Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
02/23/2018 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB267 | |
| HB305 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 267 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 305 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 305-OIL/HAZARDOUS SUB.:CLEANUP/REIMBURSEMENT
1:23:33 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 305, "An Act relating to oil and
hazardous substances and waiver of cost recovery for containment
and cleanup of certain releases; and providing for an effective
date."
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON opened public testimony, and after
ascertaining no one wished to testify, closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER expressed his understanding the bill
removes the requirement that [the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC)] must issue a fine to a homeowner for an
accidental spill.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON concurred and added the intent of the bill is
also to increase homeowners' compliance regarding reporting
spills and asking DEC for help.
1:26:10 PM
KRISTIN RYAN, Director, Division of Spill Prevention and
Response, DEC, explained DEC is required to recover all of its
costs associated with providing assistance to a homeowner;
however, DEC would prefer homeowners use their limited resources
to clean up the spill and contact DEC for assistance.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH questioned whether DEC currently
experiences resistance when it seeks to collect its costs.
1:27:58 PM
JENNIFER CURRIE, Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Environmental Section, Civil Division(Anchorage), Department of
Law, deferred to Ms. Ryan.
MS. RYAN explained homeowners are inhibited [by costs] and do
not want to contact DEC and receive a bill, thus homeowners have
often avoided contacting DEC and DEC learns about a release too
late to help a homeowner avoid worse contamination and more
expensive cleanup costs.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH inquired as to how DEC would communicate
the change in billing to the public, were the bill to become
law.
MS. RYAN was unsure. She suggested information could be
provided on DEC's web site and at public events notifying the
public DEC could provide assistance for free.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH spoke in support of the bill and pointed
out the distinction between fines and penalties and cost
recovery, noting the language in the bill refers to cost
recovery relief. He urged DEC to treat all equitably.
Representative Birch paraphrased from the bill [page 2, lines 8-
14], as follows:
The individual did not willfully or negligently fail
to comply with spill prevention, reporting, and
response requirements and the individual took
immediate measures upon discovery of the release and
provides reasonable assistance in the cleanup
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH suggested DEC should "give the same sort of
latitude to anybody" who has a problem if a spill is not
willful.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO directed attention to page 2, lines 5-7,
which read:
(1) the release was from piping, tankage, or other
equipment used solely to provide space heat or
electrical power generation for a single-family home
or a residential building with four or fewer housing
units;
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO advised some of his constituents operate
successful and important commercial operations from their
single-family home or residential units, and he gave an example.
He asked for clarification on whether "homeowner" would apply to
a small business run from a person's primary residence.
1:33:16 PM
MS. RYAN responded the bill is explicitly written to only
provide a cost recovery exemption to homeowners, and there was
no intention to exempt cost recovery from a professional or
business operation. If a heating oil tank was used to heat a
primary residence it would be exempt, but not if it was used
primarily as a fuel source for a business. She added, "But if
it's their home, and they're using it to heat their home, then
this would apply."
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH suggested the aforementioned language also
excludes homes heated by mixed sources of fuel, such as pellets
or wood, in addition to heating oil.
MS. RYAN opined a mixed fuel situation was not contemplated
[during the drafting of the bill].
REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN agreed with Representative Parish that
the bill would exclude a home with a wood stove and a diesel-
fired water heater.
MS. RYAN said DEC would define "home" to include a water tank
used for residential purposes. She deferred to legal counsel.
REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN directed attention to the bill on page 2,
line 6, and read, "solely to provide space heat or electrical
power."
1:38:10 PM
MS. RYAN remarked:
From our experience, the spills are occurring at ...
people have tanks, large tanks, that are providing
heating for their home as their primary use of, of
diesel fuel. So that's, that was our intent is to
provide some relief in those scenarios. I'm not aware
of the nuances you guys are mentioning, we're, isn't
something that I'm aware of happening to this date, it
probably has, but I don't necessarily think it would
be excluded from the exemption, again, if it's related
to the home ...
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH suggested deletion of the word "space", on
page 2, line 6.
MS. RYAN indicated the deletion suggested by Representative
Parish would not change the intent of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH questioned whether the aforementioned
deletion would also address a home with water and space heating
systems powered from mixed sources of fuel.
MS. RYAN said, "Yes, I think that would be more clear that those
scenarios would also be exempt."
MS. CURRIE agreed that elimination of the word "space" would
maintain the intent of the regulations as written.
1:41:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH moved Conceptual Amendment 1, to on page
2, line 6, following the word "provide," delete the word
"space." He explained the amendment would [allow the language
of the bill to] accommodate homes where the space heat is
provided by a source other than fuel oil, or homes with a
separate fuel oil source to provide water heating.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON clarified the term heat is used to address
either water or space heat. There being no objection,
Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN restated Representative Talerico's
question as to whether the bill covers small business owners who
operate stores out of their homes.
MS. CURRIE advised on page 2, [beginning on line 5], the bill
states piping, tankage, or other equipment must be solely for
private purposes and not for commercial purposes.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON surmised if a spill occurs in a domestic
situation there would be no liability as to [customers visiting
a business], which is another distinct difference; for example,
if a spill occurs at a commercial enterprise there would be
obligations to the general public, however, the intent of the
bill is to help single-family residences with four or fewer
housing units.
MS. CURRIE said correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND observed many single-family homes
contain small businesses and have offices, but the building is
still used as a home. She disagreed with DEC's interpretation
of the bill and asked for clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER pointed out some businesses in his
district contain living space.
1:47:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN suggested on page 2, line 6, replacing
the word "solely" with the word "primarily."
MS. RYAN stated DEC designed criteria to focus the [benefit] of
exemption on homeowners as the primary recipients of relief;
however, she said she was not opposed to the concept that the
exemption would apply to a facility that is primarily a home.
Ms. Ryan opined a commercial operation utilizing fuel [from the
home] as part of a business would be "too far." She agreed
Representative Lincoln's suggestion would achieve his purpose,
provided the home is the main recipient of the fuel and the
business does not drive up the volume of fuel used.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON said - if amended - on page 2, line 6, the
sentence would read, "the release was from piping, tankage, or
other equipment used primarily to provide heat or electrical
power, et cetera."
MS. CURRIE opined the change would expand the number of
households that were exempt and therefore, reduce the revenue
collected by DEC. Further, the change could be accomplished by
a definition of "single-family home" in regulation, which would
provide a more comprehensive description of a commercial
business in a home. She deferred to DEC.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND said the modifying term should be placed
before single-family home.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON and Representative Rauscher agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH further explained the confusion created by
the misplaced modifier.
1:55:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2, to
on page 2, line 6, delete the word "solely" and insert the word
"primarily."
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN asked whether DEC can subsequently better
define, through regulation, questions raised by the committee.
MS. CURRIE advised DEC would define single-family home and
residential building to ensure it can consider the effect of a
commercial business within a single-family home; to solve the
problem she urged for the committee to focus on the definition
of a single-family home.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON surmised "the Alaska code" now has
definitions for single-family and residential.
MS. CURRIE related [executive branch departments] are allowed to
codify different definitions of terms for different purposes.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON, as an aside, noted executive branch
departments send legislators notifications of rulemaking
regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO expressed his confidence in DEC's
ability to craft regulations; he reminded the committee small
businesses within what is primarily a single-family home
typically do not operate 24 hours per day, therefore, most of
the fuel used for heat or power generation would not be
dominated by the business, but by the living quarters, and he
gave an example. He said regulations could address this issue.
1:59:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND directed attention to a supporting
document provided in the committee packet from the Office of the
Commissioner, DEC, which indicated currently 150 active sites
would be eligible as the bill is written. She expressed
interest in "how the homes are being used" at the 150 active
sites. The Anchorage Municipal [Code of Ordinances] has a
definition of single-family homes that prohibits small
businesses in a home if the business violates restrictions such
as generating traffic, or signage. She urged Legislative Legal
Services to craft an amendment and spoke against Conceptual
Amendment 2.
2:01:43 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON observed single-family home is constrained by
"four or fewer housing units."
MS. RYAN, in response to Representative Drummond, said the
aforementioned active sites are primarily houses, and she was
unsure as to whether the houses contained businesses. Obvious
commercial operations become known during site inspections, and
she stated her preference to craft a definition in regulation,
so DEC can make any necessary adjustments. When DEC inspects a
spill, families are overwhelmed and in need of help; businesses
have expertise and resources a homeowner does not.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON opined between the intent of the bill, and
court interpretation, each term may not need to be defined.
REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN spoke in favor of the bill except,
according to the Department of Law, a small business in a
single-family home may not be eligible; he said he seeks to
ensure small business owners and entrepreneurs in villages are
not penalized.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON acknowledged small businesses exist in homes
without question, but cautioned businesses have different
standards than homes due to issues such as liability, civil
rights laws, and wage and hour laws.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO expressed his support for Conceptual
Amendment 2.
2:08:15 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON expressed his support for Conceptual
Amendment 2. [The committee treated Co-Chair Josephson's
objection as withdrawn.]
2:08:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND objected and restated the modifier is
misplaced. In response to Representative Lincoln, she said the
word "primarily" is not needed because DEC knows what it
considers to be a single-family home. She further discussed how
the intent of the amendment is affected by the construction of
the sentence.
There followed a short general discussion.
2:11:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND warned further amendments may affect
local zoning rules because "it could be a primarily residential
unit if it had four housing units in it and a store that was
operated by somebody who didn't necessarily live there. Now
you're getting into how a municipality or borough defines its
structures ... instead of leaving it up to the department, then
you're ... going to get into more trouble ...."
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON pointed out the amendment deadline has passed
- although one conceptual amendment was accepted - and suggested
the committee attach to the bill a letter to the House Finance
Committee [committee of next referral] reflecting its concerns.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH, in response to Representative Drummond's
earlier example, opined Conceptual Amendment 2 would not affect
her example.
REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN urged for an opportunity to work with DEC
and improve the bill. He withdrew Conceptual Amendment 2.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON restated his caution about the differences
between a home and a business, and set an amendment deadline of
12:00 p.m. [2/26/18].
HB 305 was held over.