SRES-260518-1530

I call Senate Resources Committee meeting to order. Today is May 18th, 2026, and the time is 3:30 PM. Please turn off your cell phones. Uh, welcome to committee members Senator Rauscher, Senator Kawasaki, Senator Dunbar, Senator Myers, Senator Clayman, and myself. I'm Senator Giesel.

I expect Vice Chair Wilkowski to come along shortly. We have a quorum to conduct business. Thank you to Heather and Chloe who have been faithfully with us for 64, I think, resource meetings this year. Today we're hearing for the 36th time Senate Bill 280, and we are in the middle of a presentation from the Department of Revenue. And so we will continue on that.

We're on slide 29, moving on to slide 30. I believe that Owen Stevens is with us to continue the presentation. Welcome, Mr. Stevens.

Thank you, Jackie. Ellen Stevens here, for the record. I'm a commercial analyst with the Department of Revenue. So I wouldn't have live backup here in case of questions, but we will endeavor to respond in writing when necessary. So I will work through these and maybe hold questions until the end of the section unless there's something that needs to be immediately explained.

That's great. So, okay, we looked at essentially the impact of a different debt-to-equity ratio as requested by the committee. So we have here, we have the 80-20% debt-to-equity ratio as well as our 70-30 baseline assumption.

We modeled that under current law, under SB 280 as introduced and under the latest version of the bill. So I'll— and just a note on that, we raised the debt limits to accommodate the higher amount of debt, but we did not modify the interest rates or the fees to accommodate that. So there could be some small changes there, but broadly the numbers shown here should be what we expect. Okay, moving on to slide 31. So this is a summary slide of what we're actually looking at in terms of the kind of results for cost of supply.

We have the in-state breakeven price shown above in the upper table, and then the energy breakeven price shown for each of the bills in the in the lower table. So first looking at the in-state values, we have— under current rule, we have $4.86 under 70% equity— sorry, 70% debt. And we have $4.76 under 80% debt. So— and that's a pattern that's broadly similar across the 3 versions there. So you'll see there's about a $0.10 per MCF reduction in breakeven price for the 80% debt.

Then, looking at the LNG breakeven price, you're seeing under current law $9.07, and then that, uh, reduces down to $8.88 under current, um, for the 80% debt. Similarly, for the latest version of the bill, we have, um, $8.98 for 70% and $8.78 for 80% debt. So, so broadly for the LNG breakeven price, you're looking at about a 20, 20-cent difference.

So, uh, moving on through, we have the, the output, more detailed outputs for, um, revenues and for cost of supply, um, that lead you to, to the results shown in that table.

The numbers that we showed just now are the nominal numbers. You can also see the real numbers in 2026 dollars shown here. Broadly speaking, you shouldn't expect changes between 70% debt and 80% debt for state revenue. That's impacting the midstream owners.

So that's— and then these are the state revenue charts that we're showing for each scenario, starting off with current law for 70% debt and compared to current law for 80%. So the state revenue is essentially unchanged between those two. And then similarly, you see the same effect for SB 280 as introduced. And then you do see differences here for the latest version of the bill. The reason for that, of course, is that the midstream company's profits are impacted by changing their debt-equity ratio, and so that then goes on to impact the either CIT, the corporate income tax, or pass-through entity tax, whichever applies.

And so you will see under the 80% debt, there is a small reduction in total state revenue there. And that's all the slides we had on that scenario. Very good. That takes us to slide 44. I see no questions on— oh, Senator Myers, you had a question on one of these slides?

Uh, yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. So, um, Mr. Stevens, I had a question just kind of on the scenario in general. I remember back to, you know, what they told me about buying a house. It gets riskier the higher your leverage goes. Does going to the higher debt-equity ratio make the project riskier going forward?

It could potentially do so. There could be changes to the interest rate, likely fairly small, but we would have to investigate and get back to the Commission. In order to get this selection of modeling out in time for the committee, we've had to make some simplifying assumptions. So we can go away and talk to the relevant people to understand that better and do some research and then get back to the committee. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. So now we are at slide 44. Actually, the content is on page 45. Yeah, excellent.

Thank you, Chair Peacock. So, so, so moving on there to slide 45, this is the section about alternative oil impact scenarios, and there's a bit more to step through on this in terms of the background and how we've gone about modeling this. So we have alternative scenarios for the impact of gas development from on the— sorry, on the basis of development for the gas flowing through the Alaska LNG project. Um, and we're also looking at the impact of that gas development on associated oil production, and we're comparing that as an incremental to the spring 2026 production forecast. And specifically, we're looking at both the prudhoe bay units and the Point Thompson units.

Once I step through how we've gone about this analysis, I'll show you some numbers for upstream state revenue, for total state revenue, and then we'll talk briefly about producer rate of return. I'll also then show the, the typical state revenue charts that we've been showing for each of the other scenarios too.

So, um, talking a bit more about our assumptions, um, and how they kind of play into the upstream, because mostly we've been focused on the midstream before. Um, from the tax side, under both current law and SB 280 as introduced, um, the output's going to be the same for upstream revenues. Um, there are no changes to either the minimum tax floor or to, um, corporate income tax, um, uh, in the bill that was originally introduced. So under those bills, what we're looking at is we're assuming 70% of production for Prudhoe Bay and 60% of production for Point Thompson. We're assuming based on company public statements that that's the proportion that's going to be subject to that, to corporate income tax.

Now then, pushing through the changes in version L of the bill, we've included both the pass-through entity tax that's been proposed and the 6% minimum tax floor. We've assumed therefore that either state corporate income tax or pass-through entity tax is assumed to apply to oil production.

Now, We've also made the potentially simplifying assumption that state corporate income tax and the pass-through entity tax will apply at similar rates. Now what I will say as well is that the production profiles that I'm going to discuss on the next two slides, they use some relatively simple assumptions for illustration only. You could get into a lot more detail with more advanced engineering techniques. Especially reservoir simulation, and those could result in some significant differences. But that said, kind of basing on similar kind of percentage changes or similar numerical changes in terms of overall impact, broadly you should still see a similar sort of impact on revenues.

So moving on to talk a little bit more about the— how we've modeled these in more detail. What we've done, and you can see on this, this chart, the purple line, the highest line, is the zero million barrels impact. That's what we— the baseline number that we have, the baseline production profile that we have in the Resonant Forecast. And that's the base case for the current modeling for our project modeling as well. What we've done is, based on the committee questions, that were starting around the numbers that appear in the Department of Energy analysis that went into the supplemental environmental impact statements from a few years ago.

We've kind of used that as a— to help constrain the broad range that we put on these analyses. So you see 5 cases here kind of evenly spaced out in terms of that overall oil impact from zero to, um, a negative 500 million barrel impact on oil production. Uh, and the way these have been implemented is the scenarios increase the rate of oil production decline rate, um, to achieve a— to give it the expected, um, oil impact. And that, that impact is assumed over the 30 years essentially, so it's cumulative to 2062. Um, the decline is expected to kick in after the first initial year of, um, gas production.

So the gas impacts the, uh, reservoir pressure, and therefore we have potentially reduced oil production following that. Um, and as a result, you can see on the chart that the largest reduction to the production profile happens in the 2040s. Once you get further out, because, you know, the production overall has reduced quite a lot by that time, profiles start to come closer back together again. And so for comparison, I know that the number that the committee were quoting before was from that Department of Energy study. What they saw was a negative 452 million barrel impact over the space of 30 years.

Um, and so that's relatively close to the 500 million, uh, case that we have in red, lowest on that chart.

And if there's any questions on this chart in particular, it might be worth talking now. I see no questions. Okay. Um, so now moving on to talk about Point Thompson. Because this is a slightly different field and we're modeling our base case in a different way, the approach we've taken here is slightly different.

So for the base case model, we currently have a positive 270 million barrel impact assumed for oil over the space of 30 years. So you'll see that, that's that red line highest up on the chart. And then we've taken that as a kind of lowest extreme number, a zero impact compared to the spring production forecast. And then just like before, for— we had for— for Pluto, we have 5 total cases. And these scenarios represent simply a simple scaling of the base case profile.

And because of the base case profile and how that looks, we're seeing the largest differences there in the 2030s. And you'll see how that timing and the timing for the— for the differences, how those play out when I show the state revenue charts. Just to link that into the discussion that the committee saw with the AOGCC last week, Um, comment there was that technical recovery could be about 100 million barrels. That was more of a ballpark estimate, is our understanding. Now, if that's a technical recovery, uh, we'd expect economic reserves to be lower than that.

So exactly how much would need further analysis. And production to date has already been about 20 million barrels. So what you're probably looking at if you kind of go along with that understanding, would be closer to that light blue line that is the kind of the one above the lowest on there, something like that, or maybe slightly lower. But we're not botanical experts, and so we wouldn't want to necessarily kind of draw a firm conclusion about that.

So moving on to the next slides where we start to talk a bit, little bit about the results seeing from this. So this— these are the modeling results for upstream revenues only. And as I mentioned earlier, um, there were no changes to upstream tax royalty associated with the— with SB 280 as it was introduced. Um, so these were— these numbers here represent cumulative upstream incremental oil and gas state revenue. So that's, that's a bit A little bit complex, so just for the— I know the committee been seeing a lot of this, so in case there's public listening, um, these are the numbers that are total, total all the way through to 30 years.

They are only for the production of the oil and gas rather than the revenues that are feeding through from the pipeline and the— and kind of further downstream from that, and they're from both oil and gas. And so it's the incremental oil— when it comes to the oil rather than the total production from these fields. So just, just taking the impacts here, um, at the top right on these matrices we see, um, the base case that we've presented previously that has +270 impacts for oil over 30 years from Point Thompson, and this used no impact for oil for Prudhoe Bay. And you, you can see there's a, there's a very wide range in state revenue here. Um, we're seeing between that top right and bottom left, we're seeing a difference over the space of 30 years of about $15 billion.

Um, that difference exists for both the, um, current law and SB 280 as introduced. And for the latest version of the bill. You'll see that there are— that the revenue from the latest version is higher than current law, but that those differences are actually dwarfed by the uncertainty from the current act.

I see no questions. Okay, thank you. Um, so moving on to the, the totals, um, these essentially feed through those, that upstream revenue differences, um, into the, uh, and kind of adds on to the differences in the midstream revenues as well from the different bills. So again, what you're seeing is over $15 billion differences between the, the extremes of the That's all I'll add. Thank you.

Very good. No questions. Okay. So we then moved on to look at producer rate of return, and this, this calculation is kind of complicated. So given our assumptions, and including oil price assumptions and also the expected oil production and costs under the spring 2026 forecast.

And under our complex— states' complex oil and gas taxes, we still model strong returns from gas development for producers, even with the alternative oil cases. Uh, but there is a lot of complexity within this.

Again, no questions.

Okay, so, so I'm going to step through some of these cases to show you what that actually looks like on, on the charts. What we've done is we've modeled the four corner cases from those matrices. So you'll see starting off with the base case and then stepping through each of those corner cases and what that looks like in terms of both overall revenue on a year-by-year basis and then you'll see how some of the differences in the timing of the production and those production festivals, how those then feed into state revenue. So we're starting with the— starting with base case. This will be— the next 3 should be slides that you've seen before, I believe.

So base case, we're seeing about $1 billion for, for most years as we step through most of the life of the project. And then moving on to SB 280 as introduced, you're seeing a small reduction there, but you're still seeing, um, about $800 million per year, um, as, as you see on through.

Then this is showing the impacts, um, of the, the latest version of the bill. You're seeing —significant increases in—this is the pass-through entity taxes feeding through there in orange—both for the upstream and midstream. And then you're also seeing some increases in production tax there as well. So yeah, so this is the base case. So what I'll move on to next, this scenario is the base case oil impacts for Glühwein Bay, but you're it's, it's assuming, uh, no positive impact for oil at Point Thompson.

So essentially there's zero oil impacts here, um, so for both fields. So you can see that, um, this compares to about, uh, a billion dollars per year on the, on the first slide we showed with these annual revenues, um, and feeding through to SP-280S introduced, similar reduction there compared to the previous oil impact case. And then this is the case for the latest version of it. So that's slide 57 that you're looking at right now, correct? That's correct.

Thank you. Yes.

So you say— see, through slide 58 here, this— so this slide represents the lowest case, the most negative case, what should I say, for Prudhoe Bay oil impacts, and into the most positive case of Point Thompson, the base case for Point Thompson. So first of all, we're looking at current law here, and you see as we hit the biggest decreases for Prudhoe Bay happen in the 2040s, which corresponds to low in state revenue in that time. And then that's to be through to SB 280 as introduced. And then this is the version of the latest— the latest version of the bill.

And then finally feeding through to— this is the kind of most negative case we have.

-$500 Million barrel impact at Prudhoe Bay, and we have no positive impact at Point Thompson. Sorry, that says base case, but it shouldn't. Apologies there. So this is slide 61 for folks that are following along. Yes, correct.

Thank you. So yeah, so we have slide 61 here with the most negative case, and this is the current draw. So you'll see there's still seeing significant amounts of property tax and royalty coming in, but we're seeing reduced amounts of production tax, including some years where the production tax is starting to go slightly negative in there as well.

This is the same slide with SB 280 as introduced.

So slide 62.

All right, and on to—. Go ahead. Okay, and, and then this is slide 63 that we see here. This is the latest version of the bill, and you're seeing relatively low revenue. So about sort of $400 million a year revenue, um, in the 2030s and 2040s, and then increasing up as the corporate income tax from some of the midstream and upstream start to kick in more as you get into the late 2040s and beyond.

So, um, moving on from that, the general observations, um, The uncertain impact of gas development for the, for the projects on oil production leads to uncertainty in royalty, in production tax, and in upstream corporate income tax. Um, and it also leads to uncertainty in producer rates of return. Uh, the negative oil impacts would reduce state revenue compared to the baseline analysis under both the current law and proposed measures like legislation. And also oil price and development costs are also highly uncertain and would have significant impact on revenue. High oil prices combined with negative oil impacts would decrease state revenue from the project.

Um, and then higher development costs could decrease direct state revenue as well and could also decrease producer rate of return.

And that's all I had on that section. So Do we have any questions there? I see none.

Okay.

So finally, we were asked to look at the internal rate of return scenarios in case the developer or potential investors was looking to have a higher rate of return than 10%. We looked at 12% and 15% pre-tax rates of return.

So the modeling assumes that the— you know, under— this is, therefore, under current law and two versions of SB 280 as before.

So we moved on. We're now on slide 67. We have this table here representing the breakeven prices at 10, 12, and 15% rate of return. So looking at first at the in-state breakeven, you can see we start off at 10%. For current law, we see $4.86, and that gradually increases to 12%, so $5.

$5.04, And 15% increases to $5.35. So in fact, similarly to before, what you're seeing is for the in-state breakeven price for each of the bill versions, you're seeing about a 10-cent increase for each percentage of rate of return that the investors might be looking for. So for the current version of Vail, you're looking at $4.78 for the 10%, and you're looking at $5.26 for 15%. And then similarly to before, that kind of increase with each percentage, that, that doubles for the LNG prices. So you're looking at about a 20% increase.

So on the latest version of Vail, the 10%, you're looking at $8.98 for 10%, and you're looking at $10.02 per MCF for the 15% rate of return. And the subsequent slides, these step through each of those cases, both for each of the different bill versions and for the different percentages requested. So firstly, we're stepping through current law for the different rates of return. And so what you'll see is that this is affecting the— maybe— so this should be affecting the cost of supply summary.

So state revenue isn't changing for each of these cases, but cost of supplies does change. So we'll start— sorry, let me start at slide 68. We're seeing that nominal in 2033, $4.86 on slide 68. Increasing to $5.04 on slide 69, and increasing to $5.35 on slide 7.

And then there may possibly be, um, an issue on, on the cash flow table on this on this, um, these slides, or one of these slides. Uh, we'll check that and get back to you.

Very good.

Okay, so, so moving on, you see the same, uh, same values, um, for in-state and energy breakeven prices, how those are increasing as we step through Slide 71, 72, and 73, where that SB 280 was introduced. And if we then move on to look at the current bill, um, we see 2023 prices for in-state break-even. We see $4.78 there on slide 74. We see $4.96 on slide 75 for the 12%, and we see $5.26, uh, for the 15% rate of return for later search.

So moving on to slide 77, this is where we have, um, state revenue. And you can see that because we're looking at midstream, um, with, um no changes to— no corporate income tax on slide 77. As you step through 78 and 79, there's no changes to that chart at all. Similarly for slides 80, 81, and 82, again, state revenue is unchanged. There's some change to internal rate of return.

And then because we're including corporate income tax, or corporate entity tax for the latest version of the bill. We do then see some variation in the state revenues for the current version of the bill. And that brings us to slide 86. And I am impersonating Dan Sickles, so thank you very much, committee. Do you have any further questions?

Thank you very much, Mr. Stevens. Any questions for Mr. Stevens?

Very good. Thank you. All right. So that brings us to the end of the agenda for today. However, we are, I believe, at a place where we can consider moving the bill.

Senator Wilkowski? Madam Chair, I move Senate Bill 280, Work Order 34-GS2038/s, as in Skagway, from Committee with Individual Recommendations recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Legislative Legal has the authority to make any necessary technical and conforming changes. Are there any objections?

Senator Kawasaki? Well, I don't object to moving the bill. I think it's great that we're moving the bill, but I just wanted to just have a final word, and I just wanted to say that I appreciate the thorough work this committee has done. And having gone through pipeline bills before along with Senator Wielekowski, I'm just looking at the old Senate Bill 138 that passed not in 2014. It had been introduced at the beginning of the year, but we knew it was going to be introduced the entire year before.

So we had a 2-year cycle in which to review legislation. And it went through the Senate. It went through 2 committees in the Senate, Resources and then Finance. It went through 3 committees in the House, Resources, Labor and Commerce, then Finance. So a lot of people saw it.

They had hundreds and hundreds of meetings over those— over that 5-month period. And I just feel like we've barely scratched the surface on this. We have an automatic— or a volumetric tax that is something we've never seen before, the world's never seen before. Said, and we've said, we've sort of agreed that, well, geez, is 5 cents right, or is 6 cents right, or is 55 cents right? And we're not sure.

I feel really reluctant to pass this bill, but I know we've seen it, we've had it for at least since my birthday, and now it's, uh, you know, we need to get things done at some point. So we're going to pass this along to the next committee of referral, and I mean, I, I just hope we did do the right thing here today. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Kawasaki. Uh, Senator Dunbar.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First, happy belated birthday to Senator Kawasaki. Um, I, uh, I want to echo a lot of what Senator Kawasaki said, although I wasn't here for previous iterations of the pipeline bill, and God willing, I won't be here for the next one either. Um, but I really appreciate the work you have done, Madam Chair, in providing us a lot of issues and options and information. We— I apologize to Mr. Stickell, but also I want to thank him for his work.

I will say there is currently a debate happening right now on the floor of the House, and that debate I think is largely missing the mark. That is, they haven't done anything to address some of the issues we talk here about transparency. They've pulled that out. They haven't issued— they haven't done anything to deal with the issue of lease expenditures, which we know are going to actually reduce oil revenue in the short and medium term because of the decoupling issue, which we talked about at length. And so, you know, that's going to mean cuts to the PFD.

It's going to mean cuts to schools. That what they're debating on the floor now on the House, I do not think is an acceptable bill and I won't vote for it. But this, I think, is some version of this is something that I could live with. And so again, I want to say thank you for the work you've done and I look forward to seeing what happens in the next committee. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Senator Clayman. Thank you, Madam Chair. First, Madam Chair, I want to thank you for the tremendous amount of work you've put in on this bill in your office. We have seen more Cs than I could count, I think, on both hands. And that reflects the level of detail that's involved.

I continue to look at what information we have about this, and I— the best analogy I can draw to it is somebody was offering me to sell their— sell me their house, but the conditions were I would have to stand across the street. I could not walk on the property. I could not get a property inspection.

I couldn't talk with the prior owner and I couldn't talk with the person that was renting the house at the present time. All I could do is look across the street at the house and see if I want to buy it. And that's really— in many respects, it just reflects the challenging place that as a state government we're trying to analyze what is essentially a very, very private transaction. I think the— one of the best pieces of work in the bill that we are, I think, soon to pass out of committee is Section 65, which I call the sunset provisions, that if nothing happens by 2028, we go back to the status quo. And if they haven't got a pipeline built by 2032, we go back to the status quo.

And that is not to say they shouldn't be given their chance to go forward and build the pipeline, but if they don't go forward and nothing happens. We shouldn't have taken this uninformed and not well thought out— not that we're not trying our best, but we just have no information. We shouldn't let that be the structure in which somebody might try to build a pipeline in 10 years from now if nothing happens with this effort. In the legal structure, I often have thought more recent days that if this were an expert witness and you're asking an expert witness to provide a testimony about the structure of the project and provide an opinion about whether it's a good or bad investment, the expert witness would not be qualified because there wasn't enough information that was reliable information on which they could base that opinion. And so for all those reasons, I am happy we're moving this bill on.

I remain very skeptical about the project. I think the odds that it gets constructed, I think are fairly low. We've continually heard this $44 billion estimate, which hasn't changed in several years, and I've learned that from more capital analysts, they think the likely price of the pipeline is in the $70 to $80 billion range. And that price difference makes all the difference in the world about whether it will be built. I don't know.

I'm happy to give them a chance, but I would like sunset provision so that if they don't deliver, we'll have a chance to look at this again and hopefully have a lot more information when we do. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Klieman. Senator Wilkowski. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to also say thank you for your efforts on this and, uh, for really forcing this conversation. I want to thank staff who've spent endless hours, uh, every single day trying to get to a good product we can get. This has been a frustrating, challenging process for a lot of different reasons. We have had virtually no support from the administration. I've never— it is so hard to pass a major bill like this without the full-throated support and backing of the administration.

And I remember being here when we passed ACES and when we passed AGIA and when we passed Senate Bill 21. And when we passed SB 138. And some of those I agreed with and some of those I didn't. But I will say that every one of those administrations had deputy commissioners and commissioners and tax directors and staff in the building every single day. I know during the Gianaces, and Senator Kawasaki will remember this, they had a team of 25 people that would meet every single morning.

That would— and they'd get together and they'd say, all right, who do we need to talk to? What analysis does— needs to happen? Who do we need to provide information for? I have not still to this day had a single visit from any single person in the governor's administration on this bill. Not a single person from the tax department, from the Department of Revenue, or the Department of No Revenue, we should call it.

From the DNR commissioner, and Commissioner Crowley is fantastic, don't get me wrong. But there has been— we have been groping around in the dark trying to figure out how— what the answer is on this. And it has been a very, very frustrating situation to be in. No expert witness on the administration side. We've never had a major proposal like this without expert witnesses from the administration.

Limited expert advice on our side, quite frankly. And so I— I think, you know, to the Alaskans out there who have been watching and a little bit, some who have wanted us to move faster, I hope you'll understand that we're, the effort was just to try to get as good a product as we can. And I think we got a pretty decent product. It's a bill that will protect the consumers from cost overruns. It's a bill that will protect the consumers from price overruns, price gouging potentially.

We've heard wild different estimates on how much Alaskan consumers are going to pay for the gas when this comes out. And the governor said $4.50 to $4.75. We put it in the statute and then they objected to it. The Glenfarn said they were fine with paying an S corp provision. We, we, an S corp tax.

We found out that would be $462 million a year in revenue to the state of Alaska in out years. And then they've pulled back on that position. That's in the bill. They've said they would protect Alaskan consumers against cost overruns, and then they pulled back on that position. That's in the bill.

We've got a 10-year sunset, which our expert recommended, and it said in the lower 48, when they give these tax holidays, these massive tax holidays, which they do in Texas and Louisiana to help these projects move forward, they don't keep them forever like the governor's version did. They sunset them after 10 years. That's what we did in this bill. So this bill is designed to protect consumers, it's designed to protect businesses, it's designed to protect utilities from cost overcharges. And when people say, well, if it doesn't happen, there's nothing ventured, nothing gained— or nothing lost, I should say— really?

Do you know that for sure? Have you read the contract? Because the answer is no. Nobody's read the contract. Nobody knows what the terms of the contract are.

Nobody knows even what the price of this project is. So we've done our best. I think it's a good product. It's a product I could support on the floor. The bill that's moving to the House, there's, there's no way I could support that bill if it comes over as is.

But hopefully they'll make some changes. There's still hope. There's still time. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Bullockowski.

Senator Rosier. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to say the journey was long, but I learned a lot. I appreciate the fact that I was able to do that. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Rosser.

Thank you to the committee. If there are no further comments, I do want to thank Sonya Kawasaki, Majority Counsel to the Majority, and my staff, Paige Brown, who have both spent countless hours on this. And we've had 36 hearings on this bill in 2 months. I think that's got to be a record somewhere. I appreciate this amazing committee, every one of you.

So with that, I see no objections, and so Senate Bill 280, version S, as in Sitka— oh my, that's a bad choice— all right, passes from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. This will conclude the 64th meeting of the Senate Resources Committee in session 2 of the 34th legislature. We will not meet again. So thank you very much. With that, the meeting will stand adjourned.

Let the record reflect, reflect the time is 4:13 PM. Please sign the transmittal document.