Committee needs to get best deal for Alaskans

In the early 1970’s, playing youth hockey in Anchorage was always more exciting when we’d play a rare Saturday morning game inside the old sports arena on Fireweed Lane. As a nine year old kid, the stadium atmosphere and the scoreboard that hung on the wall seemed much more professional than playing outdoors and having to listen for the parent who volunteered to keep score and the stopwatch.

Now as an adult, I’ve learned that in the game of politics, sometimes you need both methods to keep score. Next month the legislature will appoint the new Chairman of the Joint Committee on Natural Gas Pipelines. After two years under the strong leadership of retiring Senator John Torgerson, it’s the House of Representatives turn to nominate the Chairman. The committee’s responsibility is researching and proposing legislation for the economic development of Alaska’s natural gas resources.

In the last two years the state has invested almost $800,000 in obtaining expert advice on how to structure important pipeline development issues like ensuring access, financing options and tax incentives. However, late last session the power of special interest attempted an end run around the constitutional responsibility of the legislatures own pipeline committee.

On April 16, with less than a month to go in the legislative session, House Bill 519 was introduced. This bill would have given developers of an Alaska natural gas pipeline generous tax incentives in exchange for little more than a wink and a nod. The biggest point of contention was a $700 million dollar property tax exemption that was granted up front, without requiring anything from the builders to substantiate the credit.

Alaskan communities that were inside the pipeline corridors were upset about the proposed legislation exempting away their taxing authority. Even more alarming was the fact that the economic terms of the largest development since Prudhoe Bay were not being proposed by the legislatures own pipeline committee.

Imagine investing $800,000 to establish the value of your assets and how to sell them, only to be left standing in the corner while the buyer is allowed to set the purchase price and terms. During the House Finance Committee debates, some members argued for a more qualified tax exemption.

A committee amendment that would have allowed the state to trust but verify failed after one member suddenly changed his vote and supported the tax exemption minus the strings. Shortly thereafter, a new construction project in that same member’s district appeared in the budget. The whole process would have been comical if not for the negative effects on the state’s bottom line.

As the House reconvenes next month they should be looking to nominate a member that will be committed to getting the best deal for Alaska, they should be looking towards Representative Jim Whitaker of Fairbanks.

Last session he was one of the most educated and articulate voices during tense closed caucus and committee debates regarding the impacts of HB519. Unfortunately, recent history shows us that political decisions very rarely incorporate merit; they’re primarily based on who toes the company line.

In a recent newspaper report about campaign financing, the incoming Speaker of the House was quoted as saying that contributors were “squeezed” during the course of last month’s elections. According to the Alaska Public Offices Commission, he was squeezing some of the same people who were asking for the $700 million dollar tax credit in HB519 just months ago.

It’s not a coincidence that the new incoming Speaker of the House is also the same legislator who was the prime sponsor and advocate of last session’s controversial tax credit legislation. As the saying goes, democracy should be more than just two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

In Alaska, where the development of non-renewable resources is the key to our economic future, it just makes sense that any concessions regarding development incentives should only be made after the legislature has reviewed all of the facts and has taken the lead in proposing the legislation. Anything less represents a poor business decision sprinkled with political payback.

The legislative season begins January 21st; I’ve volunteered to keep score.