Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/28/1999 03:26 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 183 - ALASKA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION [Contains discussion relevant to SB 133.] Number 0638 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business is HB 183, "An Act relating to the powers and duties of the chair of the Alaska Public Utilities Commission; relating to membership on the Alaska Public Utilities Commission; and relating to the annual report of the Alaska Public Utilities Commission." The chairman informed the committee there are some suggested amendments patterned after provisions of SB 133. It is the intention to try to mirror some of the provisions placed in SB 133 that the industry as a whole can agree on that would be a betterment to the commission. The chairman mentioned amendments I.1 and I.2 [there is also I.3]. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI questioned if the committee needed to adopt the committee substitute (CS) [Version I]. There was some discussion among the committee regarding distribution of the three amendments. Number 0697 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a brief at-ease at 4:40 p.m. The committee came back to order at 4:41 p.m. The chairman announced that before taking up the amendments, the committee would hear public testimony. Number 0719 SHARON DANIEL, Copper Basin Sanitation Service Company, testified via teleconference from Glennallen. Ms. Daniel commented that she does not have any of the amendments, but she does support the original Version I work draft. However, if the three amendments change the legislation much, she may withdraw her support. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed Ms. Daniels was concerned about subject of refuse regulation. He stated there is nothing in this legislation and it is not the sponsor's intention to add that to this legislation. MS. DANIELS stated her concern is the deregulation of garbage service. She does not support that; if garbage service is left out of HB 183, the legislation has her support. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG reiterated that it is not in the legislation nor is it the chairman's intention. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO informed Ms. Daniels as co-chair of the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee that HB 178, which he believes Ms. Daniels is referencing, would possibly be heard by that committee the following Tuesday [May 4]. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG added that he believes Senator Pearce's legislation, SB 133, does include the garbage or refuse provisions. He indicated HB 183 and SB 133 are along the same lines, but HB 183 does not have those specific provisions. The chairman indicated he would suggest that Ms. Daniel should track both HB 178 and SB 133. He questioned whether Mr. Zobel in Anchorage wished to testify. Number 0805 RON ZOBEL, Assistant Attorney General, Fair Business Practices Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, spoke via teleconference from Anchorage. Mr. Zobel told members he was available for questions that had arisen at the last hearing [April 26] concerning amendments on arbitration, the 60-day limit on issuing decisions and the consumer complaint amendment [Amendment 2 to Version H]. Mr. Zobel indicated Mr. Baldwin [Jim Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law] had thought it would be better to have an attorney who worked day-to-day with the Alaska Public Utilities Commission (APUC) present for these questions. Mr. Zobel is one of the two assistant attorney generals assigned to the commission. Number 0838 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to adopt the Version I CS for HB 183, labeled 1-LS0764\I, Cramer, 4/28/99. There was no objection to the motion. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned if Mr. Zobel and Mr. Lohr [Robert Lohr, Executive Director, Alaska Public Utilities Commission] had Version I. MR. ZOBEL responded that he believed he had that version. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested that Ms. Seitz conceptually explain the amendments to the committee and then Mr. Yould could discuss the amendments' substance. The chairman indicated the amendments would be marked I.1 as Amendment 1, I.2 as Amendment 2, and I.3 as Amendment 3. Number 0895 JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman Rokeberg, Alaska State Legislature, came forward as aide to the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee. Ms. Seitz explained that Amendment 1 is in the same area as the amendment passed at the last meeting [April 26] "dealing with the chair of the commission shall promptly fix a date." The committee adopted 60 days at the last hearing; this amendment would reinsert the 30-day provision. Ms. Seitz indicated the last portion of the amendment is new language regarding timely closure of dockets. Amendment 1, labeled 1-LS0764\I.1, Cramer, 4/28/99, read: Page 1, line 5, following ";": Insert "relating to timely action by the Alaska Public Utilities Commission;" Page 3, line 26: Delete "a new subsection" Insert "new subsections" Page 3, lines 28 - 30: Delete ", the chair of the commission shall promptly fix a date for hearing when a hearing is appropriate. The hearing shall be without undue delay. The" Insert "for which a hearing is clearly warranted, the chair of the commission shall assign a priority rating to the issue and promptly fix a date for hearing. The hearing shall be expedited in accordance with the priority rating. Regardless of the priority rating, a" Page 4, line 2: Delete "60" Insert "30" Page 4, following line 2: Insert a new subsection to read: "(c) Unless to do so would violate the due process rights of a party, the commission shall ensure that its dockets are closed in a timely fashion and not delayed due to inaction, complexity of issues, or another reason. Failure of a commission member to comply with this subsection constitutes grounds for removal from the commission under AS 42.05.035. The chair of the commission may dismiss a commission employee for failure to comply with this subsection." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned whether Mr. Zobel had the I.1 amendment. MR. ZOBEL answered they did not have that in Anchorage. MS. SEITZ informed the chairman the amendments had been received just prior to the hearing. The amendments are being faxed to the Anchorage Legislative Information Office (Anchorage LIO). CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he wished to hear Mr. Zobel's comment on Amendment 1 after his (Mr. Zobel's) review. The chairman invited Mr. Yould and Walt Wilcox [aide to the House Special Committee on Utility Restructuring, sponsor of HB 183] forward. Chairman Rokeberg questioned Mr. Yould regarding the nature of Amendment 1. Number 1013 ERIC YOULD, Executive Director, Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Incorporated (ARECA), came forward. He noted ARECA is a trade association for the electric utility industry. Mr. Yould commented there had been an amendment before the committee at the previous hearing which attempted to put some "teeth" into the time in which it takes to get dockets through APUC. An amendment was adopted that required, among other things, a certain prioritization on dockets when they come in. There was also a requirement that the commission enter its order within 60 days after conclusion [of a docket]. The timeliness of dockets is the major issue relating to the APUC that ARECA sees coming before its body, from the electric utilities' standpoint. There were many comments the other day that that completed section was still loosely worded and could be tightened up; ARECA agreed with that. Mr. Yould indicated that ARECA also privately felt that perhaps there could be even more teeth put into getting dockets out in a timely fashion. MR. YOULD commented this is what he has attempted to do. Amendment 1 to Version I ["Version T" misstated on tape] is a derivative of what he put together; it was reworded by the legislative drafters. The amendment suggests that the question of how soon decisions shall be made should be revisited. ARECA suggests 30 days is better than the 60 days passed previously. ARECA is also saying that the chairman should examine and prioritize an incoming docket by importance, place it into a management tracking system, and get to it as soon as possible. Mr. Yould noted the last portion of the amendment, subsection (c), tries to ensure that the commission and its staff understand the importance of getting dockets out in a timely fashion. If there is a continual history of slowness or inattention to dockets, this would serve as grounds for dismissal. ARECA is not looking for dismissal, nor does it believe that would happen. However, Mr. Yould indicated ARECA would certainly like to know that dismissal could be had if timeliness of dockets continues to be an issue. Number 1165 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO referred to the language, "assign a priority rating" in paragraph 3 of Amendment 1, relating to page 3, lines 28 through 30 of Version I. He questioned the intent with the priority rating, wondering if would be as simple as "one through five." MR. YOULD answered it could very well be; that is up to the commission to decide by regulation. He added, "It's just trying to say one docket is more important than another, and just because you have a full slate, it doesn't mean that if you don't get an important one in, it shouldn't get bumped to the top. And, frankly, there's been some dockets that have come in - at least with the electric utility industry, having to do with the takeover of one utility by another - that I wish APUC had taken on and made a decision on, and we wouldn't be still trying to figure out what's going on." Number 1206 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI indicated, however, that if they are to enact language that says nothing can be done which would cause undue delay, a prioritization schedule, by nature, would delay some items in favor of others. A prioritization schedule with "hot" items relating to electric utility dockets would delay the garbage dockets, for example, making it difficult to keep to the time management schedule. Representative Murkowski expressed that she likes the idea of prioritization and thinks it may need to be examined, but she questioned this delaying effect on the less urgent items. MR. YOULD said he fully agreed with Representative Murkowski's comments; it is necessary to ensure that some of those less important dockets ultimately get heard. He proposed using some new hearing techniques that perhaps the commission has not used enough of in the past, such as having some dockets heard by a hearing officer or arbiter, or using other tools the commission has available to it. He stated, "We want to see a little bit more action over there, frankly. ... Some of the dockets are very important, and they should be put on an expedited basis. I'd have to say that there's been a couple of recent dockets that have cost ... members in utilities a lot of money, because the utilities have come to APUC and said, 'Give us a decision.' Still, today, no decision ... is there and hence people are spending money, throwing grenades back and forth with newspaper ads and that sort of thing, that in some respects, perhaps, could have been settled through a timely adjudication by APUC." Mr. Yould continued, "Now, I'm not even going to pretend to say that there wasn't a due process that didn't slow it down because I agree with that and I've even tried to acknowledge the fact that due process does need to take its place. It absolutely does. But I just think a sense of urgency and prioritization is very necessary over there. And, yes, some dockets would get bumped down, but at the same time I think that good managers will find ways to deal with that." Number 1339 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Zobel if he had received a copy of Amendment 1. MR. ZOBEL replied they had not received it yet. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that Amendment 1 replaces the 60 days in Version I with 30 days, and puts a lot more "fangs" into it. The chairman questioned whether Mr. Zobel wished to comment. MR. ZOBEL asked if Amendment 1 refers to the closing of a docket. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the 30 days or 60 days relates to the order afterwards, found on page 4, line 2, of Version I. Number 1383 MR. ZOBEL pointed out that there is an important distinction between the issuance of an order after a hearing and the closing of a docket. The closing of a docket is a fairly routine thing when the entire docket is completed. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that Version I, page 4, lines 1 and 2, says, "After the conclusion of the hearing, the commission shall enter its order within 60 days." He asked how Mr. Zobel would interpret that, and whether he was distinguishing between a docket hearing and another hearing. Number 1421 MR. ZOBEL explained that there can be a hearing or a series of hearings leading to various orders being issued in a particular docket. The closing of the docket comes later, after virtually everything has been finished, and is a rather routine, bureaucratic chore of simply closing the file. He suggested that the problem they are getting at is that once a matter has been heard in a hearing and submitted to the APUC for decision, that is when the time clock would start to run. He pointed out, however, that what is reasonable varies with the complexity or nature of the docket, and 30 days is a very short time for many items. Mr. Zobel said he doesn't think that there is necessarily a legal problem with directing the commission to do this, but, obviously, they want the right number of days to be in there so that it is a practical provision. He noted that the bill he was looking at didn't specify a remedy for a violation of that directive. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG suggested the legislature could cut the funding. MR. ZOBEL said that it is always an option. He noted that a directory statement like that is a standard against which the APUC can be measured. He paused to look at Amendment 1, which had just been handed to him. Number 1560 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked whether Mr. Zobel would counsel the committee to leave the time as 60 days. MR. ZOBEL said he believes 60 days is a much more reasonable period of time for many dockets. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Yould to respond. Number 1613 MR. YOULD replied, "Everything's subjective. If I have an attorney that works for me, and I say that I want something tomorrow, I'm going to pay for it, and I'm going to get it tomorrow. And it would seem to me that if something is important enough and it needs to be done, it can be done. And I think that APUC has the resources, either through the attorney general's office or, as amended, through outside legal resources, that they should be able to get the job done. I certainly wouldn't want to see them expending undue funds on trying to get dockets out that are of a relatively low priority, but it would seem to me that you should have the resources within this commission to act in a timely fashion." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG responded that it depends on the scope of the work, which he believes is Mr. Zobel's point. Number 1667 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether there has been testimony from the other utilities involved in APUC hearings, in terms of what they might consider reasonable. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said no. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI added that it may be easier for electric utility cases, as opposed to pipeline rate cases, for example, where even 60 days might be unreasonable. MR. YOULD answered that everybody has learned to expect something longer rather than shorter, which he believes is unfortunate. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG proposed going back to 30 days, with extensions requiring justification, as discussed in the previous meeting. MR. YOULD said he has no problem with that. Number 1729 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if the expectation of delays isn't simply because there hasn't been any time line in force. MR. YOULD said that is a good point, adding that perhaps some other management techniques put in place would obviate the need for this sort of thing. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG suggested that could be a compromise. He asked Mr. Zobel and Mr. Lohr if they had heard the discussions, and if they believe it is more reasonable to revert to 30 days, with extensions for good cause. Number 1776 MR. ZOBEL answered that certainly some latitude would be more reasonable. He cautioned against distracting the commission from the issue at hand, however, by the process of getting extensions and findings of good cause. There are going to be a large number of cases where good cause would be necessary to get some extra time, he said. To him, having 30 days and then another extension adds a procedure to jump through, which could be a little cumbersome, although it would keep everybody on track. He proposed that the chairman should always have a system to determine what remains in a particular matter at any given time, because sometimes it isn't readily apparent what is still out there to be decided. Mr. Zobel believes that would be the best thing to help in meeting deadlines. Number 1910 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, and to amend it by deleting lines 12 through 14 [of the printed amendment, relating to page 4, line 2, of Version I]. This would leave the 60 days in, with no extension. He asked if there was any objection to the amendment to Amendment 1. The language to be deleted from Amendment 1 by the amendment to the amendment read: Page 4, line 2: Delete "60" Insert "30" REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO objected for purposes of discussion. He asked if the reason is fear of the 30 days. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to testimony and expressed concern that 30 days isn't enough time to write a report. "We can tune this up later," he added. The chairman said he accepts Mr. Zobel's counsel that adding another "cause" issue creates paperwork, which he himself doesn't want. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there was any objection to the amendment to Amendment 1. There being none, the amendment to the amendment was adopted. The chairman asked if there was any objection to Amendment 1 [as amended]. Number 2000 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to the last section of the amendment and the language, "... the commission shall ensure that its dockets are closed in a timely fashion and not delayed due to inaction,". She indicated this language is acceptable to her, but she noted the following language, "complexity of issues". She specifically referred to line 19 of the printed amendment which read, "delayed due to inaction, complexity of issues, or another reason. Failure of a" Representative Murkowski believes "complexity of issues" is a valid reason to take 45 days instead of 30 days, for example. Therefore, she expressed discomfort with inclusion of that language. Although it could be used as an excuse for delay, she believes there is a need to allow the APUC to wade through incredibly complex issues. She suggested urging the commission to deal with it in a timely manner, however. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO noted that if they are retaining the 60 days because of the worry that 30 days is not enough time to respond because of complex dockets, then on line 19, "delayed due to inaction, complexity of issues, or another reason. ...", they are punishing for something which has already been addressed in lines 12 through 14. Representative Halcro commented they have said there are complex issues out there; 30 days is not enough, 60 will be provided, but then again on line 19, they say that that is not a reason to delay. He said this is his concern. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied that he had not thought of complexity of issues as a reason to extend the 60 days, indicating his thought had been toward bureaucratic inertia and failure to get things done. Number 2154 REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA also referred to line 19 of Amendment 1, "delayed due to inaction, complexity of issues, or another reason. ..." She asked whether "or another reason" doesn't essentially say that there is no reason to do it. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI agreed. Number 2208 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any objections to Amendment 1 [as amended]. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI and REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO objected. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI suggested it might be all right if that first sentence was deleted. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested that Representative Murkowski fix the amendment and bring it back on Friday [April 30]. The chairman requested that Ms. Seitz to comment on Amendment 3. Number 2259 MS. SEITZ noted that Amendment 3, labeled 1-LS0764\I.3, Cramer, 4/28/99, read: Page 4, line 29, following ".": Insert "A decision of an arbiter is not final until approved by the commission." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG reminded members that arbitration had been added to the commission's tools, but it is necessary to ensure that the commission approves the arbitration decision. The chairman asked if there was any objection to Amendment 3. There being none, Amendment 3 was adopted. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted Amendment 2 is a bit more complex. Amendment 2, labeled 1-LS0764\I.2, Cramer, 4/28/99, read: Page 1, line 8, following "Commission;": Insert "relating to regulatory cost charges;" Page 5, following line 13: Insert new bill sections to read: "* Sec. 12. AS 42.05.254(a) is amended to read: (a) A regulated public utility operating in the state shall pay to the commission an annual regulatory cost charge in an amount not to exceed the maximum percentage of adjusted gross revenue that applies to the utility sector of which the utility is a part. The total regulatory cost charges that the commission expects to collect from all regulated public utilities and regulated pipeline carriers may not exceed .8 percent of the total adjusted gross revenue of all regulated public utilities and the total gross revenue of all regulated pipeline carriers [DERIVED FROM OPERATIONS IN THE STATE, AS MODIFIED UNDER (c) OF THIS SECTION IF APPROPRIATE]. An exempt utility shall pay the actual cost of services provided to it by the commission. * Sec. 13. AS 42.05.254(b) is amended to read: (b) The commission shall by regulation establish a method to determine annually the amount of the regulatory cost charge for a public utility. If the amount the commission expects to collect under (a) of this section and under AS 42.06.286(a) exceeds the authorized budget of the commission, the commission shall, by order, reduce the percentages determined under (i) [SET OUT IN (a)] of this section so that the total amount of the fees collected approximately equals the authorized budget of the commission for the fiscal year. * Sec. 14. AS 42.05.254(h) is amended by adding a new paragraph to read: (5) "adjusted gross revenue" means the gross revenue of a utility as modified under (c) of this section, if appropriate. * Sec. 15. AS 42.05.254 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (i) The commission shall by regulation establish a method to determine annually the maximum percentage of adjusted gross revenue that will apply to each regulated public utility sector and the maximum percentage of gross revenue that will apply to each regulated pipeline carrier sector. The method established shall allocate the commission's costs, other than the cost of services provided to exempt utilities, among the regulated public utility sectors and the regulated pipeline carrier sector based on the relative amount of the commission's annual costs that is attributable to regulating each sector. * Sec. 16. AS 42.06.286(a) is amended to read: (a) A pipeline carrier operating in the state shall pay to the commission an annual regulatory cost charge in an amount not to exceed the maximum percentage of gross revenue that applies to regulated pipeline carriers. The total regulatory cost charges that the commission expects to collect from all regulated pipeline carriers and regulated public utilities may not exceed .8 percent of the total gross revenue of all regulated pipeline carriers and the total gross revenue of all regulated public utilities [DERIVED FROM OPERATIONS IN THE STATE]. A regulatory cost charge may not be assessed on pipeline carrier operations unless the operations are within the jurisdiction of the commission. * Sec. 17. AS 42.06.286(b) is amended to read: (b) The commission shall by regulation establish a method to determine annually the amount of the regulatory cost charge. If the amount the commission expects to collect under (a) of this section and under AS 42.05.254(a) exceeds the authorized budget of the commission, the commission shall, by order, reduce the percentage determined under (1) [SET OUT IN (a)] of this section so that the total amount of the fees collected approximately equals the authorized budget of the commission for the fiscal year. * Sec. 18. AS 42.06.286 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (f) The commission shall by regulation establish a method to determine annually the maximum percentage of gross revenue that will apply to each regulated pipeline carrier sector and the maximum percentage of gross revenue that will apply to the regulated public utility sector in accordance with AS 42.05.254(i)." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. [Note: amendment copy quality very poor - unable to determine subsection specified in Section 17.] MS. SEITZ noted that Amendment 2 addresses concerns raised about disparity between what telephone companies and electric utilities pay, based on the amount of work done for them. She deferred to Mr. Yould. Number 2331 MR. YOULD explained, "Presently, the commission computes the RCC [regulatory cost charge] by equally apportioning the RCC to be collected, by dividing the total commission budget to be collected from the utilities by the total gross utility receipts. And it basically puts a cap on how much ... of those gross receipts ... could go toward the commission; and I think the percentage is .8 percent of gross receipts. What that means is that [regardless] of the service, and the number of issues that you have before the commission, you're going to be paying a flat amount - no matter what - by your industry sector. And as a 'for instance,' under the present formula, last year the commission needed to recover ... $4,122,000 from the regulated utilities, of which ... a little over a million was to be recovered from the electric utility industries. That's roughly 25 percent." MR. YOULD continued, "However, if you look at the level of effort that is put in by the commission on electric utility dockets, you will probably find that we are not getting 25 percent of their effort. For instance, ... in 1996, there were 110 new dockets filed with the commission; that was a year before deregulation of the telecommunications industry took place. That's probably a period of time when we would say that we probably got equal representation within APUC. In 1997, however..." [TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED BY TAPE CHANGE] TAPE 99-49, SIDE A Number 0001 MR. YOULD continued, "I can tell you ... that the preponderance of the increase in dockets was not a result of the electric utility industry, but simply because of the increased re-regulation associated with the deregulation of the telecommunications industry. We believe that we are probably getting significantly less than the 25 percent that we are paying into the commission through the RCC. What we are recommending is an amendment, which is some three pages long, which basically changes the formula so that each individual industry will be allocated its charge based on the anticipated level of effort needed for that industry within the commission. And that's what this amendment does." Number 0090 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested that Mr. Lohr comment on this allocation-to-workload concept. Number 0104 ROBERT LOHR, Executive Director, Alaska Public Utilities Commission, testified next via teleconference from Anchorage. He told members that the regulatory cost charge was established in 1992, based on recommendations of the legislative auditor and others who felt that it would be a more equitable way than using unrestricted general funds to finance the APUC's operations. Since that date, the APUC has operated on a RCC and the APUC fund is a separate fund in state accounting. Mr. Lohr stated, "The approach of the commission, following the statutes, has been to try to keep the program simple, to keep the allocation to all utilities - all regulated utilities - the same, to the extent possible. That's been a very successful approach. It's kept the program simple. It has avoided creating a kind of 'Internal Revenue Service of the North,' if you will, to have exclusions, deductions, exemptions and so forth, or special treatment." MR. LOHR continued, "The legislature, in 1995, the last sunset review, did authorize a reduction in the electric regulatory cost charge to exclude the cost of power from the calculation. That had the effect of reducing regulatory costs allocated to the electric industry by 43 percent. ... It's true, as Mr. Yould has indicated, that the number of dockets has increased substantially ... in recent years, and that the primary increase has been in the area of telecommunications. However, the choice of formal dockets as the measure of a commission activity misses some significant activity by the commission. For example, the electric restructuring contract with CH2M Hill and the work that the commission has done with the legislature in that area is not reflected in the expenses of any docket. It's a regulatory docket; so, it would not show as one that is allocated to electricity." MR. LOHR commented, "And yet, I think the primary benefit of that contract is clearly to the electric industry. Other things, such as the number of tariff filings handled, reflect a much more general balance, with electricity having a far higher percentage than the 10 percent indicated in the formal docket. At this point, the RCC has worked extremely well. ... In the last two full fiscal years we have received more formal dockets than in the previous four fiscal years. We'd like to focus on speeding things up, responding to the increased volume of activity, and not having to do more detailed allocations of costs by industry, and having to balance at the sub-level." Number 0329 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Yould if he has consulted with the main long-distance carriers in Alaska and the ATA [Alaska Telephone Association] about Amendment 2. MR. YOULD replied that although he would not speak for them, he had talked to ATA and would characterize its feeling as positive. He suggested the need to ask ATA that question directly. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG agreed that the ATA should be asked before taking up Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO referred to Mr. Yould's earlier testimony about the percentage of the workload of APUC compared to the percentage that ARECA contributes. He asked Mr. Yould to restate those figures. MR. YOULD replied that he didn't have the numbers before him, and those he had provided were probably more hypothetical than not. He said one reason, as Mr. Lohr had noted, is that the APUC doesn't have a time accounting system, despite the fact that two "sunset commissions" have told them that they should have one. Hence, he doesn't believe the APUC can provide those numbers either. Number 0419 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG suggested that is another problem they should look at. With that, he announced his intention to hold the legislation over and take it up again on Friday [April 30]. Noting that only Amendment 3 had been adopted that day, Chairman Rokeberg requested that Mr. Lohr bring Version I to Chairman Cotten's [Sam Cotten, APUC Chairman] attention and then provide comments. [HB 183 WAS HELD]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|