As readers of these pages will know, we oppose that approach because it kicks the costs down the road to a future period when Alaskans likely will be even less well positioned to pay for them than now and, according to DOR's own projections, increases the ultimate cost of the program.
As we have written elsewhere, the resulting cost of the maneuver also may be as much as $900 million more if, as is likely, future legislatures fill the near term fiscal space created by the bonding approach with additional government spending on other things. See "How a “Good Deal” Quickly Becomes a Bad Deal for Alaskans" (May 2018).
The discussion yesterday began with a post by us commenting on a response we had received in another forum from a director of one of the oil companies that will benefit from HB 331. A reader of these pages then joined the issue by starting the comment string that followed.
We think, in its course, the discussion did a useful job of outlining the reasons why some support HB 331, and we oppose it.
Some argue Alaska's right to reduce #OilCredit payments during $$oil downturns was in the "fine print". But it was in the same statute (in the same print) that created the program. Co's knew the risk from the start. They just wanted the state to overlook when it happened. #akleg
