Legislature(1999 - 2000)
01/06/1999 10:00 AM House EUR
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
JOINT COMMITTEE ON ELECTRIC UTILITY RESTRUCTURING
JANUARY 6, 1999
10:00 AM
TAPES
11, 13
2 (Malfunction)
CALL TO ORDER
CO-CHAIRMAN NORMAN ROKEBERG convened the Joint Committee on
Electric Utility Restructuring at 10:27 am.
PRESENT
Committee members present were Co-Chair Rokeberg, Senator Leman,
Representative Davies, Representative Dyson.
ABSENT
Committee members absent were Co-Chair Sharp, Senator Taylor,
Senator Adams, Representative Austerman.
ALSO ATTENDING
Representative Hudson; Meera Kohler, ML&P; Dan Helmick, ML&P;
Paul Morrison, APUC; Bob Lohr, APUC; Mary Fisher, ARECA; Jim
Patras, HEA; Eric Yould, ARECA; Robin Brena, Aurora Power; Mary
Ann Pease, Aurora Power; Mike Kelly, GVEA; Carol Hegman, Chugach
Electric; Don Edwards, Chugach Electric.
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION
OPENING REMARKS
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Calls roll and welcomes all committee members
and people attending meeting either in person or by
teleconference. Brings up draft dated January 1999, and
amendments that committee members need to consider from the Co-
Chair and consider any other amendments. Will have Senator Leman
comment on the RFP and discuss the preparation content of the
final report of the joint committee. Doesn't expect that this
will take long and then will adjourn the meeting. Any comments,
Senator Leman, on the RFP particularly about any dates? JOINT COMMITTEE
JANUARY 6, 1999
SENATOR LEMAN: Brings to the members' attention that at the last
meeting the APUC and the Legislature had/or was nearly ready to
issue the request for proposal for the professional study of
electric utility restructuring. Proposals were due early
December; 10 respondents across the country. Senator Leman and
two members of the APUC served on the selection committee,
reviewed the proposals, & short-listed three firms. Held
interviews on December 17th, selected a firm to begin
negotiations. Post notice of intent to offer. Time period for
challenges expired and the APUC went into negotiations and is
currently finalizing with CH2MHill. CH2MHill was the only
company to get all the 10 points of the selection process, has an
in state presence. The firm will be issued a notice to proceed
perhaps late this week or early next week. Work will begin soon
after this. One change that was made is the date for the
deliverable on the pilot project from March 12th to March 1st.
Gives more time in the Legislature. The contractor is actually a
team with CH2MHill and Econergy International Corporation.
Recognizes two members from the APUC that are here and can answer
any questions the committee may have.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Any questions? Chair notes that Commissioner
Ornquist and staff is here. Asks Mr. Lohr, APUC, if he would
like to make any comments.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Asks that the name of the company that
will complete the RFP. Wasn't clear earlier.
SENATOR LEMAN: CH2MHill, Econergy International Corporation.
Believes that these two companies will do a professional and
complete job. These companies are currently in Colorado working
on a similar program.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Thanks Senator Leman for all of his hard work
on the RFP. Moving on to the final item on the Agenda; mentions
article that Senator Sharp wanted included in the packet
pertaining to the activities in Palm Spring is included and has
been distributed to all members. Has requested from the
Leadership the funds to subscribe to the LEAP Letter, this deals
with issues relating to electrical restructuring. Begins to go
over the draft and will go through each amendment and take
comments from committee members. Two primary issues: changes to
the body of the report, member comments. Starts with member
comments, these were added for the members but not the general
public. All are welcome to submit comments to be included in the
final report. Recognizes Representative Davies.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: Submitted a one-page overview to be
included in "that section". JOINT COMMITTEE ON ELECTRIC UTILITY RESTRU
JANUARY 6, 1999
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Senator Leman, Senator Sharp also have inserts
to the report. If there is no objection asks that the committee
add anything that any member of the committee wishes to add to
it. In the form of their own comments, dissents on what the
report may ultimately say . As there is no formal quorum, it is
the Chair's intention in terms of the practical application of
the report, take it up today and circulate it in Juneau prior to
the 19th, and get approval by circulating a memorandum. Vote by
memorandum, any objections?
SENATOR LEMAN: No objection.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: No objection.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON: No objection.
Committee members discuss possible time to have the final meeting
on January 18, 1999. After a brief at ease of 2 minutes, the
committee members came up with a tentative time of 10:30 am in
Fahrenkamp Room. The committee discussed how to get the written
comments to Co-Chair Rokeberg's office, he gave his personal fax
and phone number as office computers and faxes were packed and
being shipped to Juneau.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Goes back to the report. Any comments,
questions at this time?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: No problem with Amendment 1, brought up
that he had made marginal notes that he would like to go through
and has come up with alternative language in regards to certain
parts of the report.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Asks Representative Davies to go through his
concerns, changes that he would like to see made on the report.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: Would like it stated throughout the report
that comments were not solicited from the "run of the mill"
residential customer. Mentions that no poll has been taken of
the residential customer, brings up the problems that residential
customers have had in California and also mentions the Black &
Veatch report.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Agrees with the point made. States staff can
handle that concern, and address in the report.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON: Asked of the Chair what exactly would the
staff be handling. JOINT COMMITTEE ON ELECTRIC UTILITY RESTRUCTURING
JANUARY 6, 1999
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Draft language into the introduction to
indicate that the committee believes that we did not get enough,
not enough public participation in the hearing process.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON: Stated he misunderstood and thought the
Chair meant that the staff would get more comments from the
public. (laughter)
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Looks at the report as an alert/transmittal
for the public record this committee has established on this
issue to pass onto the 21st Legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: Second item page 9 paragraph 3 and a
couple of other places throughout the report (3rd & 4th
paragraphs). "General consensus of the committee is that
electric restructuring will come to Alaska" .. another point in
the next paragraph it says "recognize that some form of retail
restructuring" . States that this is not clear to him. Another
problem is that it is not clear what "we" mean by restructuring
at this point. Instead of saying that electrical restructuring
is "inevitable" say "likely" or something less certain than that.
Does not want to pre-judge the results of the RFP, wait and see
what the results are.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON: States he & Representative Davies are
"somewhat kindred spirits". Is not eager to see restructuring
happening precipitously, agrees that the wording here is okay and
that some restructuring is inevitable. Agrees now is not the
time. Believes restructuring is inevitable and does not find the
language objectionable.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Authored the report and appreciates comments.
Third paragraph states "for the general consensus is that
electrical restructuring will come to Alaska". It is a matter of
when and how. Goes on to defend this issue, as he has been
involved in this for two years. Hasn't heard anyone other than
IBEW and AKPIRG make any objections to this issue. Agrees
inevitable is a strong word, is open to modifying that.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON: Suggests "it appears at this time
inevitable".
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: Agrees it needs to be modified. This is
his main concern.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Brings up there is a legitimate debate on
whether a pilot program is a good idea and to the results of a
pilot program. JOINT COMMITTEE ON ELECTRIC UTILITY RESTRUCTURING
JANUARY 6, 1999
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: Page 9, "there were a few individuals and
groups that object to competition". This is not consistent with
Representative Davies recollection, does not remember anybody
saying they objected to competition. Remembers people being
concerned about restructuring, especially in a context where
there wouldn't be competition. Brought up the problem of cherry
picking.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Stated that reflects the views of some written
testimony of IBEW & (indisc.) received by the committee that
objects to competition.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: Doesn't believe they object to
competition.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: "We are talking about the word competition,
rather than ..perhaps delete that and change it to
restructuring?" No problem with that understands his point.
"Probably use electrical restructuring".
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: Top of page 10, third sentence "the
commission appears to be reluctant to do so". (indisc.) He
believes that the APUC feels the proposals so far have not been
adequate.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Defends the language .. Talks about calling
the APUC up, but does not want to put them on the spot .
(laughter).
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: States some people feel that APUC is
dragging their feet, does not share that view.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Defends the language "in as much as I drafted
it". Believes it reflects his opinion. Brings up past testimony
that the committee heard and concerns about the APUC and their
ability to move ahead quickly, brings up DOCKET 97-201. States
again he does not want to put them on the spot.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: Has heard the questions and states that
the committee is impatient with the speed that the APUC (indisc.)
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG & REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES continue to speak about
the APUC and their role in the RFP and the direction they will
get from the Legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: Doesn't feel the APUC is necessarily
dragging their feet. States he believes they are taking a
prudently cautious view. (Two or more people talking at once.) JOINT CO
JANUARY 6, 1999
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Open to modification of the language and would
welcome his help. This report is a transmittal to the
Legislature to take this matter up in a timely fashion.
SENATOR LEMAN: Is frustrated with the APUC and its responses and
has expressed this to the Chairman. In the last 1/2 year to 3/4
of the year the Commission has been at least from my perspective
surprisingly cooperative in taking this up and I believe their
interest in dealing with this is real and "I've been pleased with
that." Doesn't know if that has anything to do with this
committee, but has been pleased with the cooperation from the
Commission. Is encouraged by what he is seeing. Does not see
them proceeding blindly and being willing to make some massive
changes. He believes the APUC as well as the Legislature will be
very methodical in any changes that are made.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON: Agrees with the Chairman. In talking with
the APUC they have been in a position of regulating monopolies.
Believes the APUC is looking for some policy direction. Doesn't
believe they have been saying no, but have been looking for the
very thing that you are offering, Mr. Chairman.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: States there was a split between the various
factions within the industry, as short as a year ago, about
whether or not there was authority in the existing statute
(indisc.). Split has "gone away" because of changing attitudes or
legal interpretations, but was a major point of controversy for a
number of years as to whether the APUC had the authority or not.
Will be happy to work with Representative Davies in trying to
modify that language in some respects, failing that to make
comments in comment section about this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: This paragraph is the source of his
discomfort. (indisc.) States APUC has regulatory authority that
"we" granted them. We have the statutory authority to grant
competition and that they would move in that direction. Doesn't
think there are any constitution issues coming up. The issue is
how important the members of the committee think it is to
highlight the view that there is a (indisc.) shift. It would
then be appropriate for the Legislature to change the statutes to
make that "underscore" to move this issue ahead, doesn't feel it
is required. Doesn't feel there is any disagreement between the
APUC & Legislature about who sets the policy.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: This was an editorial comment. Will take
another stab at rewriting. Believes there is a split in the
committee about whether to grant the authority to the APUC in a
clearer manner. JOINT COMMITTEE ON ELECTRIC UTILITY RESTRUCTURING
JANUARY 6, 1999
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: Believes legislation at this point will be
premature, as the study has not been done. Agrees that if we
want to provide them guidance that we wanted to move ahead then
there's the requirements of statutory changes. Brings up
universal service and believes there needs to be more discussion
before moving ahead.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: We agree then. Let me make another stab at
writing this .
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: Dropping off the line now, will read over
the report that was sent down. Doesn't have the report in front
of him. Will see the committee at the January 18, 1999 meeting.
Congratulates the committee on the great job they are doing.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Thanks Representative Hudson and states that
he will get a copy to him ASAP.
SENATOR LEMAN: Asks Representative Hudson and committee members
since the Representative hasn't seen the report would it be
better to move the meeting to 10:00 am.
Committee members discuss time of meeting and decide to meet at
10:00 am.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Thanks Representative Hudson for sitting in
and looks forward to seeing him on January 18, 1999.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON: States that he and his staff are available
to assist in any way possible.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: One more comment, under APUC (indisc.)
context of the question do you want broad or narrow
recommendations.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Doesn't understand the question.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: Reads this as the APUC is asking the
Legislature here for guidance. "I haven't that." When asked the
APUC states they would like policy guidelines. Equating broad
with policy and narrow with regulation.
JOINT COMMITTEE ON ELECTRIC UTILITY RESTRUCTURING
JANUARY 6, 1999
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: States that the committee review the minutes
from the last meeting to clarify.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: That is my recollection.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Not sure that he understands even after
Representative Davies explained ..
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: The question that was put to the committee
(as recalled) would/should there be broad policy guidance or that
they be micromanaged.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG & REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES discuss this point
further and CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG agrees to rewrite this point.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: The last issue: Pilot program, supports
the pilot in some form, but the committee does not have the
entire scope of the RFP, does not know the right questions to lay
out. States doing the pilot program first is putting the "cart
before the horse."
SENATOR LEMAN: It is likely that the pilot will be restricted to
the Anchorage market. Agrees with part of what he said. The
consultant recognizes that the focus is on the pilot study itself
limited to Anchorage. That much of the work should be done by
that time and they will have the opportunity to make those
comments. Doesn't feel it is inappropriate to conduct this
study. Doesn't feel there will be much action or comment until
after March 1st, possibly weeks after this.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Believes the language in the section about the
pilot program is not time sensitive. State conclusions are being
drawn based on the time frame within the RFP. States two
different points of view that is where the disagreement is.
SENATOR LEMAN: Reiterates the thinking was .wanted the early
deliverable in case any Legislative action would be necessary to
deal with the pilot issue. Wanted to give adequate time to
complete the study, did not want to force everything to be done
at .aggressive schedule.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: Continues to voice his concern about the
pilot program. Doesn't have a problem with the schedule. Brings
up recommendations on page 18, number 2 and number 3, not
recommending that.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: In the body, do you want to add any language
about that issue.
JOINT COMMITTEE ON ELECTRIC UTILITY RESTRUCTURING
JANUARY 6, 1999
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: Wants to have added his concern about the
pilot program. He will voice his concerns in his comments that
he will submit to the committee.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Comments are not time sensitive.
SENATOR LEMAN: Voices comments on the part of the draft report
that talks about the changes in the contiguous 48 states, Hawaii
is also currently or has studied restructuring, like us is not
under the (indisc.). It is looking at the possibilities of some
of the benefits of restructuring. Will give written comments to
the committee on this subject. Recommendations on page 18,
second recommendation: Not fully accurate, when we get the
recommendations for the design of the pilot, if there are any,
not if the Legislature considers whether or not the pilot should
be implemented, the Legislature will respond if there is a need
for Legislative action. The Commission is going to respond to
the request for pilot, not the Legislature. Legislature is not
the one who should decide whether to implement the pilot or not,
that is up to the APUC. "We" will implement Legislation if any
is necessary.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Doesn't agree with this.
SENATOR LEMAN: As sponsor of the legislation to do that, is not
speaking against his own legislation. If the Commission is
proceeding on track and take action and is not going to hide
behind the lack of statutory authority as the reason for
inaction, then "I" don't see a reason to have the legislation.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG & SENATOR LEMAN: Discuss this point further.
Agree to disagree. Senator Leman will get written comments to
the committee.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Question is whether we need any statutory
authority to proceed with the pilot or what role should the
Legislature play in that particular issue. Believes the
Legislature should play a role in that.
SENATOR LEMAN: If necessary, "I" agree with you.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Brought up his concerns about the APUC's
ability to proceed without legislative authority on something
like this. Statute is silent on developing a pilot program.
Agrees the language needs to be reviewed on number two. Any
other comments on that point.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: Agrees with Senator Leman.
JOINT COMMITTEE ON ELECTRIC UTILITY RESTRUCTURING
JANUARY 6, 1999
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: As this is a recommendation, there needs to be
a consensus on it and make sure it is very clear.
SENATOR LEMAN: Talks about possible language, states again that
the pilot will be limited to Anchorage. Will submit written
language to the committee that is consistent with the committee's
thinking on whether to take a vote in March or April ..will give
it some thought.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Doesn't necessarily disagree .If the APUC has
the authority to grant competition now then they would presumably
have the authority to create a policy .another form of
competition. Question about how and what form a program would
take and what policy guidelines should be articulated by the
Legislature ..the regulatory body. Who dictates the policy and
how much authority Commission vs. the Legislature?
SENATOR LEMAN: Wants the committee to recommend and support an
implementation of a pilot in Anchorage. Would like the pilot to
be designed so that it perpetrates the necessary protections to
accommodate stranded costs and reliability and some of the other
issues that are important. If the Legislature has to draft
legislation to give that direction to the APUC, I'm perfectly
happy to do that. Do not vote on whether or not there should be a
pilot study in Anchorage. Believes there should be a pilot study
and be designed within these broad guidelines.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: We will look forward to your written comments.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON: Have two suggestions for the report. Page
12 under consumer protection; move consumer protection to first
and then reword it to say consumer protection/consumer advocacy
to insure the consumers obtained the lowest cost power consistent
with safety, reliability and long term interest. Respectfully to
the committee, the electrical industry in our state have been
operating in a protected monopoly and have not had the normal
forces to make them get "lean, mean and efficient." Why did
electric utilities wait until they were forced to; too get
efficient and to look after consumer interest. Thinks we have a
public policy issue. 90% of our state (geographically) will not
face competition. We do not have a consumer advocacy protection
function working.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Appreciate your comments on moving it to
first. Do you want to move the whole paragraph or ..
JOINT COMMITTEE ON ELECTRIC UTILITY RESTRUCTURING
JANUARY 6, 1999
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON: Move consumer protection ahead of consumer
education. Add words I supplied or something like them. Will
submit written language.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: Has a few problems with the editorial
comments. Brings up concerns and his disagreement regarding the
APUC and their ability to function properly. States he believes
the co-ops and others have tried to keep the best interest of
their customers in mind.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON: Accepts that and agrees with you, states
that utilities are doing a good job and the consumer appears to
be happy. What we don't have is a comparison of how good it
could be. What was startling was the testimony from the
producers stating that they were beginning to get leaner and
meaner, starting to work at efficiency. There is quite a lot
more to be done. The APUC (respectfully) waits for an issue to
come in (a docket they call it), there is not a pro-active
function there. Going out looking for how can our consumers get
a better job done for them. It is not a part of their mission.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON: They become involved when a utility comes
in asking for a rate change. Would like to go onto page 13;
second paragraph, no quarrel with what you said but how you said
it, Mr. Chairman, electrical service is as important as the other
utility from heating, cooking (indisc.) to running electronic
equipment. Would like to add a few words here that underscores
how important electric power is. I would add water treatment,
public safety, air traffic control rescue operations medical
services and education. We have a public policy question.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Any objections? Will you supply us with your
written comments? We have a few minutes here to get through my
amendments. Amendment one, any objections? No objections.
Amendment two, any objections? No objections. Amendment three,
any objections?
SENATOR LEMAN: I don't have any objections, I have a one or two
page elucidation of principle from Senator Murkowski that you may
want to incorporate either by appendixes or acknowledge by
reference in this paragraph. Will find it and give to Co-Chair
Rokeberg.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Comments about the states unique
circumstances. That is why I put it in there. Amendment four,
objections? No objections. Amendment five, objections? No
objections. Amendment six, any objections?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: There are some ideas that relate to that.
The central one is that the universal division of power. What is
the analysis of that. Question is to mandate that to make basic
service available. You are saying ..I don't think that I would
have a problem with that unless you change the sentence a little
more.
JOINT COMMITTEE ON ELECTRIC UTILITY RESTRUCTURING
JANUARY 6, 1999
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: We don't have an obligation to serve. You
don't give power away just because you are a low-income person.
By this I mean that you have a right for free service. That's
what low-income assistance is.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: But, I don't think that low-income
assistance is synonymous with universal service.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Universal service in terms of electrical
normally means providing the line out to the residence or the use
and then having the cap, like the $3,000.00 cap for the line. It
is not as if we are granting free consumption. In Alaska .Mr.
Lohr can you explain the regulation where you can't cut off power
in the winter.
BOB LOHR, APUC: Mr. Chairman there is a regulation that below a
certain temperature utilities shall not remove power. Even with
adequate notification, adequate advance notice. The Commission
several years ago viewed that question and see whether there were
any utilities that were causing problems in that area and
concluded there were no issues to raise the concern that the
policy was adequately being observed.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Is that a Commission policy? Is it in
regulation?
BOB LOHR: My recollection is it was a commission policy not a
regulation. The question was whether or not a regulation was
needed. The Commission after an extensive review of every
certificate of electric utility in the state concluded that cold
weather shut off was not a problem and was being handled
responsibly by the electric industry.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: There would be no recourse to the consumer if
there was a cut off in low temperature because it is not part of
the law.
BOB LOHR: It would be in accordance with did they follow their
tariff. Is there a tariff provision that governs that and the
Commission very definitely gets involved based on complaints all
over the state. If there is an issue like that we have a toll-
free number and we do respond to consumer complaints to insure
the utilities are operating in accordance with their tariff, as
well as, commissions, policies, regulations and statutes.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Commissioner Ornquist would you like to make a
comment on this? (End of tape, inserted new tape in recorder,
tape was defective, inserted new tape)
.Guidance, it reminds me of ruling by the APOC, that they
decided to interpret something someway, but they didn't put it in
regulation. They just decided to interpret it that way. Is it
policy to do that? Policy & opinion is not law. JOINT COMMITTEE ON ELE
JANUARY 6, 1999
COMMISSIONER DWIGHT ORNQUIST, APUC: Mr. Chairman I agree with you
and we did debate this at quite in depth at the meetings that we
have had regarding the one issue that we found very difficult to
justify putting it in a regulation, was that a very effective
argument is made by utilities is made that they already have
difficulty collecting when the bills are high and working with
the customers. If we put it in regulation or in law that they
could not be cut off the point was that a lot of people would not
be paying all winter long. And then the cost continues to fall
to the people who do pay their bills to make up for that. The
APUC would be open to direction and guidance from the Legislature
on this.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Representative Davies and then we will wrap
this up. Forgive me for bringing for opening Pandora's box.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: Appreciate this discussion, what I want to
know is ..tell me what the concept of universal service is?
COMMISSIONER ORNQUIST: Universal service is the idea that anybody
who wishes to have service would have access to the system. Just
exactly as the Chairman said you have to draw some lines and
establish some level at which the existing system supports that
growth and where the customer needs to pick up any additional
cost of expanding the system to meet that customer.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG & REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: Discuss and debate the
concept of universal service and is it available to everybody.
Is this low-income subsidy?
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: To put a tag on this: In the discussions
within the industry any subsidies low income assistance (indisc.)
included under the umbrella of universal service by definition.
That is why the disclaimer is there. Many jurisdictions provide
subsidized electrical service, they put this in their tariff
structure. We have power cost equalization programs.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: Goes back to the amendment, line three.
Question: Mandate on .long term assistance, conservation
programs. Separate issues. Geographical area concerns.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Will strike amendment six. JOINT COMMITTEE ON ELECTR
JANUARY 6, 1999
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON: Brings up universal service, when brought
up in the past was thinking about how it was defined in
telecommunications. "Affordable" is one word that is not in the
discussion between Co-Chair & Representative Davies. Need to
have a full public policy decision sometime, is there a public
responsibility to make sure that power is available for
utilities.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: That is why I had the amendment, to introduce
the concept.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES: Agrees that affordable is inherent with
universal service, there is a subsidy involved. But does not
differentiate between consumers within a geographic area.
Everybody gets the same price, that's the notion of universal
service.
Inherent subsidy problem.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON: Agrees got it the first time.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Chair notes; I have withdrawn the amendment.
Amendment 7, any objections? No objections. Amendment 9, any
objections? No objections. Amendment 10, any objections? No
objections. Page 16, line 1 ..line one paragraph 4, Senator
Leman, any comments. Will adopt that. Conclusions better take a
look at that.
SENATOR LEMAN: Offers as an amendment, the replacement of current
recommendation 2 with "my" language which incorporates what "I"
am trying to say. Positive way, doesn't commit the Legislature.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Leave the target date in of March 1?
SENATOR LEMAN: That is currently our target date, we might as
well acknowledge it. March 1, 1999.
CO-CHAIR ROKEBERG: Conception amendment is now moved, any
objections? No objections, it is adopted to replace
recommendation number two. Any further activity or comments?
Will schedule the meeting for the 18th at 10:00 am, communicate
to the other committee members that they are invited to have
their written comments, get a draft out in a timely fashion to
everybody. Target no later than Saturday, 16th. Any other
comments? Thank you very much, meeting adjourned at 12:20 pm.
The meeting was recorded and handwritten log notes were taken. A
copy of the tapes and log notes may be obtained by contacting the
House Records Office at 130 Seward Street, Suite 211, Juneau,
Alaska 99801-1182, and after adjournment of the second session of
the Twentieth Alaska State Legislature in the Legislative
Reference Library.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|