Alaska Legislature: House Finance, 6/10/26, 11am

Okay, I'll go ahead and call this meeting of the House Finance Committee to order, and the time is currently 11:19 AM on Wednesday, June 10th. 2026. And present, we've got everyone here, which is Representative Allard, Representative Steff, Representative Moore, Representative Bynum, Representative Kocher-Schraggi, Representative Kocher-Josephson, Representative Jimmy, Representative Galvin, Representative Tomaszewski, Representative Hannan, and myself, Co-Chair Foster. And a reminder, if folks can mute their cell phones And we are hoping to finish up with amendments today on House Bill 381. That is the Gas Line Bill.

And if it is the will of the committee, we'll move the bill from committee. The plan today is first to return to amendments, the amendments that were rolled to the bottom, and we're going to start with Amendment Number 5 before I ask for an entertaining of the motion. Do we have any questions? I don't see any. So with that, uh, Representative Schrag, would you like to move Amendment Number 5?

Um, yeah, I'm sorry, that's Representative Stepp. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Chair Foster. I'll move Amendment 5, and I know we have some conceptually—. Object.

Okay, we have an objection. Representative, uh, Stepp. Yeah, thank you, uh, Coach Foster. Amendment 5 does a few things. The most kind of the things that will be the most interesting would be it takes the structure of volumetric tax, 12, 6, and 12, under the current pipeline and the gas treatment plant and the export facility, and it puts it in line with what's been discussed in the thing.

And the other thing it does is it removes municipalities' ability to negotiate their own separate tax structure from the volumetric structure of the bill. So those are the two. 2 Fundamental critical things. I'm happy to go in depth and ask questions, but it might be helpful if we work through conceptually first. Okay, let's go ahead and do that.

So let's see, in terms of conceptually, the first one is Representative Schraggy. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I move conceptual amendment number 1 to amendment number 5. Object for purpose of discussion. Okay, Representative Schraggy.

I'd like to invite Mr. Alper, with the Co-Chair's indulgence, to the table to talk about explain this amendment for us if we could. Okay, Mr. Alper, if you could put yourself on the record.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. For the record, Ken Alper, staff to Representative Josephson, and The House Finance Committee. So conceptual amendment number 1, document T.72 for those following at home with documents on BASIS, takes Representative Staff's amendment. It keeps the basic tax structure of it, meaning it's 3 different components of an AVT with a weighted average based on capital cost.

That is already there. It changes the numbers slightly from a 12, 6, and 12, and that means 12 cents on the gas treatment plant, 6 on the pipeline, 12 on the LNG facility, into a 13, 6, 13. So it's a small increment above that. And again, this is a weighted average. There's a mechanism by which the, uh, that's the capital costs would get weighted based on actual construction, and then, uh, roughly it would work out to a 10.5 to 11 cents, per my own math, the effective volumetric tax on the average molecule going through the system.

And the other important thing that this amendment is doing is it really delves into, Mr. Chairman, the mechanics of the allocation of that money among the municipalities. The underlying amendment, which was my understanding, Representative Staff's amendment, is really drawn from House Bill 2001, the governor's special session bill. Talks about allocation to the location where the, where the assets are located, which becomes another kind of keeping track of like, how do you do the pipeline portion? So what this amendment does is it breaks the tax itself into 3 separate components and divides it up a little more clarity. So the, for example, The portion that would be attributed to the gas treatment plant would say 90% of that would be going specifically to the North Slope Borough where that's located, and 10%, a portion, would be retained by the state.

Likewise, on the portion at the southern end, once the LNG facility were built, when we hopefully get to Phase 2, it would be a 90/10 split between the Kenai Peninsula Borough and the state. The portion that's attributed to the main pipeline segment itself in this amendment would be, which would use the same allocation method of House Bill 381 as it came to committee originally, although the numbers are obviously different, meaning that money would be divided in half, the pipeline portion. Half of the pipeline money would be allocated among the municipalities bordering the pipeline based on their mileage ratio. So a portion would go to the North Slope, to Denali, to Matsu, Kenai, Fairbanks, and then the portion that would go to the Unorganized Borough would be retained by the state. And roughly speaking, Mr. Chairman, about a third of the mileage of this route would go through the Unorganized Borough.

The other half of the AVT attributable to the pipeline segment would pass through a population-based formula to every municipality in the state. So, uh, some amount of money would go to Anchorage and Nome and Tuksek Bay as well. Basically every community in the state using a mechanism similar to the Community Assistance Formula that has a population-based allocation. So that, that's the main change between Amendment 5 and Amendment 1 to Amendment 5. The larger changes, as the sponsor said, of Amendment 5 are replacing the overall structure of the AVT as came to us from the Resource Committee with something more akin to what the governor is proposing.

I'm happy to take questions, Mr. Chairman. Okay, thank you. I would also like to recognize that we do have in the audience with us Senator Myers. Thanks for being here today. And I just have a quick question, then we'll go to Representative Galvin.

I also have Representative Sharagi. I know that trying to work with North Slope Borough has been a goal, and this appears to— attempt to address that. And I know that they're— you're not— you can't speak for them, but just curious as to whether or not you're working with them or any of the members are working with them and what the reception might have been to this conceptual amendment. Mr. Chairman, I have not been in discussions with the North Slope Borough. I have— Representative Freer's aide, Mr. Zullo, has been around.

I've spoken to him the last couple of days. I, from talking to him, and now I have secondhand knowledge, I don't think they're particularly thrilled, to be completely honest. They really wanted the autonomy to be able to negotiate their own way. And in the absence of that, my guess is they're going to say the money is too small, but I don't want to get out ahead of myself there. In contrast to this, for example, the bill that is in the, that the Senate Resources Committee, the other body's Resource Committee, passed that's before their finance committee now, had 3 separate AVTs, and there would be— the North Slope borough would be getting a large portion of a 10-cent specific AVT on the gas treatment plant.

This would be, you know, once you do the weighted averages, probably the equivalent of a 2 or 3-cent AVT on the gas treatment plant. So it's less, if it's just about dollars. They would prefer more, obviously, but we understand the policy implications of the bill and trying to move the project forward. Great. Thank you very much.

Representative Froegge? Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I just wanted to clarify that it is the underlying Amendment 5 that makes the main thrust of addressing issues on the tax structure on the North Slope. In particular to the conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 5, I think most simply put, the most substantive changes are that is that it goes from a 12.612 AVT to a 13.613 AVT with the additional penny at the top and at the bottom going towards the state. The second substantial change, put simply, is that it retains the per capita distribution on 50% of the pipeline AVT.

Is that accurate, Mr. Alper? Through the Chair, Representative Schrader, yeah, thank you. And I hope I didn't get too far off path in my earlier comments. That's absolutely correct. Amendment 1 to Amendment 5 adds that little bit that on the north and the south, that bit would be attributed to the state, adding this new allocation ratio, and it preserves this idea of a population ratio that was in the underlying bill but was not in Amendment 5 as it came to us.

Thank you, Mr. Alper. Okay, further representative staff? With that explanation, I'm going to withdraw my objection to the conceptual. Okay. Seeing no further objection to Conceptual Amendment Number 1 to Amendment Number 5, the amendment has been adopted.

So that now takes us to Conceptual Amendment Number 2. Representative Step. Yeah, thank you, good chair. I move this Conceptual Amendment Number 2. Object for the purposes of discussion.

Yeah, Conceptual Amendment Number 2 actually looks long. It does actually one really simple thing. It just amends current law 2945 to to put it in line with the actual underlying amendment and various other indications of this bill that had been left out mistakenly amending the municipal tax code actually include this project. So in the event that the volumetric underlying amendment would have passed, it would be conforming.

Okay, wrong way objection seen, no questions. Okay, and I don't see any further objections. So with that, amendment— conceptual amendment number 2 to Amendment Number 5 has been adopted. And I believe, Representative Bynum, you'd like to roll Conceptual Amendments 3 and 4 to after 5. So we'll go to Conceptual Amendment Number 5, and that would be Representative Stepp.

Yeah, thank you, Chair Foster. I move Conceptual Amendment Number 5. Object. Yeah, thank you, Chair Foster. Conceptual Amendment Number 5 is a method that I worked out with Ledge Legal to preserve the changes that have been adopted in previous amendments.

Because of the nature of the technical nature of the bill, I want to make sure that if underlying amendment were to be adopted, we wouldn't actually be erasing the work that's already been done by this committee. So that's what amendment number— conceptual amendment number 5 does. Any discussion? I'll remove my objection. Representative Sharkey removes his objection.

Is there any further objection? Seeing none, conceptual amendment number 5 to amendment number 5 has been adopted. That That takes us back to Conceptual Amendment Number 3. Representative Bynum. Brief it is.

Brief it is.

Okay, House Finance back on record at 11:34 a.m. And we just concluded with a conceptual amendment number 5. We're going to go to a conceptual amendment number 6. Representative Gelvin. Thank you, appreciate it, Co-Chair Foster. And this is going to be Really a quick fix on what we just agreed to in Amendment Number 5.

So on page 5 of Amendment Number 5 to Amendment Number 5, on line— I'm going to move. Representative Galvin, did you mean Conceptual Amendment Number 2 is the one that you want to modify? Yes, Number 2. Thank you for allowing me to skip the queue here since it's related to Amendment Number 2. To Amendment Number 5.

So allow us to all get there. I'm on page 5 of Amendment Number 2, and I'm looking at the lines 4, 5, and 6. And what I'm seeing is, I think, a little bit confusing to the public and to myself, and I want to make sure it's very clear. We've talked about 30 years of abatement. And I want to make sure we're clear here that it doesn't say 34 years in a way that might be confusing to folks.

So I would like to ask Mr. Alper to be at the table if he could to make sure that my language is clear. But what my intention is, is to say instead of— I would like to— at where it says Page 13, line 19, in that same section, instead of saying the year, I would like to say 30 years from start of operations instead of the year 2060. So I would be deleting the year 2060 and instead inserting 30 years from start of operations. But what I wanted to clarify if it's okay, Representative Co-Chair Foster, is to find out from Mr. Alper if that is the language that would be clear. Since we don't have ledge legal in the room, I want to make sure that that would be clear.

It may need to say something other than operations. I'm not, I'm not sure. That's what I move. And okay, so you have moved conceptual amendment number 6? Yes, number 5.

To Amendment Number 2. No, uh, to—. Sorry, to Amendment Number— Conceptual Amendment Number— Yes, thank you. It's Conceptual Amendment Number 6 to the underlying—. To the underlying Amendment Number 5.

Correct. And I will object for purpose of discussion. Thank you. And I think you wanted Mr. Alper to maybe—. Can I get a brief at ease?

Touch base on something and then we will go to questions. So with that, we will take brief at ease.

House Finance back on record at 11:43 a.m. I think Representative Galvin would like to restate her motion. Thank you so much. I would like to make a motion and restate it. It's a conceptual amendment number 6 to amendment number 5 as amended by 2.

What I would like to do is on line 19, I would strike the words before July 1st, 2056. Actually, Representative Gilbert, when you say page 19—. I apologize, I'm on page 13. 13 Of Amendment Number 5? Of Amendment Number 5, correct.

Okay. I'm sorry, I'm on 13 of the bill itself. Of the bill. Okay. Yes, thank you.

And just to be clear, so what I'm looking to do on, on of the bill, page 13, line 19, is to strike the words before July 1st, and with the new amendment it would have said 2060. So instead what I'm doing is striking that and instead replacing that with the words on January 1st of the year 30 after commencement of commercial operations. Okay, and I will object for purposes of discussion. Do we have any discussion? Representative staff?

No, I think it's acceptable language and I appreciate the member for making the clarification. So okay, Mr. Alper. Mr. Chairman, for the record again, Ken Alper, staff to Representative Josephson. That might be worth just putting on the record what's happening here. What we're talking about is some conditional language around the effective dates in the bill specifically tied to the sunset of certain sections.

So the— and in particular, the sunset really of the alternative volumetric tax. At some point in the future, the ABT goes away and the system would revert to a traditional property tax. And a piece of the previous amendment, Representative Stapp's Amendment 2 to Amendment 5, changed that date from 2056 to 2060. And what Representative Galvin proposing here is to clarify that to say really we mean 30 years after the commencement of commercial operations. So that's— therefore we're putting some meat around the concept of when exactly this tax system goes away and gets replaced.

I just thought it might be worth clarifying that. Okay, thanks for the clarification. Do we have any further discussion? Representative Josephson? Through the Chair, Mr. Alpert, we talked a lot in Anchorage about Mr. Fulford talking about a 10-year abatement period.

This is a— I guess that was different. That was 10-year full abatement. This is— Fulford did not speak to this issue, did he? Through the chair, Representative Josephson, the abatement— the word abatement generally in the context of this bill has been talking about a, let's call it, a tax-free period at the front end of the project. The word is more— it's really sunset.

What happens at some point in the future? Would this alternative tax go away and be replaced? Mr. Fulford did talk about gas projects around the world having a shorter tax reduction period. And yes, 10 years was discussed. For what it's worth, the Senate Resources Committee's bill has a 10-year sunset.

There's other amendments for consideration that would shorten that. That's a separate policy conversation. I'm really just here to provide some clarity on Representative Galvin's proposal. Thank you. Representative Galvin.

Thank you. And I just want to be clear that it is my intention to make sure that it doesn't say 34 years, which is what it was stating in this amendment. I want to roll it back to the 30 years, which is, I believe, what the intention is of the maker of the amendment. And that said, I'm not weighing in on one thing or another. I just want to make sure that we're clear to the public and kind of keep it at what we've all been hearing about where this should land from one side.

I think to your point, Representative Josteson, co-chair, we have also been hearing 5 years or 10 years. There has been a lot of language around and we did hear from our consultant that in other states and in other countries it has been less than 15 years. That said, we have also heard comments that that there was concerns that we wouldn't get the investment needed to get the project rolling. So I'm not really weighing in on that with this conceptual amendment. I just want to be very clear to the public that we're going to stick with the 30 years as was intended, I believe.

Thank you. Representative Justerson. Through the chair, Mr. Alpert.

The— a 30-year AVT, which is a substantial reduction —on what would have been the previous tax strikes me as a very long time. It's half my life. And it's— this would be well after, theoretically, the project economics have played out and there's significant return to the investors. The project is at full capacity, one would think. So this would say municipal government should continue to forbear.

I mean, I understand that's not her amendment. I get that. But the underlying issue—. Do I have that right? Through the Chair, Representative Josephson, the question is for how long should this, let's call it special tax treatment, novel tax treatment, being created in the underlying bill.

How should it remain? That is an issue of wide difference of opinion among members in the building. Yes, Mr. Fulford has made that, made the case that a shorter number would work. The project proponents would say, were they here, that there are long-term sales contracts overseas that they need to defer to. If they're making— someone's making a commitment in Asia to buy gas for 30 years, a certain price point, the tax treatment needs to somehow align with that.

These are why the legislature exists to make these policy choices. But yes, that's more or less the framing of why this conversation. I would say 30 years after commencement of commercial operations is a little bit vague, and it actually could extend beyond 2060, frankly, because depending on how long it takes to get the pipe built, You know, if it doesn't start till 2031, that means 30 years after that's 2061. So it's a— you could write it a lot of different ways, Mr. Chairman. Okay, Representative Stout.

Yeah, thank you, Co-Chair. So is it possible if we could get through the conceptual amendment and then we could debate? Because we are debating the underlying amendment, and I appreciate the co-chair's comments. I'm just trying to keep the record clean as we talk.

Uh, can you take a brief please?

Okay, House Finance back on record at 12 o'clock PM. I'm going to stall out here for just a moment to await the full complement of our members here. I think we've got one more person here. Oh, actually, it looks like we have everyone in the room. So with that, I'm going to go back to Representative Galvin.

Well, thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I appreciate the extra time here to look at the finer details, and I think that This is an amendment that maybe could be done later when we are trying to do other cleanup items and I want to make sure everyone has time to study it. So I am going to withdraw this conceptual amendment number 6. Okay. Conceptual amendment number 6 has been withdrawn.

And so with that, that takes us back to conceptual amendment number 3. Representative Bynum. Move conceptual amendment number 3. Okay. I'm not done.

Representative Meinem. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Conceptual Amendment 3 does something— it just is a very simple thing and it clarifies the definition of— thank you. Let me get the bill in front of me. It clarifies on page 6, line 16, the definition of capital expenditure.

Currently the definition includes the word maintain. Typically, operational expenses or OPEX, such as routine labor, fuel, office costs, insurance, and day-to-day operations, are not considered capital expenditures. This amendment corrects that by removing the word maintain. Okay, and we have any further discussion? Representative Sharkey, not seeing any, I'll remove my objection.

Okay, objection has been removed on conceptual amendment number 3. 3. So that has been adopted. It's conceptual amendment number 3 to amendment number 5. So that next takes us to conceptual amendment number 4.

Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I move conceptual amendment number 4. Object. Okay, Representative Bynum.

What conceptual amendment number 4 does is that it will go into the bill and it makes a definition change Stand by one moment. Let me pull up the— let me pull up the amendment really quick.

On page 4 of Amendment Number 5, line 26, it removes the term operations and maintenance And inserts— just, uh, it basically just removes operations and maintenance. Typically what happens when we have a facility that is developed, operations and maintenance fall under the owner of that facility. Currently under the law, there isn't a clear definition of who that owner is. This would— by removing the words operations and maintenance, it would put the operations and maintenance responsibility onto the owner of the facility.— so in this case, we're talking about the spur line. If the developer and under the pipeline LLC ultimately owns the spur line, operations and maintenance would fall under that entity.

If the spur line is divested, the new owner of that would ultimately take on the responsibility of operations and maintenance. This in no way changes the intent of the bill. Which means that the financing, the construction and development of a spur line is covered by the project and those costs would be borne by the project. It ultimately says what happens in the long term of who is responsible for operations and maintenance long term. Further discussion?

I'll remove my objection. The objection has been removed and so Conceptual Amendment No. 4 To Amendment Number 5 has been adopted. And so that takes us back to the underlying amendment, which is Amendment Number 5. Brief it is.

Brief it is.

I only have it as a—. Okay, House Finance back on record at 12:17 PM on Wednesday, June 10th, and, uh, we are on Amendment Number 5, the underlying amendment. Representative Staff. Thank you, uh, Coach Foster. I'm going to move a conceptual amendment number 7 to Amendment 5 as amended by Amendment 1.

And I'll object for explanation. Yeah, just a quick clarification, uh, the 90-10 sections of the underlying amendment that was adopted conceptually, I'm going to strike the 90, replace it with 93, strike 10, replace it with 7 in both sections of the amendment as adopted. And that's the conceptual. Can you repeat that again, where the action is being taken? Yeah, the action is being taken in conceptual amendment 7 to amendment 5 as amended by amendment 1.

The 90% of the tax allocation of the municipality of an unorganized borough gas treatment plant and carbon capture facility That 90 will be stricken and replaced with 93. The 10% of the tax allocated to the state will be stricken and replaced with 7. And also duplicative of the gas treatment section as well as the export facility section. So both sections will read 93 instead of 90, and then 7 instead of 10. Okay.

Representative Moore. If we can, um, through the co-chair, just get a page number and lines. Yes, that's going to be on page 2 of Amendment Number 1, conceptually Amendment Number 1, and that's going to be lines 20, uh, to 23, and again at 27 through 29. And those are the two changes. Thank you.

Uh, Representative Okay, any further discussion on a conceptual amendment number 7? Coach Foster, I remove my objection. The objection for conceptual amendment number 7 has been removed, and I hear no further objections. So conceptual amendment number 7 to number 5 of number 1 has been adopted. Okay, so we are back to to the underlying amendments.

And I think the wording is probably going to be a— just want to make sure the wording is correct.

And I'm just going to take a quick moment.

Okay. We're good. Okay. So with that, we're back to the underlying amendment, which is Amendment 5. And do we have any further discussion?

Yes, sir. Representative Josephson. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief.

I, I'm going to object to the amendment. I, um, fundamentally— and I talked about some of these things in previous hearings— it's difficult for me to know whether this much foregone revenue is required to make the project economical, and I don't have— we've had lots of consultant offerings as to that, but I don't feel like I'm comfortable with that. And I also think that— I understand that the Kenai Borough Mayor may be in the interest of having the project may be speaking in support, but I think there's an undercurrent of concern by him. Certainly there is with the North Slope Borough. And I also don't know the justification for a 30-year AVT that would be in place until —well, say 2060—whether that's necessary.

And so I view my role as—in the law they talk about municipalities as being creatures of the state. We create them, but we have to nurture them. And I don't know that there's enough nurturing in this bill, in this amendment. And for that reason, I'm going to oppose Amendment 5 as amended in its underlying form. Thank you, Representative Josephson.

Just to put my two cents in, I along with you will probably not be supporting the amendment. I think it's a good effort to try to come to some kind of resolution with the North Slope, but I am persuaded by their argument that, you know, the resource comes from the region and they'd like to have more say over what they do within their region.. And I'm supportive of that effort. So with that, do we have any further discussion? Seeing none.

Representative Sharagi, do you maintain your objection to Amendment Number 5 as amended? Representative Ballard? Thank you. I appreciate your comments, Co-Chair, but I just want to reiterate to my district that the resources in the state of Alaska belong to all Alaskans. Thank you, Co-Chair.

Further discussion? I'm going to end up supporting this amendment. Somewhat difficult to do as I— compromise is difficult and rarely is everyone happy in a situation like this. I'm doing what I can to try and enable this project and give it a fighting chance while still protecting the state's interest. I think this amendment moves a significant way in that direction.

I will go ahead and maintain my objection because I know I know that there will be others that will not want to support this amendment, but for myself, I will be supporting this today as I think it gets us closer to something that is viable and gives this project a fighting chance. Thank you, Coach Foster. Representative Stepp, do you— would you like wrap-up? Just roll call. Okay.

Okay. So with that, hearing no further discussion, Madam Clerk, we are on Amendment Number 5 as amended. If you could please call Call the roll. Representative Hannan. No.

Representative Allard. Yes. Representative Stat. Yes. Representative Jimmy.

No. Representative Moore. Yes. Representative Galvin. Yes.

Representative Tomaszewski. Yes. Representative Bynum. Yes. Representative Josephson.

No. Representative Schraggy. Yes. Representative Foster. No.

7 Yeas, 4 nays. And so on a vote of 7 yeas to 4 nays, Amendment Number 5, as conceptually amended by multiple conceptual amendments, has been adopted. And so with that, we're going to take a brief recess.

Okay, House Finance back on record at 12:24 PM, and, um, if folks could find their way to Amendment Number 10, uh, I will ask Representative Schrag if he'd like to entertain a motion. Uh, thank you, Coach Foster. I move Amendment Amendment number 10. Object for purposes of discussion. Okay, Representative Sharkey.

And I'm going to need just a moment. I'm a lot of papers to sort through here, Co-Chair Foster. Brief it is. We'll take brief it is.

Okay, House Finance back on record at 12:26 PM. Representative Shruggie. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Amendment number 10 is an amendment that members have seen before. It was offered as an amendment to SB 180 on the House floor and was adopted, but not before there was another amendment that was offered later on that was also adopted.

What Amendment 10 does is it enacts that original amendment prior to any further changes, and there will be a Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 10, which I'd like to move now at this At this time, I would like to move conceptual amendment 1 to amendment number 10. I object for purposes of discussion. Okay. Representative Froegge. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster.

As I previously mentioned, there were two competing versions of this amendment. It is a transparency amendment dealing in large part with confidentiality agreements and contract terms related to this project, the developer and AGDC. What conceptual amendment 1 to amendment number 10 does is try to strike a balance between the two competing versions of this amendment that we saw on the House floor. To the extent there are questions, I would like to invite Mr. Alper up as he was very much involved in these discussions that we have had both across majority-minority as well as with the developer, AGDC, and others. Representative Stout.

Yeah, thank you. Chair Foster, I am going to be supporting the conceptual amendment to the underlying amendment, so I am going to go ahead and withdraw my objection unless anyone else has questions. Do we have any further questions? Seeing none, the objection has been removed. So conceptual amendment number 1 to amendment number 10 has been adopted unless— I am looking at Representative Schraggi, maybe you wanted Mr. Alper to expand a little bit more or are you okay?

To the extent there are questions. I don't want to take up committee time unnecessarily. Okay, I do. I would like to hear from— okay, now you know better than that, Rep. Shragi. I'd like to hear from—.

Okay, Representative Allard, is that an objection then? Uh, just objection because I'd like to hear from—. Okay, Mr. Alper, he's the man of the week. So, uh, thank you.

Through the chair to Representative Allard, thank you, I think, although maybe not.

Mr. Chairman, the, uh, as language goes, underlying Amendment 10 is, is new to the bill, so it's not amending any existing sections. So that makes it easier to explain. All right, we're working within the governing statutes of the AGDC themselves that were established back in 2013 with, with House Bill 4, which gave them a lot of autonomy ability to have confidentiality in their contracting, waiver from a lot of state traditional protections for procurement contracting.

What actions might later come back to the legislature for approval? The Amendment 10 as initially proposed within the language as the maker, Representative, said within Amendment 2 to Amendment— Amendment 2 to Senate Bill 180 back on the 18th of May. This underlying Amendment 10 was the entirety of the language in the original Amendment 2. The amendment to the amendment, which was introduced by Representative Ruffridge, Amendment 22 Amendment 2, reduced a lot of those confidentiality protections, I guess, for lack of a better word. And then Amendment 1 to Amendment 10 here is attempting to strike a balance, trying to get in a middle way.

And I'm happy to walk through— there's 9 or 10 specific changes made to the underlying amendment. There's a particular issue area that Representative Allard is interested in, or other members are interested in. I could focus on those, uh, whatever is the will of you and the committee, Mr. Chairman. Just tell me what you'd like. Representative Allard.

Thank you. And I understand that we're at— we have time constraints, but I also know that what we're discussing here doesn't necessarily transfer to the public clearly, and this is why I would like him to go through those steps, please, and those changes. Thank you. Okay, okay. Um, first of all, I think we've got a clarification question.

I want to clear— process clarification, uh, Co-Chair. Um, did we adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, and we are on the underlying amendment as amended, and that is what's going to be explained? Correct. Okay. That is all I needed to know.

Thank you, Mr. Alpert. Through the points and then we will come to questions. So with that, Representative or Mr. Alpert. So Mr. Chairman, there are— could I have one moment to get one piece of supporting paperwork from my pile over there?

Sure. Brief it is.

Okay, House Finance back on record at 12:33 PM, and Mr. Alper, I think you're going to walk us through through some of the items that Conceptual Amendment No. 1 To Amendment No. 10 Does? Yes, Mr. Chairman.

So what we're— there's lots of different sections here. And again, we're in the powers and duties and responsibilities of the AGDC. You know, when can— when there's a confidentiality agreement, when can it be breached? When can something be shared? Shared with legislators, with the general public, with agency people.

And Amendment 1 clarified that all parties would have to agree before that could take place. For example, that's whereas the underlying amendment said a party could agree to do that, basically that one member would be able to supersede the wishes of the other party. So that was done. The other— and I'm looking— I'm going to be paging a bit awkwardly through the underlying amendment, but there's language in the amendment that said that the AGDC can't make confidential contract terms that bind the state, meaning the underlying state, not AGDC themselves. But the way it was written, it also said that they couldn't more or less bind themselves.

That part was removed in Amendment Number 1. So they cannot make confidential contract terms that could extend to or encumber the state with a performance liability obligation or risk. That remains in the underlying amendment. When we're talking about an interest option, like one of the things that's going to happen, quite frankly, hopefully, hopefully soon in the next year, is the project will be moving forward, and then you, the legislature, and the state at large will be presented with an investment option, or what they call an interest option. Under what conditions does that option get brought to the state?

And we're clarifying that, well, the legislature is not going to have a role in negotiating the terms of that option. That's going to be done by others. So the language needed to be clarified that you're told that this thing exists and then once the terms are fully negotiated and the deal is brought to the legislature to potentially, let's say, appropriate money to buy a piece on behalf of the state. At that point, the terms of the deal will be made available, but the terms aren't going to be brought when they're still under negotiation to the state. So that's another one of the changes made by Amendment Number 1.

When it clarified some language that said if sharing certain— there's a requirement to share certain economic information unless it causes commercial harm. And we have some clarifying language about when that happens, or if the parties were concerned that it might do that, the circumstances under which ranges or summaries or some sort of aggregate information, something to help understand the scope of the numbers without getting into deep commercial secrets that might damage the ability to negotiate with parties overseas or competing LNG projects around the world and that sort of thing. There is language that talks about under what circumstances the corporation, meaning AGDC, may sell off an interest and what— and introducing that you need legislative approval before we start selling off pieces of this to third parties. What is that legislative approval? Because it's open-ended was a concern, so the compromise language in Amendment Number 1 says The legislature has 90 days to deny that, but if they don't act in those 90 days, it's deemed to have taken place.

That the essentially non-action constitutes a yes. So that is one of the changes that was made in this language. Smaller pieces about, again, we're not negotiating these options. We are exercising these options. Other people are negotiating these options.

The— let's see, the bonding. The corporation, AGDC, was given very broad powers to borrow money. Now these are revenue bonds, let's be clear. General obligation bonds require a vote of the people writ large. Revenue bonds are backed by some sort of revenue stream, but other state corporations, for example, the Alaska Railroad has statutory regulatory limitation that says their debt requires legislative approval.

Mr. Chairman, I'll remind you and the other members, just last year there was a bill passed that to authorize the Alaska Railroad to borrow money on behalf of improvements to the dock in Seward, which was going to be backed by a contract they had with Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines. It was a relatively boilerplate, it was a short bill, less than one page, but the legislature authorized that going forward. The intent of Amendment 10 was to put a similar requirement before AGDC was to borrow a bunch of money. This— the legislature would have the ability to say yes or no. And similar to what was done on the transferring of the assets, that it was put in there now with non-action constitutes a yes, meaning yes, we have the ability— the legislature could theoretically call themselves in the special session if this is happening in the off-season and disapprove a debt if there was real concerns with what they felt AGDC was doing, but non-action constitutes the ability to go forth with the debt.

The— and then likewise, when there is a change in ownership under certain circumstances, the timing of when they would need to notify the legislature, and legislature throughout this amendment is described as the presiding officers plus the multiple chairs of both bodies' finance committees. And that is— I mean, there might be one or two smaller ones that I missed, but that's the bulk of the changes to the underlying amendment made by Amendment 1. And I'm happy to take any follow-up questions. Okay. Do we have any questions?

Representative Gelvin. Thank you. I do have one quick follow-up and then one more broad follow-up, if I may, Co-Chair Foster, through the chair. So when you were using language around negotiating versus exercisable. My understanding is that language was related to whether or not the legislature would need to take action or could take action on a various item.

And I'm looking at, I believe it's probably Section 13, page 8, lines 1 to 3. Is that— am I understanding you correctly around that language? Through the Chair, Representative Gallivan. Yes, thank you. Yes, the top of page 8 of the underlying amendment, we're in that portion of the bill and portion of the statute talking about investment options where AGDC and then Glenfarm, whoever, would come to you and say, hey, we have this ability to buy a piece of the pipeline, we need $5 billion.

Or something like that. And, uh, the, the word— the option before being agreed to could be construed to mean that the legislature needs to agree with the terms of the option. That sort of puts you in the middle of the negotiation of that. And by putting in the word exercisable— and this is language that— there was a large group of people on all sides meeting in the last couple days trying to come up with this language— means that the option, once it's a done deal, once these are the terms that have been worked out The legislature's choice is yes or no, not getting involved in determining what the terms are going to be, if that makes sense. That's why exercisable was put in there.

Thank you. And sorry, I do have a couple little follow-ups in terms of the timing. And when we— when the legislature does not take action, then it becomes a yes, if, if you will. And Does that mean that if we are not able to take action because of the timing of the year and we're not in session, then we would need to call ourselves into special session in order to act if we wanted to further learn about whatever the opportunity is? Through the Chair, Representative Gallivan.

No, the 90-day piece is specific to a couple of other decision points in bill. Approval of an ownership change, I think, was one, and the bonding portion. Okay. The state's investment option has different terms elsewhere in the bill. There's— I think it's 6 months.

That's a much bigger deal, and I am certain there will be a whole session built around that when that moment comes. And no, there is no possibility of the state being able to invest in this thing without affirmative legislative action. Thank you. I think that's a very good clarification for us to have. And lastly, I just wanted to share my appreciation to the maker of this amendment and the underlying work around this body of understanding how difficult it is to pull together a public-private partnership in a way that protects Alaska and at the same time allows a project, should it become a project, at least best chance of getting there.

I want to make mention of the work that you've done here. Thank you very much, Mr. Alper. And also note that it's tricky for us as legislators wanting to make sure that our fiduciary duty is being done when we can't get in there into every confidential conversation and deal up until a certain point. I'm sure we'll learn much more at FID, but it was also enlightening for me to learn from AGDC, the work that they have pulled together to help us better understand how they are at the table as one of Alaska's arms, if you will. And they did share with us publicly their— the Alaska Advantage principles.

Which is written into the agreement as they work with Glenfarm. And I wanted to put that on record and see if you have any more comments around that comment. Mr. Alpert, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Through the chair, Representative Galvin, I don't have anything substantive to say. Yeah, they've been very forthcoming with the so-called Alaska Advantage principles.

They've been presented in all their committees. I hope that everyone can march together, holding hands and making this happen. I want this as much as every other Alaskan. Thank you. Further discussion on conceptual amendment number 1 to amendment number 10?

Seeing none. Representative Valer, do you maintain your objection? I withdraw. And can I just say thank you? I think everybody needed to hear all of that.

So thank you, Ken. Okay. Thank you, Chair. You're welcome. So Hearing no objection, further objection, conceptual amendment number 1 to amendment number 10 has been adopted.

Representative Sharkey, conceptual amendment number 2. Yes, thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I'd like to move conceptual amendment number 2 to amendment number 10. Checked for purpose of discussion. Representative Sharkey.

Yeah, thank you, uh, Co-Chair Foster and Representative Stapp. Uh, so conceptual amendment 2 to amendment number 10, uh, makes one— I'm going to call it a technical change related to the amendment conceptual amendment that we just passed. I will note, when you look at conceptual amendment 2 to amendment number 10, there's one small error. It should say page 9, lines 13 through 15, not page 1, lines 13 through 15. So it should say page 9, lines 13 through 15 of the amendment, delete all material.

This is material that conflicts with our change to subsidiary corporation. That we made an amendment, conceptual amendment number 1. This language between lines 13 and 15 is conflicting and frankly kind of confusing given the prior change that we made. And Mr. Alper can speak to it further if there's a desire for further clarification. Mr. Alper, do you have additional comments?

Mr. Chairman, the definition of subsidiary, as Representative Sharagi said, was changed in amendment 1 to Amendment 10, because there are all these subsidiaries under AGDC, many of which we are minority partner to, to a degree those subsidiaries would not be held to the same standard as the underlying AGDC would. And as the maker said, that this conceptual 2 aligns the underlying amendment with that change made in Amendment 1 already. So it's just conformity at that point. Additional questions? Seeing none, Representative— oh, briefings.

Okay, House Finance back on record. We were on, uh, let's see here, conceptual amendment number 2 to amendment number 10. Further discussion? Seeing none. Representative Stout?

I'm gonna withdraw the objection. The objection is withdrawn. Hearing no further objections, conceptual amendment number 2 to amendment number 10 has been adopted. That takes us back to the underlying amendment, which is amendment number 10. Any further discussion?

Representative Stout. Yeah, I just wanted to give, um, through the chair, I think, co-chair, through the chair, Mr. Alford, I just wanted to give kudos to Mr. Alford for this detailed explanation of what the underlying amendment is, and I think we had good discussion about that and appreciate that being on public record. So I'm going to withdraw my objection to Amendment 10. Okay, the objection to Amendment Number 10 has been removed to Amendment, uh, conceptual— the Amendment Number 10, as amended, has— the objection has been removed. So with that, I don't see any further objections.

So conceptual— so Amendment Number 10, as conceptually amended, has been adopted. Next, we're going to go to Amendment Number 22, and I'll give folks a moment to look for that. And we'll go to Representative Josephson to make a motion. Yes, Chair she Foster, I move Amendment 22. Object.

Representative Josephson. Yes, Chair Foster. The— on the floor on the 18th of May, I had moved an amendment that probably after at ease was I think adopted without objection. And the nature of the amendment was to say that the DCCED, Commerce, Community and Economic Development, rather than Glenfarn would oversee the impact aid program. And the body seemed to understand that DCCED does that with direct impact aid from, for example, NPRA.

They did that with COVID dollars as well, so that they have some capacity there. What this amendment does— just a little more background— there was a municipal group called the Municipal Advisory Group in the mid-teens. They negotiated with producers and I'm told had a— came to the conclusion that as much as $800 million was needed in community impact aid. The current version of the Senate resources bill cut that down to $200 million. In the House resources The amount was raised from $30 to $40 million.

So that's our starting point. What this would do is increase that amount to $80 million. The number $80 million, I know that the member from North Midtown had expressed some interest in the number $80 million, but one of the things I wanted to note was the testimony of Mayor LaFrance last week or the week before in Anchorage. She said and her staff, Mr. Klauda, noted that they believe the impact in Anchorage alone would be $173 million over 9 years, about $20 million a year. In the— the municipality cited a report from the Anchorage Community Development Authority which said, quote, the project would create a significant structural fiscal gap for the Municipality of Anchorage closed court.

So this does two things. It says let's let DCCED manage the program and let's increase the amount of impact aid from $40 to $80 million. Okay. And so with that, any discussion? Take it easy.

Brief it easy.

Okay, House Finance back on record at 12:52 PM, and we have a conceptual amendments. So, Representative Sharkey. Thank you, uh, Co-Chair Foster. I move conceptual amendment number 1 to amendment number 22. Check for purposes of discussion.

Representative Sharkey. Thank you. Uh, I think the most straightforward explanation of conceptual amendment number 1 to amendment number 22 is it bifurcates the $80 million to a structure in which $40 million is readily available upfront and deposited in into the state's accounts to be able to administer these community impact payments. The additional $40 million that would add up to that $80 million is then available upon submission of basically proof of expense or proof of expected expense. And so it takes that $80 million, splits it into two tranches, both of $40 million.

The first $40 million available upfront, The second $40 million available upon submission of receipts or proof of expected expenses that are coming down the line and allows for those to be collected in $10 million tranches from the developer. And with that, if there are additional questions beyond that, I invite Mr. Alper up to answer those questions on conceptual amendment number 1 to 22. Representative Ballard. Thank you.

I just want to make sure that when we're doing this, and I appreciate this conceptual amendment coming forward, that there is actual documented receipts of the impact. For example, and I know some people are going to get upset when I say this, but I'm going to say it. I don't want there to say there is an impact in this neighborhood, therefore we're going to put up a homeless shelter over here to move these individuals off, and then that rolls downhill and it and impacts my constituents as far as the maintenance of it and paying for it. So I just want to make sure that that— and I actually would appreciate if Mr. Halpert could come up and talk. And the reason why is I like that he's giving this information to the community and I appreciate Representative Schraggi being able to do this.

Thank you. Representative Schraggi, I think you want to make a comment first and we'll go to Mr. Halpert. Yeah, just very briefly, I will say that we have heard those same concerns expressed from the developer and other entities. And so this amendment does make some adjustments to tighten up that language a little bit and make sure that the expenses being reimbursed are credible expenses related to this project.

And I'll let Mr. Alper expand from there. May I just do—. Representative Ballard, I don't know if you mentioned it, Representative Schrag, but you've actually put on this conceptual amendment all of the municipalities. The major municipalities, and I didn't see that in the original amendment. Is that accurate?

Let's go to Mr. Alper, if we could. Mr. Alper. Mr. Chair, I think it might be best to start with that because that's sort of a solid, identifiable question. Then we'll get to the bigger questions of the amendment.

To Representative Allard's question, the, the bill that came to us from the Resources Committee had a fund that was managed directly by Glenfarn, and we would be applying to them. The premise of Amendment 22 as introduced by Representative Josephson, which was the same other than the substitution of $80 for $40 million, was the same as the floor amendment that made this into a grant program controlled by DCCED. And importantly, Mr. Chairman, the— well, okay, I'll come back to that.

The original bill referenced 6 municipalities, the 5 that border the pipeline plus Anchorage. When it was going to the DCCED program, it just said communities and any community could have applied. The changes made by Representative Sharagi's Amendment 1 deletes the piece that makes that change, thus leaving in place the list of 6 municipalities. So in fact, As adopted, amended Amendment 22 would restrict this fund to just the 6 municipalities. So let's just get that on the record to start, and I can move on from there.

What I was starting to say was the concern of going— it being with Glunfarn is that there wasn't any real cash on the table that the— It was just an internal accounting transfer, and they put— making it a state grant program and having actual money put up front, it made it certain that the funds would be made available. And importantly, Mr. Chairman, this impact fund is in two separate parts of the bill. It's in the bill as the program being set up in DCED, where there's going to be applicants and there's going to be a process and there's going to be grants given out. But it's also in the conditional language tied to the actual taking effect of the whole bill, particularly the AVT sections that says the project sponsor must meet these three conditions to earn the right to get this special tax treatment. And those three conditions are the agreement to a project labor agreement, the agreement to the terms and the schedule around the Fairbanks Spur, and the creation of this fund and putting the money into it.

So the maker of the amendment, as I understood it, felt it important that that be actual cash on the barrelhead and not just a theoretical allocation of funds. And that's why we're here with a grant program at DCCED. You know, speaking to the changes in Amendment Number 1, the project sponsor believed that $40 million is probably going to be the actual total of the impact, and anything beyond that might be subject to debate or subject to let's make sure that it's a real impact. So the $40 million cash would and the condition of the effective date, so-called, the Part B of the amendment, just really refers to the first $40 million. Once that first $40 million is expended, if the communities continue to identify impacts, and that's where it's important, as Representative Allard said, to make sure that these are truly germane to the project, that these are real impacts that are provable.

Show your receipts, show your actual impact. Real or anticipated. And I believe, Mr. Chairman, there might be a subsequent additional clarification conceptual amendment once we get through this that will add a little bit more tightness to that. But the intent of Amendment Number 1 is to say that that second $40 million would be a little bit more rigorous in making sure that the costs are actual costs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Further discussion? Seeing none, Representative Stout. I'm going to withdraw my objection. Objection from conceptual amendment number 1 to amendment number 22 has been adopted. The objection is removed and have been adopted.

Seeing no further— sorry— objection. With that, Representative Sharagi. Uh, thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Before I move conceptual amendment number 2, I need a very quick brief at ease, please. Okay, brief at ease.

Thank you. Okay, House Finance back on record. The time is currently 1:06 PM on Wednesday, June 10th. And we are on amendment number 2. We have already adopted conceptual amendment number 1, and so now we are on conceptual amendment potentially number 2.

Representative Sharagi? Yeah, I was going to say, I don't think I've moved it yet, so I'm going to move conceptual amendment number 2 to amendment number 22. Okay, and we have an objection. Representative Ballard? Yeah, I have an objection, objection, but I also wanted to kind of go back because Ken has used acronyms and I just wanted to make sure that the public public knew the acronyms he was using.

You said DCCED was implementing. If you could—. Sorry, we'll make that quick clarification. Thank you, Mr. Alpert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To Representative Allard's question right there, I apologize for the use of acronyms. The Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development is a state department, and by and large they run a lot of the state's grant programs. And the reason they were particularly thought of for this purpose. The state receives the shared royalties from the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska, NPRA, which then is distributed as grants to impacted communities. So they're already doing a similar thing in the oil and gas space with funds that go out to impacted communities.

So they would be the ones setting up the grant program to distribute these funds on behalf of the gas project. OK, thank you. Thank you, Representative Schrag. So you have moved conceptual amendment number 2, and Representative Stapp has objected. If you'd like to explain the amendments.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Sorry not to have a printed copy of this conceptual amendment for members, but it's quite straightforward. And this will be— I'll have one more small conceptual amendment after this one, but conceptual amendment number 2 to Amendment 22 If you look at page 1 of Amendment 22, line 16, at the end of line 16 where it says offset actual or expected, we're going to delete actual or expected and insert verified actual or reasonably expected. So the net effect is just to add the word verified before actual and reasonably before expected. And that is conceptual amendment number 2.

Do we have any discussion? Conceptual amendment number 2. Seeing none, Representative Shaw— uh, Step— withdraw my objection. Okay, so conceptual amendment number 2. I don't see any further objections.

Conceptual amendment number 2 to amendment number 22 has been adopted. And that takes us to a potential conceptual amendment number 3. Representative Froegge. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. And again, apologies for not having this printed for members, but I move conceptual amendment number 3 to amendment number 22 as amended by conceptual amendment 1.

Object. Okay, Representative Froegge. All right, for this conceptual amendment, you will need to look at conceptual amendment number 1 to amendment number 22. To, on page 2, line 14, where it says actual or anticipated, we are going to say— we are going to insert the word reasonably before anticipated. So it will read on page 2, line 14, demonstrated actual or reasonably anticipated additional municipal impacts.

Any discussion? Representative Ballard? Thank you. I want you to clarify— Rep. Sharkey, could you please clarify the definition of reasonably? I know, just do it, please.

Mr. Representative Sharkey? I think you're going to have to look to the dictionary on that one, Representative Ballard. We can get legal to jump in on this one if you would like. I actually would. I want it so that nobody confuses your intent.

Yes, I— okay. And we don't have alleged legal on the line, but I see my staff going to get them on the line.

Mr. Alper, would you have any insight with your experience? Would you have an ability to speak to the definition of reasonably here? Mr. Alper. Mr. Chairman, ultimately it is a judgment question. And it's the sort of thing we're trying to hope to never have to adjudicate.

But the intent of Amendments 2 and 3 to the underlying amendment are what the intent of Amendment 1 was, that not just are we bifurcating this, but we're creating some sort of a framework around the second half that says the project sponsor has concerns that that the impacts are real impacts and we want to be able to have some— the word verifiable was in the earlier one, reasonable— just to put some standard that they have standing to potentially say no or negotiate before they start giving up the next $40 million. I know that that's the intent. How one will come to the meaning of what reasonable means, that is really beyond me, Mr. Chairman.

Okay. We— I'm sure alleged legal is probably watching, so they might be on the line pretty quickly. Any further questions, comments while we're waiting? Representative Galvin? I guess just while we're waiting, I wanted to add that I had heard through various sources that there was concern around, you know, folks coming up with obscure, you know, things that were needed, you know, a pool, a community pool, because their people were frustrated with, you know, whatever is happening with the community having a pipeline.

So they need a pool to help them get over those frustrations. Well, that maybe wouldn't be something that would be reasonable. So I think what they were— I kind of appreciate where Representative Chagri was going here, where he's asking them to say, hey, we need some more supports in public safety because X, Y, and Z are showing up. And then they can turn that into DCCED. They say, here is what we need to do or hire or whatever it is.

And then they have shown the reason that they want to have the extra funds. And to me, that does make sense. I think it creates more public trust in how dollars are spent and I think public trust is important here, and that is kind of the underlying reason that we are amending in the first place. So I do appreciate your amendment, Co-Chair Schraggi. I'm going to take a brief recess.

Okay, House Finance back on record at 1:14 PM. We do have Ms. Emily Nauman online. Uh, Ms. Nauman, if you can put yourself on the record And I'm thinking you may have heard the question.

For the record, this is Emily Nauman, Legislative Legal Services, and I did hear the question as what the definition of reasonable or reasonably would be. And a common legal understanding of the word reasonably would be, in this case, I believe it was a cost that is fair, rational, and appropriate under the particular circumstances. And ultimately, we'd be court to determine— the court or jury to determine whether or not particular costs were reasonable if it was litigated. Representative Ballard, thank you. Okay, any further questions for Ms. Nowman?

Seeing none, Representative Stepp, I'm going to withdraw the objection. Okay, the objection has been withdrawn. Any further objections on Amendment Number— Conceptual Amendment Number 3 to Amendment Number 22? Seeing none, thank you very much, Ms. Nowman. So that takes us back to the underlying amendment, which is Amendment Number 22.

Any further discussion? Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I, you know, I understand the full intent of Amendment 22 as amended. It's reasonable to believe that there will be community impacts.

I think, though, that overall this project will provide positive community impacts, bringing people into your community, putting kids in our schools. Those are all positive things that ultimately will cost the state money. The municipal governments have mechanisms to recoup general influx of people. As an example, we know that in my community I have 1.2 to 1.5 million people showing up on an annual basis as tourists. And those are tremendous struggles that we deal with, and we have to solve those problems locally.

There's no help from the state to do that. Uh, on the same token, Anchorage also sees over a million people visiting, along with Denali Borough. And most of these boroughs see millions of people flooding into the state to visit, which puts strain on emergency services. It puts strains on our roads with all the tour buses. And all of the traffic.

And yet when we talk about the construction of this line, we're saying that there's going to be community impacts. And like I said many times before on this committee, those community impacts are positive. They're positive with workers, they're positive with families, they're positive with bringing low-cost energy to South Central Fairbanks and the state as a whole. So Ultimately, I'm not going to be in the way of this amendment. I do have somewhat of a— I guess it's to me somewhat problematic that we've defined impacted municipalities to mean only the 6 municipalities that are directly impacted by the line and then the addition of the municipality of Anchorage.

I think there's a potential that there will be other municipalities and/or communities that are directly impacted by this development that are not on this list. Now, can I say that for certain? No. But if they are, those communities are likely smaller communities and could have tremendous impacts. And I think that they should have also an opportunity to apply for reasonable impacts to their community, make the case that they are impacted.

Um, as an example, I have a shipyard in my community, and there's a potential that we could be a contributor to the development of this gas line is a massive mega or giga project, and I think all resources within the state will be reaching out to make sure it happens. So there's potential that communities like mine could have some element of impact, and I think that we should be able to make the case for being made whole if that impact is negative on community in any way. Again, I will accept all positive impacts in all communities and I look forward to the project moving forward, but I just wanted to put on the record my concerns about the specific language of including only the 6 communities. Thank you. Okay.

Let's see here. Further discussion before we go to wrap-up? Any other discussion? Representative Josephson, wrap-up? Oh, no, I didn't mean to.

I have a question regarding that, if I might. Sure. Representative Josephson. Through Chair Foster, Mr. Alper, who proposed these 6 communities as opposed to the previous language? Through the Chair, Representative Josephson, the reference to the 6 communities was language that came to us from the Resource Committee bill.

The language to your original amendment that moved it to the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, removed that and made it more statewide. And Amendment 1 to Amendment 22 then restored— by deleting the portion of your amendment that made that change, left intact the original language from the Resource Committee substitute that referenced the 6 impacted communities. And to be clear, Continuing through the chair, because Representative Bynum said something, we are— this is— I mean, whatever the impacts are, once it is flowing and all the revenue and all of the continuing jobs, this concept we're talking about here is entirely limited to the construction phase of the project. These are impacts to help cover costs that might be incurred before there is any revenue from a completed project. Follow-up.

I guess what I meant was who proposed bringing the language back to its original form with the 6 communities? Mr. Alper. Mr. Chairman, when a group of us were discussing compromise language yesterday, that was one of the ideas that was raised and broadly accepted by the group. It wasn't by any means a magical decision.

Thank you. Okay. Further discussion on Amendment No. 22? Seeing none, wrap up, Representative Josephson.

No wrap up. I'm going to remove my objection. Okay, the objection on Amendment Number 22 as conceptually amended has been removed. I don't see any further objections, so with that, Amendment Number 22 as amended has been adopted. Uh, let's see here, are there any further amendments?

Seeing no further amendments That now takes us through the entire amendment process, and if it is the will of the committee, I would entertain a motion to move the bill. Representative Sharagi. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. It's my pleasure to move HB 381, work order 34-GH2038/T, out of committee as amended with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. House Finance Committee authorizes legislative legal to make any technical and conforming changes necessary.

Do we have any objections?

Seeing—. Representative Ballard. And I'm objecting only because I wanted to say something. I think what we did here was— Microphone, maybe. I apologize.

Thank you. Through the co-chair, I think what we did today, actually this last few weeks, is is good, and it's good for every single child, man, and woman across the state of Alaska. And I think this is pretty historic, so I really appreciate everybody coming together, whether we disagreed or not, moving this out and moving this forward. So thank you, co-chair. Okay.

And also wanted— I meant to note that we do have Representative Colombe in the audience with us, came in earlier, just wanted to recognize you. Thanks for joining us. Next up, I have Representative Sharagi. Yeah, thank you, Coach. You're Foster.

I just— while we have an objection on the table and an opportunity to discuss moving this bill out, I just wanted to take a quick moment to thank a number of individuals. One, members of this committee. I really appreciate the work that members have put into this bill. We've had many, many hearings, and it takes a lot of work. Obviously, there's been many disagreements along the way, but I'm proud of the work product that we're moving forward out of committee.

So I just want to thank members of this committee and their staff as well. As I know that as much as we spend time working on these issues, oftentimes our staff spend many more hours on these issues than we do. I also want to take a moment to particularly call out Mr. Alper for his work on helping us through many of the technical aspects of this legislation and trying to bridge the divide between members in in coming up with compromise language that works and is legally sound. You have been instrumental to this process and I really want to thank you, Mr. Alper, for all the long hours and copious work that you have put into this. I want to thank Ledge Legal and in particular Emily Nelman.

She has put in incredible, incredible hours that I do not think members of the public, let alone members of the legislature, really truly understand how much work goes into a major piece of legislation like this. The work is incredibly complex and technically difficult, and she has been an invaluable resource to the process. And so I want to thank her and all of her staff for the work that they put into this. I want to thank the developer and the administration for their constructive work, AGDC as well. It's taken many, many parties to try to get to where we are now, and I just want to extend a an endless amount of thanks to all the parties that have been involved.

I know I'm missing individuals, but I just again wanted to say thank you to all those that have been involved. It's been a lot of work and I appreciate it. Thank you. Well said, Representative Sharkey. Next up, I have Representative Tomaszewski.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Through the chair, I want to echo those comments that Representative Sharkey has just made. You know, Almost, almost 50 years ago, my dad worked on TAPS and he was a member of the Carpenters Local 1243. And, you know, it's amazing to me that what that project did for the state of Alaska with the oil pipeline. And it's just— and I'm just humbled and honored right now to be able to be working on this legislation that is going to bring that next step, that gas pipeline, because 40, 50 years ago that was what we were talking about.

And really the state of Alaska has been talking about this pipeline for the last 5 decades. And I'm just humbled and I want to thank all those folks that have worked on this. All the stakeholders. I think it's been a reasonable compromise. I use that term, reasonable.

I think it has been. I think it's been collaborative. And I look forward to seeing this— looking forward to the groundbreaking ceremony on this project because it will be transformational for the state, not only with lower gas prices and affordable energy, but also tremendous amount of revenue for the state and local community. So I just want to thank everybody who worked on it and look forward to seeing this into fruition. Thank you.

Okay. And I'd like to go to Representative Galvin. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. While I echo many of the folks who have just spoken, I think it's also important that I share with this body that I may have a conflict. It is possible.

You have seen some of the presentations that list a company that my husband is part of. And again, they may be part of this project. So I just think it is very important that I share with you and with the public that I am conflicted because of that.

Relationship. Okay. And I think it's good to declare the conflicts. I think maybe it's more of a formality on the floor. Yeah.

But in an abundance of caution, I think that's probably good. And if— and I'll go ahead and object and require that you vote. So with that, I also have Representative Mr. Zapp. Yeah, I think, Co-Chair Foster, I just want to take the time to thank you, actually 3 co-chairs of the Finance Committee, taking the time on the bill, having a good process, having public testimony, having invited testimony, working out very complicated details of a throughput-type structure, thinking about broad-based community impacts, thinking about how transformational the project would be, and I would just say I would say, you know, the bill, obviously, some technical concepts, like, and generally at the end of the day, I think the vast majority of us and Alaskans really want to see the best chance possible be provided to move forward with this transformational project. And I just want to take the time to thank everybody, especially you three co-chairs, for making sure that we had a good transparent process where the public was able to testify to weigh in and where that expertise was called and we heard from everyone.

And I think that's really important to get buy-in for Alaskans that we were able to do this this way and appreciate. Thank you. Thanks. On the note of just thanking folks, I know that we're all probably going to want to thank our staff and I just want to give a shout out to my staff, Mr. Brody Anderson and Mr. Iman Henderson, who have really kind of done the back— the coordination in the background and And so anyway, just appreciate all their work. So do we have any further comments or questions?

Okay. Seeing none, the objection was by Representative Allard. I remove it. Okay. The objection— Representative Jimmy, would you like to speak to your objection?

Okay. So with that, we do have an objection, Madam Clerk, and before for us is HB 381, the Gas Line Bill, version T, and as amended. If you could please call the roll. Representative Tomaszewski. Yes.

Representative Bynum. Yes. Representative Hannan. Yes. Representative Jimmy.

Yes. Representative Galvin. Yes. Representative Stapp. Yes.

Representative Moore. Yes. Representative Allard. Yes. Representative Jimmy.

Two times yes. Oh, I thought you said pass. Sorry. Representative Schraggy. Yes.

Representative Josephson. Yes. Representative Foster. Yes. 11 Yeas, 0 nays.

And so on a vote of 11 yeas and 0 nays, House Bill 381, which is version 34-GH2038/T, moves out of committee as amended with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. House Finance Committee authorizes legislative legal to make any technical and conforming changes as necessary. So great work, everyone. Thank you very much. We do have a House Finance meeting scheduled for tomorrow at 11:00 AM.

However, that is in case we have any things that need to be fixed, Fudge Legal catches anything, we have to come back. There is no expectation that we're going to come back tomorrow, but we do have a meeting scheduled for tomorrow at 11:00 AM just just in case. So with that, please do stick around to sign the yellow committee reports. And with that, I am going to go ahead and adjourn House Finance at 1:30 PM. Thank you.