Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
02/23/2010 03:00 PM House ENERGY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR45 | |
| HB296 | |
| HB303 | |
| HB31 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 303 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 296 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 45 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 31-NET ENERGY METERING
4:30:29 PM
CO-CHAIR MILLETT announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 31, "An Act relating to net energy metering
for retail electricity suppliers and customers; and providing
for an effective date."
4:30:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KURT OLSON, Alaska State Legislature, informed
the committee that the proposed amendment to HB 31 would be
presented by his aide, Jennifer Senette.
4:31:11 PM
JENNIFER SENETTE, Staff, Representative Kurt Olson, Alaska State
Legislature, began by reviewing HB 31 for the committee. She
noted that the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) has been
working on a net metering docket for over one year and closed
the docket in October. Representative Olson, sponsor of HB 31,
has incorporated the regulations adopted by the RCA into an
amendment to the bill because the regulations are a good
compromise for all of the interests involved: customers who net
meter, customers who do not net meter, and the utilities that
serve them.
4:33:09 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:33 p.m. to 4:34 p.m.
4:34:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS moved to adopt Amendment 1, A.1, Kane,
1/27/10.
CO-CHAIR MILLETT objected for purposes of discussion.
4:34:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS advised that the regulations recommended
by the RCA were put in amendment form. He referred to a
document that embeds the recommendations made by Mr. Pickett,
RCA chairman.
4:35:04 PM
CO-CHAIR MILLET requested copies of the document for the
committee. She then asked Ms. Senette to review the sectional
analysis on Amendment 1.
4:35:46 PM
MS. SENETTE emphasized that Amendment 1 codifies Chairman
Pickett's testimony word-for-word. Subsections (a), (b), and
(d) address the applicability and the waiver opportunity of the
net metering requirement. Generally speaking, the net metering
requirement applies to all utilities subject to economic
regulation by the RCA with the two exceptions set out on page 2,
lines 8-13: (1) utilities that are 100 percent supplied by
renewable sources; (2) independent systems with retail sales of
less than five million kilowatt hours during the previous fiscal
year. For example, the Alaska Power & Telephone Company (AP&T)
serves twenty-one communities, five of which sold over five
million kilowatt hours during FY 2007. Thus, the only portion
of AP&T that would be required to provide net metering would be
in those five communities that have sold over five million
kilowatt hours. Ms. Senette called attention to page 2, line
13, and pointed out that if a utility demonstrates that limiting
net metering installations is necessary due to operational
constraints or liability issues, the utility would not be
required to provide net metering.
4:37:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS recognized the value of renewable energy
sources, but because they are intermittent sources, they can
only be a portion of the utility's portfolio. He opined that
this provision of the amendment must be perceived as something
that protects the ratepayer base of a small utility, because a
smaller utility cannot absorb the net metering kilowatts in the
way large producers can.
MS. SENETTE agreed. She continued with her sectional analysis
and said subsections (e)-(i) set an overall capacity limit on
net metering. Subsection (f) allows a utility to opt out if its
overall nameplate capacity of all net metering systems
interconnected with the utility exceeds 1.5 percent of the
utility's average annual retail demand. Furthermore on page 3,
line 9, subsection (i), she noted a utility can actually request
an increase to that 1.5 percent capacity. Continuing to
subsection (g), Ms. Senette explained that this subsection
precludes a utility from disconnecting existing net metering
customers should the cumulative nameplate capacity of the net
metering systems interconnected with the utility exceed the cap
as a result of average demand going down.
4:40:44 PM
MS. SENETTE continued to page 3, subsection (h), that requires a
utility to annually publish in its tariff the number of kilowatt
hours that are equivalent to that 1.5 percent of average retail
demand. Subsection (l) specifies the eligibility criteria for
the consumer generation facilities, including a generation
capacity limit of 25 kilowatts. Subsection (m) describes net
metering and that the utility must measure the energy
consumption and generation of a net metering consumer to
determine net consumption, and to determine bill credits. Page
5, [paragraph] (2), indicates that compensation is based on the
utility's non-firm purchase power rate-typically on an avoided
cost basis-and that credits can be carried forward and do not
expire. She emphasized that if a renewable energy generation
facility is built and it contributes more power than it
consumes, credits are issued instead of a payment, but the
credits never expire. Subsection (n) allows the utilities to
charge a net metering consumer for non-generation related
consumer charges if those charges are authorized in the
utility's tariff. Subsection (p) allows the utility to request
a change to its rate design to incorporate a net metering
customer class; however, the utility must demonstrate an adverse
material rate impact on those who do not net meter.
4:43:16 PM
MS. SENETTE then advised that the remainder of Amendment 1 is
definitions. She introduced expert witnesses.
4:44:01 PM
CO-CHAIR MILLETT asked whether the RCA supports codifying its
recommendations in statute, or if it wishes to keep the
recommendations under regulations.
MS. SENETTE said she did not know. However, there are
advantages to moving the recommendations into statute because
statute trumps regulations and is not subject to a change in
leadership.
4:45:06 PM
CO-CHAIR EDGMON understood that the RCA chairman preferred the
recommendations not be put into statute, and he expressed his
interest in hearing whether the RCA supports the [amendment].
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK agreed. He pointed out that the amendment
codifies language, but questioned the purpose of also giving the
commission allowances to make changes.
4:46:45 PM
RICH GAZAWAY, Advisory Section Manager, Alaska Regulatory
Commission (RCA), Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic
Development (DCCED), advised the committee that he was the
administrative law judge who conducted the hearings and process
for net metering regulations.
CO-CHAIR MILLETT asked whether there is a benefit to the RCA to
not have these regulations in statute.
4:47:39 PM
MR. GAZAWAY confirmed that having the recommendations in
regulations provides the RCA with a greater level of flexibility
to amend standards. However, as a staff member, he could not
speak to what position the five commissioners would take.
4:48:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK observed that the amendment allows the RCA
to make changes in Section 1. Therefore, he asked whether there
are limitations to the RCA's flexibility to make changes.
4:49:01 PM
MR. GAZAWAY explained that the waiver provision allows the
commission to exercise its discretion. He concluded that the
language would provide some flexibility, and is modeled on RCA
regulatory language.
4:49:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS defended the language in Amendment 1,
saying it codifies the legislature's intent for net metering.
Because net metering in Alaska is brand new, he cautioned
against the use of rigid language. In fact, the use of the word
"may" provides sufficient direction to the RCA from the
legislature, and sufficient latitude for the RCA to interpret
what works for the utilities across the state.
4:51:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK clarified that he was not suggesting the use
of the word "shall." He re-stated his inquiry as to the effect
of the amendment and why it was necessary to codify decisions
that the RCA is authorized to make.
4:52:09 PM
CO-CHAIR MILLETT withdrew her objection to Amendment 1. There
being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted, and HB 31,
as amended, was before the committee. She opened public
testimony.
4:52:58 PM
JIM STIMPFLE said he could not tell from the bill or the
amendment whether this is a two meter or a one meter system. In
a one meter system, one meter reads the power going in and if
consumers are using their own renewables, the meter runs
backwards.
CO-CHAIR MILLETT opined the legislation does not address how net
metering takes place because that is a "utility to consumer"
issue.
4:54:02 PM
MR. STIMPFLE referred to Amendment 1, page 4, line 15, and
recommended the addition of a provision to allow a small
business owner, in a rural area, an offsite grid connection as a
way to "credit back" the power usage at another site. He then
asked whether the Alaska Village Electrical Cooperative (AVEC)
produces less than five million kilowatts and has a waiver
against compliance with net metering.
4:54:56 PM
CO-CHAIR MILLETT said she believed that to be the case.
4:55:08 PM
MIKE O'MEARA, Homer Spokesman, Homer Electric Association
Member's Forum, informed the committee the Homer Electric
Association Member's Forum is a ratepayers' group. He said his
organization questions the need to codify the RCA net metering
regulations into law; however, HEA Member's Forum participants
would be supportive of the bill, as amended, if it goes forward.
Consensus among the participants is that the RCA did a pretty
good job of balancing the demands from various interests. The
organization remains interested in seeing that nothing is done
to diminish the regulations, and he urged that changes not be
made to affect what the RCA has regulated. Also, his
organization discourages any language that would limit the
ability of ratepayer groups' participation in future RCA
deliberations on this issue.
4:58:04 PM
CO-CHAIR MILLETT clarified that the amendment was adopted and is
now part of the bill.
4:58:21 PM
PETER McKAY informed the committee he has participated with the
RCA proceedings on net metering since 10/06. He stated he was
comfortable with Appendix A to RCA Order 09-1, Order Number 3;
however, there are differences between the order and Amendment 1
offered by Representative Ramras in the language and in the
structure. Mr. McKay said he could not be comfortable that the
issues worked out by the regulatory commission are intact in the
amendment, and he stated his desire for a line-by-line
comparison, or a cross reference that identifies identical
language, different language with the same intent, and
differences and omissions when compared to RCA Appendix A,
Article 3, Section 900, of the Alaska Administrative Code. He
urged that the committee make this comparison prior to the bill
moving forward.
5:00:32 PM
CO-CHAIR MILLETT asked Mr. McKay to send his concerns in
writing.
5:01:13 PM
MARILYN LELAND, Executive Director, Alaska Power Association
(APA), informed the committee her organization is the statewide
trade association representing electric utilities that supply
power to 500,000 Alaskans. Ms. Leland provided a history of net
metering regulation in Alaska from 2006. She stated that her
organization believes that the RCA process that is now completed
was a success. Public participation in the workshops and
opportunities for public testimony were well attended; in fact,
during the workshops RCA staff, utility representatives, and
members of the public came to agreements that "all who
participated could live with."
5:03:40 PM
CO-CHAIR MILLETT asked whether APA supports this legislation.
MS. LELAND responded that the bill and amendment have not gone
to the membership; however, APA issued a resolution that
supported leaving net metering to the RCA regulatory process.
5:04:37 PM
DEAN THOMPSON, Attorney, Alaska Power Association (APA), began
his testimony by saying that APA actively participated in the
RCA process and does not oppose the substance of the
regulations; however, APA has administrative concerns about
codifying RCA regulations in statute. The main concern is that
it may create inconsistencies between statute and regulation.
The regulations adopted by the RCA are not legally effective or
final, and will not be until reviewed by the Department of Law
(DOL) and certified by the lieutenant governor. Furthermore,
the review could result in substantive changes that require the
RCA to re-notice the regulations. In either case, codifying the
most recent RCA regulations in statute may create
inconsistencies. Secondly, the risk increases if the DOL
suggests changes to the regulations. Mr. Thompson warned that
those are the problems that could result in codifying
regulations that are not yet final. Regarding the waiver
language in Section 1, subsection (b) of Amendment 1, he pointed
out that the standard for the waiver is that "no legitimate
public interest would be served by enforcing the requirement."
He opined the commission is given some flexibility, but not
complete flexibility or discretion.
5:09:26 PM
MR. THOMPSON assured the committee that APA worked hard with the
RCA and other stakeholders on the regulatory process and,
although members are not completely pleased with the
regulations, they determined the regulations were good enough
and worked well enough for everyone to move ahead. He commended
the parties in this regard.
5:10:45 PM
CO-CHAIR MILLETT ascertained that no one else wished to testify,
but left public testimony open for further comments. HB 31 was
held in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 31 sectional summary.PDF |
HENE 3/24/2009 3:00:00 PM HENE 2/23/2010 3:00:00 PM |
HB 31 |
| HB0031A.pdf |
HENE 2/23/2010 3:00:00 PM |
HB 31 |
| HB 31 Amendment Sectional Summary.PDF |
HENE 2/16/2010 3:00:00 PM HENE 2/23/2010 3:00:00 PM |
HB 31 |
| HB 31 sponsor statement.PDF |
HENE 3/24/2009 3:00:00 PM HENE 2/23/2010 3:00:00 PM |
HB 31 |
| HB 31 net metering map.PDF |
HENE 3/24/2009 3:00:00 PM HENE 2/23/2010 3:00:00 PM |
HB 31 |
| HB 31 NHA Waterpower.PDF |
HENE 2/23/2010 3:00:00 PM |
HB 31 |
| HB 296 SEP bonds Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HENE 2/9/2010 3:00:00 PM HENE 2/23/2010 3:00:00 PM |
HB 296 |
| HB0296-1-1-011910-REV-N.pdf |
HENE 2/9/2010 3:00:00 PM HENE 2/23/2010 3:00:00 PM |
HB 296 |
| HB0296-2-1-011910-DOT-N.pdf |
HENE 2/9/2010 3:00:00 PM HENE 2/23/2010 3:00:00 PM |
HB 296 |
| HB 296 Amendment 1.PDF |
HENE 2/23/2010 3:00:00 PM |
HB 296 |
| AM#2 HB296.pdf |
HENE 2/9/2010 3:00:00 PM HENE 2/23/2010 3:00:00 PM |
HB 296 |
| HB0296A.pdf |
HENE 2/23/2010 3:00:00 PM |
HB 296 |
| HB 303 Sponsor Statement.PDF |
HENE 2/16/2010 3:00:00 PM HENE 2/23/2010 3:00:00 PM |
HB 303 |
| HB 303 Sectional Summary.PDF |
HENE 2/16/2010 3:00:00 PM HENE 2/23/2010 3:00:00 PM |
HB 303 |
| HB303-REV-AHFC-2-14-10 AFHC Small Business Energy Loans.pdf |
HENE 2/16/2010 3:00:00 PM HENE 2/23/2010 3:00:00 PM |
HB 303 |
| HB0303A.pdf |
HENE 2/16/2010 3:00:00 PM HENE 2/23/2010 3:00:00 PM |
HB 303 |
| HJR045A.pdf |
HENE 2/23/2010 3:00:00 PM |
|
| Gov Cap and Trade.pdf |
HENE 2/23/2010 3:00:00 PM |
|
| Energy Committee Agenda 02232010.pdf |
HENE 2/23/2010 3:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 303 NFIB Support.pdf |
HENE 2/23/2010 3:00:00 PM |
HB 303 |
| HB 303 Amendment 1 Petersen.PDF |
HENE 2/23/2010 3:00:00 PM |
HB 303 |
| HJR 45 fiscal note.pdf |
HENE 2/23/2010 3:00:00 PM |