Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124

04/17/2015 01:00 PM House RESOURCES

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Moved HCS CSSB 70(RES) Out of Committee
-- Invited/Public Testimony --
Moved CSSJR 18(RES) Out of Committee
-- Invited/Public Testimony --
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
               HB 191-OIL AND GAS CORPORATE TAXES                                                                           
2:10:19 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK  announced that  the final  order of  business is                                                               
HOUSE  BILL  NO.  191,  "An  Act relating  to  the  oil  and  gas                                                               
corporate income tax; and providing for an effective date."                                                                     
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK noted  the committee will not take  any action on                                                               
HB 191 and the bill will be held over for future discussion.                                                                    
2:10:43 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON,  sponsor,  introduced   HB  191  using  a                                                               
PowerPoint presentation.   He said  HB 191 would ensure  fair and                                                               
equitable  treatment among  [corporate]  taxpayers, whether  they                                                               
are multi-national  companies or  Alaska companies  producing oil                                                               
or gas  only in Alaska.   He  addressed slide 2,  explaining that                                                               
worldwide   apportionment   attributes    a   percentage   of   a                                                               
corporation's total  worldwide expenses to each  jurisdiction and                                                               
treats  the [parent]  company and  all of  its subsidiaries  as a                                                               
single  entity for  tax purposes.   The  problem is  that when  a                                                               
corporation's subsidiaries outside of  Alaska are less profitable                                                               
than they are inside of Alaska,  it reduces the taxes the company                                                               
pays to Alaska  to account for the expenses  incurred overseas or                                                               
in the Lower 48.   He noted he is using the  word profit a little                                                               
vernacular;  everyone understands  what that  means -  people are                                                               
often talking about net margin,  which means profit before taxes.                                                               
Continuing,  he explained  that  under  separate accounting  each                                                               
jurisdiction  is looked  at separately.   The  difference between                                                               
the  revenue  generated  in  a   jurisdiction  and  the  expenses                                                               
attributed to  generation of  that revenue  in a  jurisdiction is                                                               
the net margin/profit.   The method of  separate accounting means                                                               
that everybody  is going  to pay  the same.   A  corporation that                                                               
exists solely  in Alaska, producing  oil and gas in  Alaska, with                                                               
all expenses related  to Alaska, will pay 9.4 percent  tax on its                                                               
profit.   Historically under worldwide apportionment,  the multi-                                                               
national corporations pay much less  than 9.4 percent tax because                                                               
they can  write off their  overseas expenses against  the profits                                                               
they made in Alaska.                                                                                                            
2:14:07 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON turned  to slide  3, "History  of Separate                                                               
Accounting,"   reporting  that   Alaska  originally   began  with                                                               
worldwide apportionment and  found it was not  collecting what it                                                               
felt was its  fair share from revenues generated in  Alaska.  The                                                               
state  subsequently changed  its system  to separate  accounting,                                                               
using this system  from 1978-1981, but the state was  sued by oil                                                               
companies.   The fear  was the  amount of  money the  state would                                                               
have to  pay to the oil  companies if the state  lost the lawsuit                                                               
because  the  companies  would be  paying  less  under  worldwide                                                               
apportionment,  so   the  legislature  went  back   to  worldwide                                                               
apportionment.  The  state ended up winning on all  counts in the                                                               
Alaska  Supreme Court.   This  was appealed  to the  U.S. Supreme                                                               
Court, but the  U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the  case because it                                                               
didn't bring  up any issues of  federal importance.  He  moved to                                                               
slide  4 to  show the  cover  page of  the lawsuit  case [in  the                                                               
Alaska Supreme  Court].  Displaying  slide 5 he pointed  out that                                                               
during  the  years  1978-1981, inclusive,  the  total  difference                                                               
between separate accounting and  worldwide apportionment was $1.8                                                               
billion.   Fearing Alaska  might have to  repay this  amount, the                                                               
legislature repealed separate  accounting.  Representative Seaton                                                               
explained  that  slide 6  is  from  a  presentation made  by  Dan                                                               
Dickinson of  the Department  of Revenue in  1999.   Between 1982                                                               
and  1997  the  state  collected   $4.6  billion  less  by  using                                                               
worldwide  apportionment  than  it  would  have  collected  using                                                               
separate  accounting.   He clarified  that the  only thing  being                                                               
talked  about is  deduction of  expenses from  overseas, the  tax                                                               
rate would  not be changed and  would remain at 9.4  percent.  He                                                               
noted  slide 7  is a  graphic representation  of Mr.  Dickinson's                                                               
report.  The blue bars are  what the state actually collected and                                                               
the grey bars are what would  have been collected at the same tax                                                               
rate under  separate accounting, with the  difference between the                                                               
quite large.                                                                                                                    
2:17:36 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON related  that  an argument  heard is  that                                                               
separate accounting is difficult to  do.  He displayed a synopsis                                                               
(slide 8)  of the two  states (Oklahoma and Mississippi)  and the                                                               
80 countries  that use separate accounting,  drawing attention to                                                               
the companies that operate in Alaska  as well as those two states                                                               
and the  other countries.   [Companies  operating in  both Alaska                                                               
and Mississippi  include Anadarko Petroleum,  Apache Corporation,                                                               
Aurora  Exploration,  Chevron  USA,  ExxonMobil,  Hilcorp  Energy                                                               
Company,  Shell  Oil, Tesoro,  and  Ultra  Oil &  Gas;  Companies                                                               
operating   in  both   Alaska  and   Oklahoma  include   Anadarko                                                               
Petroleum,  Apache  Corporation,  BP  Exploration  &  Production,                                                               
Chevron  USA,  ConocoPhillips,  ExxonMobil Corporation,  and  XTO                                                               
Energy].   He  pointed  out that  it is  more  difficult for  the                                                               
companies to  do separate accounting in  Oklahoma and Mississippi                                                               
because there are close adjoining  states where the companies are                                                               
also doing oil and gas  development, while Alaska is thousands of                                                               
miles away  from another state.   Regarding the  80 oil-producing                                                               
countries,  he  reported  that for  nonresident  corporations  in                                                               
these  countries the  vast  majority of  the  companies must  use                                                               
separate  accounting.   [Companies operating  in both  Alaska and                                                               
other countries  include Anadarko Petroleum,  Apache Corporation,                                                               
BP  Exploration &  Production, Chevron  USA, ConocoPhillips,  Eni                                                               
Petroleum,  ExxonMobil  Corporation,  Repsol, Shell  Oil  Company                                                               
(Royal  Dutch  Shell),  and  Statoil].    Thus,  these  companies                                                               
already are  doing separate accounting.   Ten states in  the U.S.                                                               
allow a company to choose  whether to use worldwide apportionment                                                               
or  separate   accounting,  he  added,  and   almost  always  the                                                               
companies choose worldwide apportionment.   However, that doesn't                                                               
mean the  companies aren't  calculating it  all the  time because                                                               
they will swap back and forth when it is beneficial.                                                                            
2:19:33 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reviewed  the tax rates and  net income for                                                               
the top five  oil companies paying taxes to Alaska  for tax years                                                               
2006-2013  (slides   9-12).    He  explained   ConocoPhillips  is                                                               
separated out [slides  11-12] because it is  the only corporation                                                               
required to separate  its Alaska production, thus it  is the only                                                               
company  that   reports  it  to   the  Securities   and  Exchange                                                               
Commission (SEC).   Because tax  data in Alaska  is confidential,                                                               
data for  the top five  companies in  Alaska is combined  into an                                                               
aggregate rather  than individually for each  of those companies.                                                               
Turning to slide  10, "Top Five Oil Companies  - Corporate Income                                                               
Tax Comparison," he  pointed out that in 2013 the  tax paid under                                                               
worldwide apportionment was $355 million  less than what it would                                                               
have been under  separate accounting.  Further,  between 2006 and                                                               
2013 the effective  tax rate paid to Alaska by  these five multi-                                                               
national  companies declined  [from 10.1  percent] in  2006, when                                                               
there was a  change in tax rate halfway through  the year, to 4.4                                                               
percent  in  2013.   However,  an  Alaska-only company  pays  9.4                                                               
percent corporate income tax.                                                                                                   
2:21:40 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  brought attention  to slide 11,  "Table 2:                                                               
ConocoPhillips Exploration  and Production Net Income  per Barrel                                                               
of Oil Equivalent by Selected  Jurisdictions."  He noted that the                                                               
average  net  income per  barrel  [for  the years  2000-2014]  is                                                               
$18.73 for  Alaska, $7.66 for  the Lower  48, and $10.95  for the                                                               
global total.  Those differences in  net income per barrel of oil                                                               
equivalents is explained by the  taxes being paid to Alaska being                                                               
less  than half  of  what  would be  required  of an  Alaska-only                                                               
producer.   There is a  problem with  mixing oil and  gas because                                                               
gas is  generally less profitable.   However, the  companies have                                                               
never separated  their oil production from  their gas production;                                                               
they  have  been  asked  to   do  so,  but  they  have  declined.                                                               
Displaying slide 12,  a graphic representation of  the numbers on                                                               
slide 11 for ConocoPhillips, he  noted the huge difference in net                                                               
income per barrel that is seen on the graph.                                                                                    
2:23:32 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  moved to  slide 13 to  continue addressing                                                               
ConocoPhillips  and Alaska.   He  explained he  isn't picking  on                                                               
ConocoPhillips, but since ConocoPhillips  is the only corporation                                                               
required  to  make  reports  to   the  SEC  [the  information  is                                                               
available].   Bringing  attention to  slide 14  depicting a  2011                                                               
article  from Petroleum  News, he  noted that  Greg Garland,  the                                                             
ConocoPhillips   senior  vice   president  for   exploration  and                                                               
production in the Americas, states  that ConocoPhillips likes the                                                               
Eagle  Ford [shale  play in  Texas] because  [the $45  per barrel                                                               
margin] was twice that of  Conoco's global portfolio, meaning the                                                               
global portfolio was  about $23 per barrel.   Looking at Alaska's                                                               
oil economics  in 2011 (slide 15),  Representative Seaton pointed                                                               
out  that the  net  margin  [of $43.50]  per  barrel  of oil  was                                                               
essentially the same  as the Eagle Ford net margin  [of $45] that                                                               
ConocoPhillips said it  liked.  Alaska's 2011  margins were twice                                                               
ConocoPhillips' global  average, which  shows how  Alaska's taxes                                                               
get diluted.   Moving to  slide 16, he noted  that ConocoPhillips                                                               
is very  bullish on Alaska:   making a final  investment decision                                                               
on expanding the  1H drill site at West Sak  and going to viscous                                                               
oil production,  sanctioning construction  of site 2S  at Kuparuk                                                               
River, and so forth.  The  question is how that relates to Alaska                                                               
versus other oil  economics (slide 17).  He pointed  out that the                                                               
[total] rig count  for Alaska increased between 2008  and 2015 as                                                               
did the rig count just  for ConocoPhillips in Alaska, whereas the                                                               
rig count in  the Lower 48 and in Canada  went down between [2012                                                               
and 2015].   Oil companies  are not investing in  new exploration                                                               
and production  in the  Lower 48 because  they are  investing for                                                               
profit, he  said.   They are  investing in  Alaska because  it is                                                               
more  profitable   -  without  separate  accounting   that  lower                                                               
profitability in the Lower 48 reduces their Alaska taxes.                                                                       
2:26:33 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  said he  is interested  in this  but is                                                               
inclined  to  play  a  bit  of devil's  advocate.    Noting  that                                                               
Representative Seaton  is talking  about how  Alaska's investment                                                               
climate  is  better  due to  worldwide  apportionment,  he  asked                                                               
whether this  isn't the Senate  Bill 21 argument all  over again.                                                               
He further asked  what the difference is from  the oil industry's                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied there is  quite a bit of difference                                                               
because it  is corporate income  tax that is being  talked about,                                                               
which  is based  on profitability  of  the oil  company, not  oil                                                               
production  tax as  in Senate  Bill 21.   He  clarified he  isn't                                                               
saying  the  companies  are  more   profitable  here  because  of                                                               
worldwide apportionment,  rather the state is  reducing its taxes                                                               
because Alaska  is more profitable  than the other places.   From                                                               
the historical data  it can be seen that there  was only one time                                                               
when worldwide  apportionment would  have gotten Alaska  a little                                                               
more   money  than   separate   accounting.     Exploration   and                                                               
production,  which   Alaska  is  heavy  in,   is  generally  more                                                               
profitable than retail oil sales and refining.                                                                                  
2:28:49 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON reiterated that  HB 191 is intriguing to                                                               
him and noted  that he voted against Senate Bill  21, but said it                                                               
seems that  all of last summer's  ads on television and  in print                                                               
could  have been  cut and  "corporate income  tax" pasted  in and                                                               
statements  made   about  how  it  would   suppress  interest  in                                                               
development  and  the  positive economics  of  development,  even                                                               
though it is a different topic.                                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON  responded he  doesn't  believe  so -  the                                                               
profits are  there and then  the taxes are  applied.  He  said he                                                               
doesn't  think  it  is  the  tax  differential  that  is  driving                                                               
investment in  Alaska, the  tax differential  actually subsidizes                                                               
investment in lower-profit  areas.  For example,  a company could                                                               
go into an area where its  profit isn't quite as good because the                                                               
expenses are higher,  but those would be  somewhat offset because                                                               
it  would  reduce the  company's  taxes  in  Alaska.   It  is  to                                                               
Alaska's detriment, not its benefit, that that happens.                                                                         
2:30:16 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON displayed slide  18, "Estimated average oil                                                               
industry 'margin'  per taxable  barrel in Alaska  for FY16."   He                                                               
pointed out  that [under the  current production tax  method] the                                                               
company margin  before state  and federal  income tax  is $11.04.                                                               
He opined that companies "are  still investing here; the point of                                                               
this is that  rigs are being laid  down all over in  the Lower 48                                                               
and  other  places,  whereas current  investment  is  going  here                                                               
because it's more profitable, if  you're more profitable than the                                                               
other regions  then you are going  to reduce your taxes  here for                                                               
the expenses that are occurring elsewhere."                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  drew attention  to slide 19,  pointing out                                                               
that for tax  year 2013 the top five oil  companies paid taxes of                                                               
4.4 percent,  whereas under separate  accounting they  would have                                                               
paid the  statutory rate of  9.4 percent.  Thus,  under worldwide                                                               
apportionment rather  than separate accounting, Alaska's  loss in                                                               
2013 was $355 million.  The  average loss over the last few years                                                               
is $220 million and $220 million  a year is significant given the                                                               
fiscal times that Alaska is in.                                                                                                 
2:31:44 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON inquired whether  a policy call was made                                                               
by   either  the   Hammond   Administration   or  the   Sheffield                                                               
Administration  in  the  early  and mid-1980s  to  come  off  the                                                               
corporate income  throttle and come  down harder on  gross income                                                               
tax or severance tax.                                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON  answered he doesn't  believe so.   When he                                                               
came  to the  legislature  there was  the  Economic Limit  Factor                                                               
(ELF),   which  was   totally  broken.     Under   the  Murkowski                                                               
Administration  the  second  largest   oil  field  wasn't  paying                                                               
anything.   There  was not  a balance  made of  increasing taxes,                                                               
there  was  only a  lowering  of  those  and  not going  back  to                                                               
separate  accounting  even though  there  was  an Alaska  Supreme                                                               
Court decision telling the legislature  that that was an adequate                                                               
and appropriate  way to tax.   History  has shown that  the state                                                               
would  be better  off under  a [separate  accounting] tax  regime                                                               
with a 9.4  percent tax rate, but the legislature  for one reason                                                               
or another has not changed its tax  policy and that is why HB 191                                                               
is before  the committee.  The  bill would ensure that  the taxes                                                               
are  fairly  and  equitably   apportioned  to  international  oil                                                               
companies as  well as Alaska-only  oil companies;  under separate                                                               
accounting a  tax rate of  9.4 percent  would be applied  to both                                                               
types of companies.   So, the question before  the legislature is                                                               
whether  to  charge  double taxation  on  Alaska-only  companies,                                                               
given the tax  rate for Alaska-only companies is  9.4 percent and                                                               
the tax rate for international companies has been 4.4 percent.                                                                  
2:34:33 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE TARR  asked whether, in relation  to activities on                                                               
the Alaska Liquefied  Natural Gas Project (Alaska  LNG Project or                                                               
AK  LNG), under  separate accounting  oil development  activities                                                               
would  be accounted  for separate  from the  corporate activities                                                               
related to AK LNG or would all of that be considered Alaska.                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  SEATON  replied  that   oil  and  gas  properties                                                               
generally are consolidated as being  Alaska operations in the oil                                                               
and gas.  He deferred to  the Department of Revenue for an answer                                                               
as to whether the transportation is going to be separated.                                                                      
KEN ALPER,  Director, Tax Division, Department  of Revenue (DOR),                                                               
responded to  Representative Tarr's  question by  explaining that                                                               
Alaska's  corporate income  tax taxes  activities within  Alaska.                                                               
It doesn't  tax them directly because  the relative profitability                                                               
for those  Alaska activities,  which includes  the profit  on the                                                               
production, the profit on the  transportation, and so forth, gets                                                               
run through this formula of  apportionment where it gets compared                                                               
with the relative  numbers in other parts of the  world.  He said                                                               
he doesn't envision  any difference inside AK LNG.   The state's,                                                               
the corporations',  and the partners'  in AK LNG's  profits would                                                               
be  subject to  this tax  just  as they  currently are.   In  the                                                               
conversations before  the body last  year, say, during  debate of                                                               
Senate Bill  138, the property  tax and the corporate  income tax                                                               
were sort of  outside the in-kind conversation.   The expectation                                                               
was that  the State of Alaska  would be taking its  royalties and                                                               
its production  taxes in-kind  and the state  would own  that gas                                                               
and  run  it  through  that project.    Whatever  the  companies'                                                               
profits were  on their portions of  AK LNG would then  be subject                                                               
to corporate  income tax.   He said he  doesn't see where  HB 191                                                               
would change that mechanism in any way.                                                                                         
2:38:39 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON requested  Mr. Alper  to provide  a few                                                               
sentences  on  the  foundational philosophy  between  royalty,  a                                                               
gross severance tax,  be it profit or through  some other method,                                                               
and corporate income tax.                                                                                                       
MR. ALPER  answered that  the royalty  is the  landowner's share.                                                               
In most  parts of  North America  oil and  gas are  produced from                                                               
privately owned  land so  the royalty  would go  to the  owner of                                                               
that land.  Alaska  is fortunate in that most of  the oil and gas                                                               
that has  been developed on  the North Slope  is on land  that is                                                               
owned and selected  by the state, so the state  gets to take that                                                               
piece as  the landowner,  regardless of the  state's role  as the                                                               
sovereign.    The severance  tax  is  the  state's right  as  the                                                               
sovereign.   Because it is  a nonrenewable resource  that's being                                                               
severed from the  ground, the state is being  compensated in some                                                               
form  for the  one-time removal  of something  that fundamentally                                                               
belongs to the state, a  subsurface resource.  A corporate income                                                               
tax  is separate  from the  natural resource  world.   It is  the                                                               
state's taxation power, also a  sovereign power as the state, for                                                               
the  privilege  of  doing business  within  Alaska's  borders  in                                                               
exchange  for  the  services  the  state  provides.    The  state                                                               
collects a  tax on  the profit  of corporate entities.   It  is a                                                               
broad tax, it  goes beyond the corporations that  produce oil and                                                               
gas; it applies to other  large companies that meet the threshold                                                               
of the corporate income tax.                                                                                                    
2:40:45 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON commented that  the corporate income tax                                                               
is  literally the  fact  that  the state  is  enforcing laws  and                                                               
contracts,  has a  court system,  all those  privileges that  the                                                               
state affords a corporation.                                                                                                    
MR. ALPER  concurred.   The fact that  there is  an apportionment                                                               
mechanism is  in many ways a  simplifying factor, he said,  a way                                                               
in  which  the  various  states  and  their  tax  administrations                                                               
cooperate with  each other  to balance  the deck.   Where  HB 191                                                               
goes  is to  recognize that  there are  some inherent  imbalances                                                               
specifically  in  the oil  and  gas  world, perhaps  because  the                                                               
nature of  the production in  Alaska is very different  from what                                                               
happens in the Lower 48.                                                                                                        
2:41:30 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that  nothing in the bill would                                                               
affect credits.   All of the credits that would  be applicable to                                                               
the current  income tax  that is being  paid are  transferred and                                                               
are  applicable to  the tax  here.   There  is no  slight-of-hand                                                               
trying to eliminate or impact  credits.  Credits are mentioned in                                                               
the bill only  so that all of the credits  are available and none                                                               
of them are available twice:  in  the year that a credit would be                                                               
there, it  could not be  claimed on both  the old and  new income                                                               
2:42:41 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  TARR  inquired   whether  the  accounting  system                                                               
proposed  in HB  191 could  lead to  increased investment,  given                                                               
that a company is balancing  credits and investments against each                                                               
MR. ALPER replied  that the suite of  credits currently available                                                               
against  the  corporate  income tax  are  somewhat  different  in                                                               
nature than the credits on, say,  the oil and gas production tax.                                                               
The  credits tend  to be  targeted to  very specific  activities,                                                               
such  as manufacturing,  value-added, refinery,  education.   The                                                               
corporate income tax,  because it has a broad  taxpayer base, has                                                               
been  used as  a  place where  credits can  be  used for  desired                                                               
activity.   For  example, many  of the  companies earning  a film                                                               
credit don't pay  income tax in the state of  Alaska because they                                                               
are not Alaskan  companies, but those credits would  then be sold                                                               
and used  by corporate income tax  payers.  He said  HB 191 would                                                               
maintain  all   of  that   structure.     All  of   those  taxes,                                                               
transferable  and otherwise,  could  be used  against either  the                                                               
traditional  corporate income  tax,  which would  continue to  be                                                               
apportioned, or this new oil  and gas corporate income tax, which                                                               
would use a separate accounting mechanism.                                                                                      
[HB 191 was held over.]                                                                                                         

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
CSSB 70 ver N.pdf HRES 4/17/2015 1:00:00 PM
SB 70
CSSB 70 Sponsor Statement.pdf HRES 4/17/2015 1:00:00 PM
SB 70
CSSB 70(FIN)-Supporting Document-(LAS 30116 AGDC Geotech State Parks Permit final signed 2015).pdf HRES 4/17/2015 1:00:00 PM
SB 70
CSSB 70(FIN)-Supporting Document-DNR Reply to SRES-3-17-15.pdf HRES 4/17/2015 1:00:00 PM
SB 70
SJR 18 ver W.pdf HRES 4/17/2015 1:00:00 PM
SJR 18 Sponsor Statement.pdf HRES 4/17/2015 1:00:00 PM
SJR 18 Fiscal Note-SRES-4-15-15.pdf HRES 4/17/2015 1:00:00 PM
SJR 18 Gov Inslee letter 3-31-15.pdf HRES 4/17/2015 1:00:00 PM
SJR 18 Export-Import Bank-News Articles.pdf HRES 4/17/2015 1:00:00 PM
SJR 18 Seattle City Council-SLOG News Article 4-10-15.pdf HRES 4/17/2015 1:00:00 PM
SJR 18 Supporting Documents-NSB Mayor Charlotte E. Brower Response to WA Gov Inslee 4-10-15.pdf HRES 4/17/2015 1:00:00 PM
SJR 18 Supporting Documents-Ties that Bind Puget Sound to AK-Seattle Metro Chamber 2-6-15.pdf HRES 4/17/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 191 ver H.pdf HRES 4/17/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 191
HB 191 Sponsor Statement.pdf HRES 4/17/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 191
HB 191 Sponsor Presentation.pdf HRES 4/17/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 191
HB 191 Sectional Analysis.pdf HRES 4/17/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 191
HB 191 Sectional Analysis (Short Version).pdf HRES 4/17/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 191
CSSB 70 DNR Briefing Paper.pdf HRES 4/17/2015 1:00:00 PM
SB 70
CSSB 70 Sectional Analysis.pdf HRES 4/17/2015 1:00:00 PM
SB 70
CSSB 70 Supporting Document LDA_CaptCook.pdf HRES 4/17/2015 1:00:00 PM
SB 70
CSSB 70 Supporting Document LDA_Denali_.pdf HRES 4/17/2015 1:00:00 PM
SB 70
CSSB 70 Supporting Document LDA_NancyLake.pdf HRES 4/17/2015 1:00:00 PM
SB 70
CSSB 70 Supporting Document LDA_WillowCreek.pdf HRES 4/17/2015 1:00:00 PM
SB 70
SB070CS-DNR-PKS-4-16-15.pdf HRES 4/17/2015 1:00:00 PM
SB 70
HB 191 Fiscal Note-DOR-TAX-4-17-15.pdf HRES 4/17/2015 1:00:00 PM
HB 191
CSSB 70 DNR Briefing Paper.pdf HRES 4/17/2015 1:00:00 PM
SB 70
CSSB 70(FIN) Amd #1 Map.pdf HRES 4/17/2015 1:00:00 PM
SB 70
CSSB 70(FIN) amd #1 29-GS1820 N 1.pdf HRES 4/17/2015 1:00:00 PM
SB 70