Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
03/29/2012 03:00 PM House ENERGY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB357 | |
| HB323 | |
| HB336 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 357 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 323 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 336 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 336-ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM & VOUCHERS
3:55:38 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 336, "An Act establishing an energy assistance
program in the Department of Revenue to issue an energy voucher
to Alaska permanent fund dividend recipients; and relating to
the analysis and recommendation of an energy assistance program
by the governor."
3:56:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STEVE THOMPSON, Alaska State Legislature,
reminded the committee HB 336, and public testimony on the bill,
were previously heard. He said questions have been addressed by
a friendly amendment which puts wood, coal, and other heating
products into the bill in addition to the $250 payment to
homeowners who do not use electricity or fuel oil.
CO-CHAIR FOSTER questioned how the other body deals with power
cost equalization (PCE), and determining the dollar value of the
voucher. Also, he confirmed that biomass is included in the
bill.
3:57:53 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:57 p.m. to 3:58 p.m.
3:58:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON moved Amendment 1 which read [original
punctuation provided]:
Pg 3 line 14 after the word address, insert
Or other identifying information requested by the
corporation
CO-CHAIR FOSTER objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:59:55 PM
PAUL LABOLLE, Staff to Representative Neal Foster, Alaska State
Legislature, said Amendment 1 is a housekeeping amendment
necessary to comply with the companion bill in the other body.
Page 3, line 14, of the bill instructs that the distribution
method is based on the address listed on the heating oil,
natural gas, or electricity account. However, in many villages
addresses are not used, and the president of the Alaska Village
Electrical Cooperative Inc. (AVEC) suggested the language for
Amendment 1. He explained that "the corporation" referred to in
the amendment is the electrical utility. In response to
Representative Tuck, he clarified that in over 90 percent of
cases the corporation would be an electric utility.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK suggested the amendment should say "by the
corporation and/or utility."
MR. LABOLLE said he was unsure of whether corporation covered
all of the possibilities, but cooperatives and public utilities
are corporations. In addition, to qualify as a vendor, an
entity must meet the requirements in section 1, subsection (e)
of the bill.
CO-CHAIR FOSTER maintained his objection.
4:03:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON moved Amendment 2 which read [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 4 line 10 after the word rent, delete
[,ENERGY, OR HEATING COSTS]
Page 4 line 12 after the word voucher, insert
or
Page 4 line 13 insert a new subsection, subsection (3)
(3) not withstanding direct payment for
electricity in (g) of this section, for a recipient
whose primary residence heats exclusively with a fuel
not listed in (b) of this section, upon certification
the $500 will be used toward heating costs at the
recipient's primary residence in the state, for a
check for $500 in the name of the recipient of the
energy voucher.
4:03:53 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:03:59 PM
MR. LABOLLE called attention to page 4, which was the cash
disbursement section of the bill. He said the intent of
Amendment 2 was to address those who heat with a fuel other than
natural gas, diesel, or electricity. Page 4, line 10 instructs
that the cash disbursement will be used toward rent or energy
costs other than those provided for in the bill. As the $250
cash payment is not equitable with the identified fuel sources,
and in keeping with the "spirit of the bill" the amendment
equates two cords of wood with two months of heat, 250 gallons
of fuel oil, or 35,000 cubic feet of natural gas. Thus on page
4, line 10, Amendment 2 deletes "energy, or heating costs." Mr.
Labolle said the bill would still provide for those whose
utilities are included in their rent and whose landlord does not
want to apply to the transfer options of the bill. Amendment 2
also inserts the word "or" on page 4, line 12 after the word
"voucher" and adds the aforementioned new subsection (3). For
example, he explained that a resident who lives in a cabin and
heats with wood, but who has an electric utility, would still
qualify for the larger cash disbursement that is to be used for
home heating.
4:07:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN observed the bill retains the language
that limits one cash disbursement to $250, but increases another
cash disbursement to $500, and asked for the difference.
MR. LABOLLE explained that if the utilities are included in rent
they are generally a smaller amount. Furthermore, the sponsor
intends to discourage applying for a cash payment instead of a
utility payment, because the bill is an energy rebate measure.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK estimated the average statewide cost for
electricity is 15.1 cents per kilowatt (kW) hour. If so, the
cash payment will be higher than needed for some. Also, the
cash payment is an option for tenants.
4:10:11 PM
MR. LABOLLE said the voucher transfer provisions are on page 4,
line 7, paragraph (1), and remain unchanged. He then summarized
Amendment 2 for those who rejoined the meeting.
CO-CHAIR FOSTER added that the amendment originated from his
intent to include other fuel sources such as biomass and wood.
He acknowledged that there is no easy way to administer these
additions, and cautioned that increasing the cash payment may
encourage residents to apply for the cash payment.
4:13:18 PM
MR. LABOLLE related that the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation
(AHFC), Department of Revenue (DOR), indicated its preference
for a cash payment rather than a "separate section out
specifically for wood" because of the challenges to qualifying
distributors, and because there are many other sources of heat
such as propane, district heat, and pellet stoves, that would
not be included. In response to a previous question from
Representative Tuck, he said one reason to carve out the new
provision was to allow residents the option to choose between
heat and electricity. The current version of the bill allows a
resident who heats with an alternative source of fuel to apply
the $250 cash payment toward an electricity bill, but they would
have no provision for heat.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN confirmed that any form of heating one's
home, although not mentioned in the bill, was covered by the
amendment.
4:15:10 PM
MR. LABOLLE said correct.
4:15:14 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER removed his objection to Amendment 2. There
being no further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
MR. LABOLLE summarized Amendment 1.
4:17:16 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER removed his objection to Amendment 1. There
being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
4:18:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK moved Conceptual Amendment 3. He directed
attention to page 4, lines 8 and 9 of the bill which read:
owner of the residence in the state in which the
recipient resides, the value of which may, subject to
negotiations between the landlord and tenant, be
deducted from rent; or
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK observed that a tenant can transfer their
voucher to the landlord "for the cost of the utility or for
$250." He cautioned that landlords could "line their pockets,"
because the bill instructs that the value, subject to
negotiations between the landlord and tenant, be deducted from
rent. Representative Tuck opined the full value should be given
for rent and it should not be subject to negotiations between
the landlord and tenant.
CO-CHAIR PRUITT stated the possibility that a landlord may
discount the value of the voucher.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said correct. A tenant is in a
disadvantaged position because they have no options; however, a
landlord with a voucher can get 1,500 kW of power which may be
worth twice the value of the voucher. He said, "That's what I'm
trying to prevent, is that the full value is not going as
intended." Conceptual Amendment 3 adds the word "full" before
the word "value" on page 4, line 8 of the bill. Also, the
amendment removes the words "subject to negotiations between the
landlord and tenant," from page 4, line 9. He said page 4,
lines 7 through 9 would read:
(1) if applicable, for a replacement voucher in the
name of the landlord or owner of the residence in the
state in which the recipient resides, the full value
may be deducted from rent;
4:20:57 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN ascertained the voucher does not have to
be $250 because if the landlord is heating with electricity, oil
or natural gas, in parts of the state the value of the voucher
would be significantly higher. He said, "These vouchers would
be in equal value to, to what the cost of that energy [is] that
the landlord is providing, to that tenant."
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK pointed out the language in the bill allows
for the landlord to negotiate something less to apply to the
rent than the actual cost.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN further noted that the utility sends the
landlord the bill thus the tenant may not know the value of the
energy, especially in a multi-unit building with a central
heating system, where it is difficult to know what the amount
per unit is.
4:23:38 PM
MR. LABOLLE suggested a similar scenario is a house that has a
small apartment with a shared meter and boiler. He advised
that the sponsor is waiting for language on regulations for PCE,
so more work is to be done on the bill, and he would work with
Representative Tuck on this issue also.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said:
I believe the language is already there. It's price
times 1,500 kilowatts of power. We know what the
price is; you don't have to know how much they use.
All you have to know is what the price is. So, I
don't see the problem with this. I think it's spelled
out very well, to, to keep that from happening.
MR. LABOLLE understood Representative Tuck's point.
4:25:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN restated his example of a four-plex
metered by one natural gas meter, and how to determine the cost
per unit.
MR. LABOLLE explained that in the case of a four-plex, with each
unit rented by one tenant, and sharing one diesel furnace, each
tenant will be credited for an amount equal to "whatever the
going rate for diesel was, multiplied by 250 gallons." He opined
Representative Tuck's point is that the language in the bill is
not specific to usage, and that the volume [250 gallons] would
already be written into law.
4:26:45 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER asked whether the bill sponsor wished to address
the conceptual amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON indicated he had no objection to
Conceptual Amendment 3.
4:27:18 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN gave an example of a landlord who lives
in a building that also houses renters. He asked whether the
landlord can choose to use their voucher on their personal
residence or on rental units.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON advised if the landlord's name is on the
utility bill, they could apply it to the building or to their
residence. Only one voucher would be issued, and AHFC will
write regulations, but there would be only one credit per name.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK recalled there was previous discussion with
AHFC that suggested the use of PFD application addresses for
this program.
MR. LABOLLE directed attention to page 3, line 3, of the bill
and read:
(6) is valid for heating oil, natural gas, or
electricity delivered to the voucher recipient's
primary residence in the state;
4:30:51 PM
MR. LABOLLE advised an issue in addition to that of PCE is the
language on page 4, line 7, with the use of the term "landlord."
The sponsor has been informed that utility billings are
sometimes paid by a condominium homeowners' association thus a
determination must be made on whether a homeowners' association
could be considered a landlord.
CO-CHAIR FOSTER held over HB 336.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|