Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 17
05/04/2007 03:00 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB110 | |
| HJR16 | |
| HJR13 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 16 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 110 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 110-REGULATORY COM'N. REPORT/TIMELINES/EXTEND 3:11:06 PM CHAIR OLSON announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 110, "An Act extending the termination date for the Regulatory Commission of Alaska; and providing for an effective date." 3:11:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN moved to adopt CSHB 110, Version 25- LS0449\E, Kane, 4/3/07, as the working document. There being no objection, Version E was before the committee. CHAIR OLSON explained that Version E is a clean four-year extension of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) and requires a two-year report card. The two-year report card requirement is on page 2, lines 22-27. He noted that Version E was negotiated with the governor's office and members from the Senate have been involved. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN related his understanding that page 2 also includes changes to the timeline extensions for the RCA. He requested clarification. 3:13:20 PM MARK JOHNSON, Commissioner, Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA), Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development (DCCED), noted that the subject of timelines is addressed in HB 209. Mr. Johnson explained that existing timelines are in AS 42.05.175(a)-(e) as specified on page 2, line 25, of Version E. He further explained that the language "and of the timeline extensions made by the commission under AS 42.05.175(f)" requires the RCA to report to the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee those instances in which the RCA has extended a statutory timeline. The language "and other performance measures adopted by the commission" is a reference to performance standards that are included in the RCA's operating budget. Therefore, the audit would be of the RCA's performance and these measures of performance made by the RCA and reported to the legislature. CHAIR OLSON related his understanding that the aforementioned is already reported by the RCA in its annual report. MR. JOHNSON replied that is correct, but noted that the timeline extensions pursuant to AS 42.05.175(f) are required to be reported quarterly. 3:16:22 PM MR. JOHNSON, in response to Representative Neuman, replied that the timelines referenced in AS 42.05.175(a)-(e) are for different types of dockets that come before the RCA. He specified that subsection (a) relates to applications, subsection (b) relates to tariff filings that don't change a revenue requirement, subsection (c) relates to tariff filings that do change a revenue requirement, and subsection (d) relates to formal complaints. 3:17:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER highlighted that what's new in Version E on page 2, lines 22-27, isn't the timelines but rather an audit of the annual report every two years. She asked then if there's a fiscal note for the person who does the audit. CHAIR OLSON related his understanding that the audit is routinely done by [legislative auditors]. He mentioned that a fiscal note can't be requested until the proposed committee substitute (CS) has been adopted. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired then as to what is new in Version E if the timelines, the performance measures, and the statutes are the same and the audit already occurs. CHAIR OLSON indicated that the two-year report card, which isn't a full audit, is the new piece. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER turned the committee's attention to Section 3 on page 3, and related her understanding that the only change in this section is a different due date for the annual report. She requested an explanation of the differences of the annual report. 3:19:48 PM MR. JOHNSON noted he didn't draft the sections relating to the annual report, although the language is different. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER requested that a copy of the existing statute, AS 42.06.220, be given to members of the committee to compare to the proposed statute. The committee took a brief at-ease. 3:22:30 PM MR. JOHNSON pointed out that Section 2 relates to the RCA's general utility regulation authority while Section 3 relates to pipeline regulation statutes. The sections refer to two distinct bodies of law, which result in the two different sections. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked if any of the reports are given to the legislature while it's in session. MR. JOHNSON explained that currently, the RCA has an annual report that must be filed by February 15th. He noted that Section 2 advances that date to November 15th, and therefore the legislature would have the opportunity to review the document prior to the beginning of the session. In further response to Representative Neuman, Mr. Johnson specified that the report is a written document. CHAIR OLSON recalled that typically every couple of years the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee will invite the chair of the RCA to provide a brief update. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER opined that the language on page 2, lines 22-27, seems to be the same language as on line 3. CHAIR OLSON asked if Representative Gardner would be comfortable with the legislation moving from committee with the caveat that the drafter would review that language. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER replied yes. She then inquired as to the meaning of the differences in the report specified in Section 3, page 3. MR. JOHNSON related his understanding that the first sentence of Section 3 is essentially the same as current law. The differences are in the second sentence, which specifies qualitative differences in the requirements of the current annual report and the proposed report requirements. He pointed out that current law specifies the following: The report must contain information and data that bear a significant relationship to the development and regulation of oil or gas pipeline facilities in the state and include an outline of the commission's program for the development and regulation of oil or gas pipeline facilities in the forthcoming year. MR. JOHNSON characterized current law as a rather broad mandate. He said he wasn't sure to what extent the RCA has pursued that. Historically, what the RCA has submitted is more like what is specified in the proposed new language. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER surmised then that Version E removes from the report the requirements that data about the industries regulated are included in addition to the outline of the RCA's program for the coming year. She asked if that's the intent of the sponsor. MR. JOHNSON reiterated that the language that is proposed is more reflective of the report the RCA currently submits to the legislature. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER surmised then that the RCA hasn't been providing the required report. MR. JOHNSON said he wouldn't necessarily make that conclusion. CHAIR OLSON interjected that the language under discussion is language from the Senate that would "pick up the two-year snapshot." REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she didn't have a problem, but was merely curious why the change would be made and what it really means. CHAIR OLSON opined that the change makes the statute conform to what the RCA is currently doing. 3:30:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked if this legislation concludes the committee's business with the RCA for the year. CHAIR OLSON replied yes. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she would appreciate comments on her questions from other RCA commissioners. 3:30:48 PM JANIS WILSON, Commissioner, Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA), Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development (DCCED), said she would address AS 42.06 in regard to the annual report. She explained that the existing language discusses the RCA outlining its programming for the development and regulation of oil and gas pipeline facilities. When AS 42.06 was originally enacted in 1972, the Alaska Pipeline Commission had a role in helping in the development and regulation of oil and gas pipeline facilities. At the time of the merger of the Alaska Pipeline Commission to the Alaska Public Utilities Commission in 1981 the language addressing the development of oil and gas pipeline facilities was removed, but this portion of the annual report requirement wasn't changed. The RCA does not outline and plan for the development of oil and gas facilities as it's not a duty imposed on the RCA by the legislature. Therefore, the new language in AS 42.06.220 simply conforms that section to what should have been changed in 1981. 3:32:30 PM ANTHONY PRICE, Commissioner, Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA), Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development (DCCED), informed the committee some of the language of the annual report was [proposed] at the request of Pat Davidson, Division of Legislative Audit, to ensure that the information on the audit would be readily available to the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee. 3:33:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN moved to report CSHB 110, Version 25- LS0449\E, Kane, 4/3/07, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 110(L&C) was reported from the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee. The committee took an at-ease from 3:33 p.m. to 3:36 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|