attorney  general                                                               
instigated almost  $1 million  in research  by the  department of                                                               
law (DOL).   This is  important, not because  of the cost  to the                                                               
state, but because it is an  indication that this is an extremely                                                               
complex  legal issue  of  "first impression"  to  the state,  and                                                               
holds significant legal  risk.  Therefore, the  only answer would                                                               
come at a time in the  future when Alaska is being sued, billions                                                               
of dollars are  at risk, and the state is  waiting for a decision                                                               
from the  Alaska Supreme  Court.   Senator Paskvan  opined action                                                               
can be taken before May 1 with  zero legal risk, but after May 1,                                                               
the attorney general  has advised any action is  subject to legal                                                               
issues.  He  observed that Alaska has  two world-class resources,                                                               
oil and  natural gas,  and each resource  should be  addressed on                                                               
its  own  merits; for  example,  the  gas pipeline  should  stand                                                               
alone,  and  decoupling now  allows  that  to occur  without  the                                                               
effect  of dilution  on the  state's treasury.   Senator  Paskvan                                                               
concluded that this is not  a Republican or Democratic issue, but                                                               
an action to protect the state's treasury and cash flow.                                                                        
2:58:24 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  NEUMAN asked  for Senator  Stedman's opinion  on taxing                                                               
for value based on Btu equivalent.                                                                                              
2:58:51 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  STEDMAN responded  that cost  allocation is  a difficult                                                               
section of  the bill due to  its importance to cash  flow between                                                               
the state, the industry, and  the federal government.  There were                                                               
two constraints when  dealing with the issue  of cost allocation:                                                               
the  administration  was  encouraged  to  use  a  barrel  of  oil                                                               
equivalency through regulation,  and there was an  urgency to put                                                               
the bill on the House calendar.   He opined there is insufficient                                                               
information to answer the cost  allocation question; however, the                                                               
departments have access to confidential  information and are in a                                                               
better  position  to find  the  correct  answer, along  with  the                                                               
legislature's  expert consultants.    Moreover,  between now  and                                                               
sanctioning,  that   subject  will  come  to   conclusion  during                                                               
negotiations between  the state  and producers.   Senator Stedman                                                               
urged the  committee to  study Dr.  David Wood's  calculations on                                                               
the revenue  impact.   Even today without  gas running,  for Cook                                                               
Inlet and on  the North Slope, the cross-subsidy  impact over the                                                               
last three years is about $250 million to the treasury.                                                                         
3:01:35 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE P.  WILSON observed  that DOR  scenarios indicated                                                               
that decoupling  dropped the gas  revenue, but increased  the oil                                                               
tax.  She asked whether Dr. Wood reported on this effect.                                                                       
3:02:34 PM                                                                                                                    
SENATOR  STEDMAN has  heard a  similar  debate in  the media  and                                                               
agreed,  "You could  look  at it  that way."    However, the  gas                                                               
revenue  is  the state's  revenue,  not  the industry's  revenue.                                                               
This is not  a tax increase and that argument  is a bizarre twist                                                               
of the mathematics of what is going on.  He remarked:                                                                           
     Have the  gas tax  calculation run and  put a  stack of                                                                    
     cash  on the  table, have  the oil  tax run  and put  a                                                                    
     stack on the  table, and then start  playing this shell                                                                    
     game,  and watch  the  state's pile  go  down, and  the                                                                    
     industry's pile go  up.  And everything  else stays the                                                                    
     same.  ...  But to  what  references  exactly that  the                                                                    
     commissioner  made, I  wasn't  in the  room, I  haven't                                                                    
     seen  his presentation,  so I  can't really  comment on                                                                    
3:04:05 PM                                                                                                                    
[SB 305 was held over.]                                                                                                         

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
SB 305 versionW.A.pdf HRES 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 305
SB 305 sponsor statement.pdf HRES 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 305
SB 305 W.A.sec.analysis.pdf HRES 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 305
SB 305 40710 LogsdonAssocHouseRes.pdf HRES 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 305
SB 305 1-2-033110-FIN-Y.pdf HRES 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 305
HB 411A.pdf HRES 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 411
SB 305 Amend WA.2 Rep. Seaton.pdf HRES 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 305
2-17-2010_MOU_AIDEA_AEA.pdf HRES 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 411-1-2-030810-CED-N.pdf HRES 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 411
HB 411-2-1-022610-REV-N.pdf HRES 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 411
HB 411-3-1-022610-DOT-N.pdf HRES 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 411
HB 411-4-2-030810-CED-Y.pdf HRES 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
HB 411
SB 305 AOGA Testimony 4.7.10.pdf HRES 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 305
SB305 Dept of Rev 4-7-10 final.pdf HRES 4/7/2010 1:00:00 PM
SB 305