Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 17
04/02/2007 03:00 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB146 | |
| HB211 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 146 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 211 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 146-PAYMENT DATE FOR BILLS FOR SERVICES CHAIR OLSON announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 146, "An Act requiring certain businesses to recognize postmark dates as the date of payment." 3:13:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, began by sharing his personal experience with mailing payments for various services. He explained the process that major credit card companies use for sending statements in the mail, which can leave consumers with a five-day window before payment is due. He said that this leaves "no comfort that if I put a first class letter in the mail that day, they would be able to get it in the time that has been allotted." He said that including services such as electric and telephone in the bill has "created no small stir." He stated that he resides in North Pole, which is a "fairly decent" mail carrier system, and pointed out that for those who live in more rural areas of the state, it can take up to three or four days longer to receive mail. He shared his hope that companies that deliver services on a monthly basis, such as insurance carriers, would become more sensitive to this concern, adding that his primary concern is major credit card companies. He explained that credit card companies process payments through a national clearinghouse, and noted that while a consumer may make an electronic payment by the due date, the company may take longer to process the payment. This can result in late fees and higher interest rates, even though the funds were taken from the bank account by the due date. He said: Maybe the best thing to do, is to have a definitive, that when I mail the check to them, that is a legitimate payment date. Because I can't prove when they get it. That is the problem. They could hold onto it for [three or four days]. ... The mail could take ten days. The fact is, if you're going to do the payment by mail, you're going to have to figure you're going to pay a penalty. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL then suggested that those who are able to switch to electronic payments do so. However, this can still result in a late payment. He opined that while there may be a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) question, the bill should be passed as a "matter of interest," adding that a statutory provision would result in more notice than a resolution. He said "I'm willing to send it up as a challenge." He suggested amending Section 1(b)(2) by replacing "includes" with "excludes". 3:19:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 25-LS0515\A.1, Bannister, 3/20/07, which read: Page 1, line 12: Delete "including" Insert "excluding" Page 2, line 1: Delete "includes" Insert "does not include" CHAIR OLSON objected for discussion purposes. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL reiterated that this would remove electric and telephone services from the bill. He acknowledged that he has caused consternation with these services, however, it is worthy to note that this is a consumer problem. REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS noted that he shares the sponsor's frustration, and is a cosponsor of this bill. In regard to Amendment 1, he inquired as to whether this includes a broad enough group of utilities. He has spoken with representatives from utilities in rural areas, which would have to retain all envelopes with postmarks in order to satisfy the requirements of this legislation. He would like to ensure that this brings enough relief to the various utilities and does not create a problem for certain utilities. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied that he would look up the statutory definition of "public utility," to ensure that it includes all the utilities in question. CHAIR OLSON stated that he is curious to know whether this includes electrical cooperatives. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that it is not his intention to cause undue harm. This is a legitimate question of consumer protection. He said that if he feels the issue, as it relates to public utilities, can be worked on, he may come back and request this. However, the larger concern is with the credit card companies. 3:23:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL referenced the definition of "public utility" in AS 42.05.990: (4) "public utility" or "utility" includes every corporation whether public, cooperative, or otherwise, company, individual, or association of individuals, their lessees, trustees, or receivers appointed by a court, that owns, operates, manages, or controls any plant, pipeline, or system for (A) furnishing, by generation, transmission, or distribution, electrical service to the public for compensation; (B) furnishing telecommunications service to the public for compensation; (C) furnishing water, steam, or sewer service to the public for compensation; (D) furnishing by transmission or distribution of natural or manufactured gas to the public for compensation; (E) furnishing for distribution or by distribution petroleum or petroleum products to the public for compensation when the consumer has no alternative in the choice of supplier of a comparable product and service at an equal or lesser price; (F) furnishing collection and disposal service of garbage, refuse, trash, or other waste material to the public for compensation; REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN commented that this is a very broad definition, and requested that a list of the utilities that are included in this definition be submitted to the committee. 3:24:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX agreed that the definition of "public utility" is broad. She questioned whether the foregoing definition includes private utilities. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that the definition includes "individual, or association of individuals", in addition to "or otherwise", which, if combined, would apply to the aforementioned private utilities. 3:25:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER shared her understanding that Amendment 1 excludes utilities because the changes proposed by the bill are expensive and inconvenient; however, other businesses are not excluded. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied that this has very little to do with the inconvenience, and more to do with the company's ability to comply, which can be an issue with smaller companies. There is an inconvenience in the state, which he is less-than sympathetic to. The real question, he said, is that Alaska residents get "hammered" with credit cards much more than with regular monthly billings, which is why he chose to address a larger realm. He stated that this can be very difficult and costly to impose on regulated utilities. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired as to whether it would be easier to specify credit card companies. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied that many companies deal with the state from a national perspective, including insurance companies. He is less sympathetic to these companies. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN opined that insurance companies are more time sensitive than other types of companies. He stated that there is "a lot of confusion" in the bill. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied that he erred on the side of consumer protection, and shared a story involving an insurance company that automatically canceled his policy when it did not receive payment 30 days in advance of the policy's expiration. He said that he found this objectionable. 3:30:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN reiterated that Amendment 1 is very broad. He said that while he thinks he is in support, there has not been adequate clarification. He reiterated that he would like to see a list of companies that are included, along with companies that are not included. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that he is willing to hold the bill over, if that is the wish of the committee. He stated that the bill is meant to bring policy discussion to the table, and reiterated that this is an important consumer protection issue. He said that local, in-state utilities are usually diligent with billing, adding that those outside of Alaska create a problem. CHAIR OLSON, in regard to the language of Amendment 1, stated that it may be more appropriate to "flesh it out," and specify which companies are included. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that he would come back before the committee with an outline of what companies are effected by Amendment 1. CHAIR OLSON indicated that HB 146 would be held in committee. 3:33:44 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|