Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/04/2012 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB190 | |
| HB365 | |
| HB212 | |
| HB294 | |
| HB255 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 289 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 255 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 294 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 365 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 212 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 190 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 4, 2012
1:47 p.m.
1:47:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:47 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas Jr., Co-Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mark Neuman
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Edgmon; Joe Michel, Staff, Co-Chair Stoltze;
Deborah Bitney, Division Director, Department of Revenue;
Representative Paul Seaton; Representative Charisse Millet;
Jessica Lukin, Self; Meera Kohler, CEO, Alaska Village
Electric Co-op
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Marlene Campbell, City and Borough of Sitka; Kim Elliott,
Sitka; Whitney Brewster, Director, Division of Motor
Vehicles; Rodney Dial, Lieutenant, Alaska State Troopers,
Ketchikan; Val Angasan, Bristol Bay Housing Authority,
Dillingham; Robbie Garrett, Self, Kake
SUMMARY
HB 190 PFD ALLOWABLE ABSENCE
CSSSHB 190(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee
with a "do pass" recommendation and with
previously published zero fiscal note: FN1 (REV).
HB 212 PROVISIONAL DRIVER'S LICENSE STICKER
HB 212 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 255 READING OR TYPING MESSAGE WHILE DRIVING
CSHB 255(JUD) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with one zero
fiscal note from the Department of Law, one zero
fiscal note for Department of Administration by
the House Finance Committee and three previously
published zero fiscal notes: FN1 (ADM), FN2
(COR), FN3 (CRT).
HB 294 POWER COST EQUALIZATION
HB 294 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 365 AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES
HB 365 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
1:47:06 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 190
"An Act relating to the allowable absence for active
duty service members of the armed forces for purposes
of permanent fund dividend eligibility."
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for SSHB 190(FIN), Work Draft 27-LS0564\L,
(Kirsch 4/4/12) as a working document.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
JOE MICHEL, STAFF, CO-CHAIR STOLTZE stated that version L
of the legislation reflected changes from a previous
meeting. The language had been omitted from Section 2, sub-
paragraph (f), line 29:
"such as the financial circumstances of the individual
or the ability of the individual to find employment in
the state;"
Mr. Michel noted that the second change in Section 2 had
been the removal of the following language:
"whether the individual made a career choice or chose
a career path that does not allow the individual to
reside in or return to the state."
DEBORAH BITNEY, DIVISION DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
testified in support of the changes to the legislation. She
said that the department intended to create regulations
that would clearly define how the statutes would be
applied.
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his objection.
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to report CSSSHB 190(FIN) out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
CSSSHB 190(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with previously published zero
fiscal note: FN1 (REV).
1:51:53 PM
AT EASE
1:53:02 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 365
"An Act relating to the rapid response to, and control of,
aquatic invasive species."
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for HB 365(RES), Work Draft 27-LS1439\M as a
working document.
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED for purpose of
discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON testified that the House
Resources version of the bill changed the term "aquatic
invasive species" to "marine aquatic invasive species". The
change had been made to make the drawing of response plans
easier for the Department of Fish and Game (DF&G).
Co-Chair Stoltze recalled that during past discussions
concerning invasive plants an effort had been made to be
inclusive of the fishing industry. He questioned the reason
for the inclusivity.
Representative Guttenberg relayed that the issue of
invasive species ran statewide, and that one body of water
[salt versus fresh] was not more important than another.
Representative Seaton replied that no priority had been
intended either way. He said that the intention of the
legislation was to provide a way for departments to respond
quickly to an emergency situation triggered by a new
invasion.
Representative Guttenberg felt that the ability to respond
rapidly was a necessity for both lakes and salt water. He
suggested that some invasive species could make their way
into the water by way of pet shops. He added that some
invaders could be brought to marine waters by way of fresh
water.
Representative Guttenberg WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There
being NO further OBJECTION it was so ordered.
1:59:23 PM
Representative Costello expressed concern for the
particular area of Sand Lake, which was a fresh water lake.
Representative Seaton shared that the Department of Fish
and Game (DF&G) had indicated that the word "aquatic" was
too broad a term. The understanding was that the bill would
not make it through the legislative process using such a
general term. He stated that the decision was made to
concentrate on marine waters. He relayed that he supported
the eradication of invasive species throughout the state
and maintained no objection to broadening the language to
include aquatics, provided it did not require DF&G to draw
up an emergency plan for every stream and lake in Alaska.
He reiterated that the intent was to examine emergency
situations in limited geographic areas where response could
be swift and successful. He furthered that an emergency
situation, involving the contamination of an entire river
system, would require an extended amount of response time.
He asserted that the legislation was intended to provide
rapid response to emergency situations in a limited area.
Representative Costello commented that her district had
been dealing with safety issues related to Sand Lake. She
understood that there were many ways to go about solving
the Sand Lake problem; her approach was to submit a capital
budget request.
2:04:36 PM
Representative Neuman testified that his region of the
Susitna River Valley was experiencing a problem with
Northern Pike. The invasive species had devastated
tributaries at Alexander Creek, which negatively affected
the salmon population. He highlighted that the loss of
salmon supply for commercial and sport fishing would have a
negative effect on the economy. He wondered if language
could be written into the bill that would speak to
responding to the problem of Northern Pike.
Representative Seaton explained that the purpose of the
legislation was to provide DF&G with the tools to perform
an emergency eradication in a limited geographic area. He
said that the eradication of Northern Pike in the entire
Susitna drainage could harm other species of fish in the
water. He relayed that the tools already being used under
the invasive species plan were meant for long-range
planning. He reiterated that the purpose of the bill was to
deal with a new invasive species in a small area. He
assured the committee that the debate was not about
saltwater species being more important than fresh water
species, but stressed there were different ways that
endemic infestations were handled versus an emergency
reaction to a new invasion in a limited geographic area. He
furthered that the bill would give DF&G the ability to
allow for the sacrifice of management of one species in a
limited geographic area in order to eradicate any new
invasive species.
2:10:16 PM
Representative Neuman noted that the bill would create a
plan for salt water. He said that in the case of Alexander
Creek, the Northern Pike could be specifically targeted in
early spring because there were no salmon species yet in
the tributaries large enough to be caught in nets. He
argued that this was exactly what the department was
already doing in the marine aquatic areas; developing a
long-term plan that would eradicate the invasive species in
order to save fisheries important to the economy. He
believed that the long-term plan should be written into the
legislation.
Representative Seaton agreed with Representative Neuman. He
added that there was a long-term plan to target longer
periods of time. He restated that the intention of the bill
was to give the emergency authority to eliminate everything
in a limited geographic area in order to eradicate a new
invasive species before it spread to rest of the state.
Representative Neuman hoped to discuss the issue further
with the department.
Co-Chair Thomas cited sub-section (f):
"In this section, "marine aquatic invasive species"
means an organism introduced to a marine ecosystem to
which it is not native and whose introduction causes,
or is likely to cause, economic or environmental harm
or harm to human health."
Representative Neuman felt that further clarification was
necessary.
Representative Seaton clarified that the term "marine" was
generally applied to salt water. He said that both fresh
and salt water could be addressed in the legislation.
2:15:09 PM
Representative Wilson questioned if any projections had
been made of how handling small areas at a time could
benefit the state financially.
Representative Seaton replied there was currently an
invasive species council that focused on long-range plans,
but that the legislation was intended to provide the tools
to make the immediate eradication of new invasive species
possible. He stressed his desire to ensure emergency
response capability for the department.
Representative Wilson understood that the bill contained a
plan for solely salt water, which had resulted in a smaller
fiscal note.
Representative Seaton replied that that was correct. He
said that according to the department the lake systems were
so different that the plans to develop each one would have
taken over ten years.
Co-Chair Thomas understood that the department was seeking
the ability to actively respond to an infestation rather
than spending $20 million on a written plan.
2:18:43 PM
Representative Gara shared Representative Neuman concern
for fresh water. He expressed concern that the bill was not
tailored to deal with fresh water issues. He pointed out to
the committee that the implementation of an emergency kill
of Northern Pike could risk the health of many other
species of fish. He stated that he did not believe that the
legislation was worded in a way that would effectively
protect fresh water.
Co-Chair Thomas said that the other body put in a request
in the FY13 Operating Budget to increase money in for the
problem of Northern Pike.
Vice-chair Fairclough shared that the House Finance
Committee had changed more than sub-section (f) of the
original legislation. She suggested that committee members
familiarize themselves with the changes between the
original document and the one that was currently before the
committee.
MARLENE CAMPBELL, CITY AND BOROUGH OF SITKA (via
teleconference) voiced support for the bill. She testified
that an invasive species identified in 2010, had rapidly
had spread. She said that DF&G had done a dive survey and
had mapped the infestation, which had been confined to
Whitening Harbor until the movement of aqua farm pieces
into Sitka Sound. She feared that the spread of the species
could potentially eradicate all other species, which would
have a negative impact on Sitka fisheries. She relayed that
there was wide support in the community to hire an expert
environmental firm to contain and eradicate the invader.
She stressed that Sitka had 5 harbors that generated
approximately $140 million in commercial fisheries monies
per year. Additionally, 10 percent of Sitka's population
was directly involved in the sea industry, and indirect
impact was nearly 50 percent. She concluded that the issue
was of grave importance to the future if the fishing
industry and urged the timely passage of the legislation.
2:26:49 PM
KIM ELLIOTT, SITKA (via teleconference), voiced support for
the bill. She voiced concern that the issue of invasive
species in Alaska be addressed immediately, beyond talking
at the table. She feared that the invasive species in Sitka
Sound would spread to affect the herring and scallop
populations.
2:28:54 PM
Co-Chair Thomas CLOSED public testimony.
HB 365 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
2:29:34 PM
AT EASE
2:37:45 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 212
"An Act relating to requirements for persons holding
provisional drivers' licenses."
2:38:01 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to ADOPT the committee
substitute for HB 212, Work Draft 27-LSO738\I as a working
document. There being NO OBJECTION it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARISSE MILLET introduced her support
staff.
JESSICA LUKIN, SELF, testified that the Alaska Graduated
License Program was a three-step program designed to
develop safe driving habits, as well as to slowly introduce
young drivers to Alaskan road systems. One of the steps in
the program was graduating from an instructional permit to
a provisional license. Having a provisional license had the
following restrictions:
· Driver may not carry passengers unless one of the
passengers was at least 21 years of age
· Passengers under the age of 21 must be siblings
· Driver may not operate vehicle between the hours of 1
AM and 5 AM unless accompanied by a person at least 21
years of age
Ms. Lukin continued that although the restrictions were in
place, they were generally ignored by many young drivers.
She directed committee attention to her presentation titled
"Novice Driver Safety: Safer Alaskan Roads for Alaskan
Drivers." She testified that she had recently had the
experience of participating in the Juneau Close-Up program.
As homework she had been required to study state and local
government, and to present an idea for legislation to a
state representative or senator; the product was HB 212.
Ms. Lukin cited page 2 of her presentation, which was a
photograph of the car she and her family had been extracted
from after being struck head-on by a teenaged driver. She
shared that the accident had moved her to advocate for
safer teen driving practices. She continued to page 3
titled, "Cause of death among teenagers between 1999-2006."
The chart highlighted that of the 48 percent of
unintentional injuries suffered by teenagers in the United
States, 73 percent were motor vehicle traffic accidents.
Page 4 illustrated the Alaska Statistics for Drivers 14-16
(2004-2008). She pointed out that out the numbers were
highest in 2008. Page 5 cited more statistics for drivers
16-17, specifically the total drivers in fatal crashes by
age in Alaska from 2002 to 2011. She noted that there was
no information available of the effects of the accidents on
the occupants of the other vehicles or the general public.
Page 6, titled "Provisional Licensed Drivers" listed that
provisional licensed drivers were hazardous due to:
· Apprehension
· Lack of experience
· Weather conditions
· No driver's education requirement
· Alaska's diversity from other states
2:42:39 PM
Ms. Lukin continued with page 7, titled "Solution":
· A person holding a provisional driver's license shall
display in the rear window of each vehicle operated by
the person a sticker issued by the department that
identifies that the vehicle is operated by a
provisional licensee.
Ms. Lukin directed the committee's attention so page 8,
which contained pictures of the proposed stickers as they
were used in other areas of the world. She continued to
page 9, titled "Why This Solution?"
· This is a simple solution to benefit Alaskan drivers
· It will impress other driver's to be more cautious
driving around the novice driver
· It will provide other drivers the information
necessary to understand the Provisional Licensee's
position
· This will assist law enforcement officers in
implementing the law
Ms. Lukin continued to page 10, titled "Enforcement":
· Failure to display a sticker as required by this
subsection is an infraction and may be punished by a
fine of not more than $200
Ms. Lukin continued to page 11, which suggested what might
occur if the bill were passed into law:
· The State of Alaska will supply the Department of
Motor Vehicles with stickers to distribute to those
persons acquiring an Provisional License
· Those acquiring a Provisional License will pay for the
sticker as part of the permitting process
· Sticker will be placed on the rear window of the
operating vehicle.
Ms. Lukin concluded with page 12, "Summary":
· Teen drivers with Provisional License are
statistically more hazardous to themselves and other
Alaskans
· Require Provisional drivers to identify their status
· Reduce the number of accidents and infractions in
Alaska, and help save Alaskan lives
2:45:28 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough noted that tinted windows could
interfere with sticker visibility. She added that page 2,
lines 15-16 indicated that communities under 500 people
would not need to apply, creating a new threshold under
state law. She felt that a threshold already written into
statute should be used.
Ms. Lukin responded that the new threshold was necessary
because it was assumed that smaller, less populated, rural
areas would have less actual miles of drivable road.
Vice-chair Fairclough requested a response from the
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). She shared the story of
the tragic death of a young woman in her community. The
young woman's mother had queried whether the tragedy could
have been avoided if she had been driving with a passenger.
She suggested that the sticker on a vehicle could be a
problem if exploited by a predator searching for easy
victims.
Ms. Lukin agreed that the situation had been tragic. She
noted that the victim had not been underage and pointed out
that any person anywhere could be stalked by a sexual
predator. She shared that she had talked with the manager
of the special Department of Traffic Safety in New Jersey,
where the bill had been implemented, and had learned that
research had shown that sexual predators were more likely
to use the internet to target victims.
Vice-chair Fairclough requested that the legislation be
held until further research could be done. She noted that
Alaska had the highest rates of domestic violence and rape
in the country. She pointed out to the committee that the
Covenant House was located in downtown Anchorage, and that
predators walked 4th and 5th Avenues in Anchorage waiting
for an opportunity to strike. She asserted that she was not
trying to kill bill, but wanted more input from the
community.
2:52:45 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough continued her questioning. She asked
about small communities that had a population of under 500
people. She understood that the communities would need to
enforce the stickers if they were on the road system.
Ms. Lukin replied in the affirmative. She added that she
had talked to members of the Anchorage Police Department
while researching weather the victims of sexual
statistically knew their predators. She reported that
statistically, victims of sexual assault knew their
attackers prior to the assault.
Vice-chair Fairclough agreed that most victims of sexual
assault knew their attackers.
Co-Chair Stoltze mentioned in gangs in Florida had targeted
rental cars with visible stickers; out-of-state drivers did
not qualify under the right-to-carry law and would
therefore be unarmed.
2:55:38 PM
Representative Wilson requested further risk research done.
She queried whether males would be more reckless than
female drivers. She wondered if there were statistics
available showing that incidents of accidents involving
teenaged drivers in New Jersey had lessened under the
legislation.
Ms. Lukin explained that the goal of the legislation was to
provide new drivers a wider berth from more experienced
drivers. Additionally, it would aid law enforcement in
catching teenage drivers carrying too many passengers. She
shared that school districts in Wasilla and Eagle River had
reported problems with teens driving with too many underage
passengers at lunch and after school. She noted that most
accidents involving teenaged drivers occurred during after
school hours.
Representative Wilson expressed concern that police would
be pulling over cars with many passengers, and a sticker in
the window, even if it was driven by an adult.
2:58:51 PM
Ms. Lukin highlighted that new subsection (c) had been
added to the legislation in order to speak to
Representative Wilson's concerns. She said that driving was
a responsibility and that teen drivers should go through a
checklist every time they got in the car; checking lights
and turn signals, making sure they have their license,
checking for the sticker in the back window, and all other
safety precautions.
Representative Wilson suggested that Ms. Lukin might
understand when she was older, and a mother, that young
people would not take the listed necessary precautions. She
offered that Ms. Lukin would "understand when she was
older."
3:00:31 PM
Representative Neuman applauded the effort of the bill. He
asserted that teenagers were already "cop magnets". He
wondered how it could be ensured that young people were not
being treated as a second class. He voiced strong support
for preliminary driver's education courses. He thought that
the bill infringed on the rights of teenagers and made them
targets for the police.
Ms. Lukin replied that creating a second class was not the
intention of the legislation. She reiterated that the goal
was to keep drivers on the road safe from new,
inexperienced, aggressive, young drivers. She noted that
the success of the program could not be measured until the
program had time to take actual affect.
Representative Neuman worried that the legislation would
tax the already limited Alaska State Troopers, and would
slow their response time. He believed that there were many
public safety concerns that should be considered.
3:05:47 PM
Representative Doogan spoke in favor of the legislation. He
shared that between the ages of 16 and 19 he had wrecked 3
automobiles. He shared Ms. Lukin's concern about young
drivers, and hoped that the discussion would be fruitful.
Representative Edgmon asked if research for the legislation
had revealed that law enforcement might be more
accommodating to a teenager with a sticker in their window.
Ms. Lukin replied in the negative. She believed that if the
officer saw a sticker they might be a bit more gracious and
take the status as a new driver into consideration when
weighing any small infraction.
Representative Edgmon asked if New Jersey had encountered
savings on car insurance due to the legislation.
Ms. Lunkin replied that insurance companies might be
willing to give breaks to users of the program.
3:09:15 PM
Representative Joule relayed that society often wanted the
younger population to accept responsibility for their
actions, and that the bill was offering a way to do so. He
qualified that the legislation needed to be examined
further.
Ms. Lukin stressed that the benefit of the legislation
would be that lives would be saved. She shared that she
looked forward to working with the committee on drafting a
comprehensive piece of legislation.
Co-Chair Stoltze OPENED public testimony.
WHITNEY BREWSTER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES (via
teleconference), testified that the DMV currently had
approximately 6250 unexpired provisional license holders.
She noted the zero fiscal note attached to the bill. She
shared that the static-cling decal would cost $.25, which
would cost less than $1000 to administer. She said that
there were rural exemptions for vehicle registration and
insurance requirements, as well as commercial driver's
licenses in communities that were off the road system, and
had a daily traffic volume of 499 or less. She said that
the provision would protect communities that had a daily
traffic volume over 500, but were still considered very
rural. She noted that some rural communities did not have
access to a DMV office, and would not be required to have
the provisional sticker.
3:15:49 PM
RODNEY DIAL, LIEUTENANT, ALASKA STATE TROOPERS, KETCHIKAN
(via teleconference), testified that the department was
neutral on the bill.
Vice-chair Fairclough reiterated her concern that by
applying the sicker, young drivers would be advertising
that they were alone in their vehicles, and could be
targeted by predators.
Mr. Dial responded that he understood the concern, but that
the department had no basis to form an opinion on the
matter at this time.
Vice-chair Fairclough informed the committee that some of
the smaller communities in the state had very high rates of
child abuse. She maintained concern for signaling that
youths were driving by themselves.
Mr. Dial stated that the safety of young people in Alaska's
communities was the top priority for the department. He
said that if the legislation were passed the department
would diligently research any possible consequences.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked Mr. Dial remembered the situation in
Florida of gangs targeting tourists.
Mr. Dial responded in the affirmative.
3:19:34 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough suggested that drivers with multiple
drunk driving violations could also be required to put a
sticker in their window. She requested a response from the
Department of Law.
HB 212 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
3:21:49 PM
AT EASE
3:29:37 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 294
"An Act relating to the power cost equalization program."
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to ADOPT the CSHB 294 (FIN) 27-
LS1108\D Work Draft as a working document before the
committee.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for purpose of discussion.
JOE MICHEL, STAFF, CO-CHAIR STOLTZE explained the changes
in version D. He stated that version D added section 3 to
the legislation. Section 3 added conditional language; if
the billed passed it would not take effect unless there was
an appropriation of $150 million, or more, into the Power
Cost Equalization fund (PCE). The appropriation would need
to occur during the 27th legislature.
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his objection. There being NO
further OBJECTION it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON, SPONSOR, explained that PCE was
established in 1984 and provided financial relief for rural
consumers, up to 500 kilowatt hours per month for those who
were eligible. He related that the formula was based on
fuel and non-fuel cost, and eligible communities were
determined by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. He said
that the program was monitored by monthly reports to the
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). The $400 million
appropriation granted in July of 2011 raised the PCE
endowment to $700 million. He admitted that the legislation
was major and had a large fiscal note attached. He strongly
believed that it was the best way to assist rural consumer
with escalating fuel prices.
Representative Edgmon detailed that the bill expanded the
monthly cap form 500 kilowatt hours to 600, and allowed for
commercial uses to be brought back into the program with
the limitation of 600 kilowatt hours, with an overall use
per month of 2400 kilowatt hours. He added that the bill
would exempt state and federal facilities and non-
residential consumers.
Co-Chair Stoltze understood that the bill included small
businesses.
Representative Edgmon replied in the affirmative. He
explained that barber shops, coffee shops, "mom and pop"
type businesses would benefit. He shared that most
communities never reached the 60 percent mark of reaching
the 500 kilowatt cap. He stated that the bill was designed
to allow for commercial entities in smaller communities to
have some relief when providing electricity in an era of
very high cost.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the introduction of the
legislation offered an opportunity to educate the general
public on traditional kilowatt per hour usage in the
average home.
3:35:32 PM
Representative Edgmon described having to barge in diesel
fuel to rural communities; communities with fixed utility
costs spread over a small consumer base. He relayed that
these small communities paid electricity rates 3 to 4 times
the average rate in Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau.
Representative Edgmon spoke of a study done by the
Institute of Social and Economic Research which had
revealed that the program was in limited use in rural
areas, and that the communities could utilize it more if
they could keep on top of the required paperwork. He said
the larger users of the program were in the northern and
southeastern parts of the state. He noted that the fiscal
note was for approximately $20 million. He estimated that
this was on the high-end of the price range.
3:39:41 PM
Representative Gara spoke in support of the bill. He noted
that the PCE program was necessary, but stressed the
importance of encouraging energy efficiency in the state.
He hoped that in the future a cost savings component could
be added to the program.
Representative Edgmon pointed out to the committee that the
state had invested substantially in weatherization
programs. The program was designed in such a way that if
fuel costs went down, so did the PCE benefit. He said that
in 2011, the Renewable Energy Grant Fund Program provided
approximately $6 million in energy savings; most of which
could be attributed to two projects: the Gustavus False
Creek Hydroelectric Project and the Pillar Mountain Wind
Project in Kodiak. He added that there had been other
turbine systems in Western Alaska that had contributed to
the overall reduction of PCE costs. He stressed that the
report requirements were very stringent.
3:43:32 PM
Representative Wilson queried the average savings per
household using the 500 kilowatt formula.
Representative Edgmon replied that the PCE program saved
participating utilities approximately 30 percent.
Co-Chair Stoltze OPENED public testimony.
3:44:42 PM
VAL ANGASAN, BRISTOL BAY HOUSING AUTHORITY, DILLINGHAM,
(via teleconference), testified in support of the
legislation. He shared that the high cost of fuel had
hindered grow the opportunity in rural Alaska. He revealed
that in the area milk was $10 per gallon, $6 for gas. He
said that surplus income in the area was non-existent. He
felt that the PCE program was critical in rural areas.
Representative Edgmon interjected that he had heard reports
of gas being as high as $7.23 per gallon in Dillingham.
ROBBIE GARRETT, SELF, KAKE, (via teleconference), voiced
support for the legislation. He shared that in rural areas
the rates were high, especially when the rate fell under
the non-commercial rate; nearly $.85 per kilowatt. He
stated that as a business owner he did not view PCE as a
subsidy in perpetuity, but rather temporary assistance to
help stabilize cost.
3:50:42 PM
MEERA KOHLER, CEO, ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC CO-OP (AVEC),
testified in favor of the bill. She stated that AVEC served
54 communities in Alaska with electricity. She stated that
the average residential consumption in Alaska's villages
was approximately 400 kilowatt hours year round. She said
the average varied widely between regions. She relayed that
averages were higher in the northwest because the water and
sewer systems in the region used electricity. She opined
that winter was a time of hardship in many communities;
using well above the 500 kilowatt cap. She said that homes
in the rural areas ranged from 600 to 1200 square feet. She
said that AVEC had approximately 2800 commercial customers,
half of which would be eligible under the bill. She
highlighted that AVEC represented one-third of all PCE
users in Alaska, and that consumption could be expected to
rise 35 to 40 percent were the legislation to pass. She
informed the committee that as of the end of March 2012,
the balance of the PCE Endowment fund was $780 million. She
qualified that the fund had not been that large for very
long; $400 million had recently been injected into the
fund.
Co-Chair Stoltze queried when the last big injection to the
fund had occurred.
Ms. Kohler explained that $100 million from the
constitutional budget reserve (CBR) had been injected upon
the adoption of the fund in 2000. She added that $85
million from the Fordham Coal sale was added several years
later; then in 2006, $187 million was added by Governor
Murkowski.
3:54:23 PM
AT EASE
3:55:07 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Thomas asked if Ms. Kohler saw an end to the
problem of providing affordable electricity to rural
Alaska.
Ms. Kohler explained that the effective rate for
residential consumers for the first 500 kilowatt hours was
approximately $.21 per kilowatt hour. She said that until
the price of electricity was at a reasonable level, $.10 to
$.12 per kilowatt, there would never be enough additional
funding.
Co-Chair asked if, in the event that the state faced a
deficit due to declining oil production, the PCE fund could
be in danger.
Ms. Kohler replied that the fund was predicated on an
adequate revenue stream.
Co-Chair Thomas stressed that oil production needed to be
higher in order to fund future energy programs and projects
in the state.
Representative Edgmon agreed. He felt that the PCE was
expensive, but necessary for rural Alaska. He opined that
the communities in rural Alaska were shrinking. He said
that the legislature needed to consider what rural Alaska
should look like into the future, with the understanding
that the sustainability of communities was tied directly to
energy.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the larger urban areas had
voiced a majority of the support for PCE program.
3:59:01 PM
Representative Joule relayed that it was an anomaly when
oil went over $100 per barrel mark. He said that oil
maintaining above $100 per barrel was contributing the high
cost of energy. He agreed that a lot of money was being
spent on the issue, but believed that the money needed to
be spent in order to deliver energy to all parts of Alaska.
He thought that the structure of the PCE was a creative way
to corral funds for energy relief.
Representative Wilson asked if there were any energy
projects at work in rural Alaska that were lowing costs.
Ms. Kohler replied that the company owned more wind
turbines than any other company in the state. She asserted
that AVEC had been aggressive in the pursuit of affordable
energy. She said that the village with the lowest fuel cost
component in rural Alaska was Chevak at $.21 per kilowatt
hour, much lower than average fuel cost of $.32 per
kilowatt hour. Fifty percent of the kilowatt hour sales
were eligible for the PCE fund.
Representative Wilson asked if the $.21 cents was the total
cost or the fuel surcharge.
Mr. Kohler responded that it was only the fuel surcharge.
4:02:54 PM
Co-Chair Thomas wondered what would happen to the PCE costs
if the debt were retired.
Ms. Kohler said that it would have a substantial effect.
She revealed that AVEC had taken $12 million in additional
long-term debt in 2011. The money was invested in
communities and was the cash match brought to the Denali
Commission and the renewable energy fund grants. The total
debt burden for AVEC was currently approximately $48
million; the debt service was $1.5 million per year; if the
debt were to vanish a $.6 to $.7 drop in cost would be
observed.
Co-Chair Thomas wondered what would happen if the debt were
retired, and kept from growing again.
Ms. Kohler replied that the life of a utility plant was
finite. She said that continual investment was necessary.
She relayed that AVEC had been whittling away at the debt,
but that the cash match the company was responsible for had
risen in recent years.
Co-Chair Thomas asked how many representatives served the
areas under AVEC.
Ms. Kohler replied that between the house and the senate
there were 9 or 10.
Co-Chair Thomas hypothesized that if each of the 10
lawmakers put in $2 million for a capital budget request it
would greatly benefit AVEC.
Ms. Kohler agreed.
Representative Edgmon reiterated that AVEC served 54
communities. He turned attention to the fiscal note. He
said that the $700 million should pay for what the bill
proposed to do in a 3 to 4 year period.
Co-Chair Thomas CLOSED public testimony.
HB 294 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
4:08:11 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 255
"An Act prohibiting the driver of a motor vehicle from
reading or typing a text message or other nonvoice
message or communication on a cellular telephone,
computer, or personal data assistant while driving a
motor vehicle."
Representative Gara testified that the legislation restated
the intention of a bill banning the use of video screens
while driving that had passed many years ago. However, the
original bill did not specifically mention texting. He
detailed the importance that texting be reinstated into the
law. He accepted that the definition of what was
distracting to a driver was changeable, but stressed that
texting could be clearly defined. He said that during a
four second text message a car could advance the length of
a football field. He said that studies had shown that
texting while driving raised the risk of a crash or near
collision twentyfold. He revealed that one-third of drivers
on the road were texting while operating their vehicles. He
expressed concern that lives would be lost because of
texting while driving. He noted that the legislation took
into consideration future technological advancements to
limit typing while driving or viewing visually displayed
message.
Representative Joule wondered about texting by voice.
Representative Gara replied that it was not covered in the
legislation. The word "typing" was used in consideration of
evolving technology. He relayed that the existing
distracted driving statute was not enough because it did
not make texting while driving a crime. He also felt that
jurors would sympathize with people who texted while
driving and would not consider it a crime unless it were
labeled one under the law.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the phone could be used as
evidentiary on a texting case.
Representative Gara agreed that the phone would record the
date and time of the text.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the court would need a sopena for
the cell phone.
Representative Gara believed that the accident would give
probable cause to remove evidence from the car. He
reiterated that juries would not convict under existing
laws. He hoped that there would be a public service
campaign to educate people of the dangers of texting while
driving. He pointed out to the committee a letter from the
chief of police in member packets (copy on file).
4:16:28 PM
Representative Wilson directed attention to page 2, lines 7
through 11. She understood that the term "visual display"
pertained to anything you would look at like a GPS or and
OnStar map.
Representative Gara replied no. He explained that line 20
of the bill contained original language that exempted
mapping devices.
Representative Wilson understood that a person could expect
a misdemeanor fine of approximately $300 for texting while
driving.
Representative Gara responded only if the driver was
texting while the car was in motion.
Representative Wilson pointed out that the bill did not
distinguish between a driver who might swerve a little,
from a driver who actually hits another car or person due
to texting. She understood that under the legislation both
actions would be considered a misdemeanor.
Representative Gara relayed that the understanding was not
entirely correct. He clarified that if the driver was only
texting, and did not hurt anyone, it would be considered a
Class A misdemeanor. He furthered that under the current
law if a driver injures someone they would be charged with
reckless or negligent driving. He stressed that the
addition of texting to the latter scenario moved the crime
up a level. He asserted that texting while driving was
knowingly dangerous, therefore causing an accident while
texting could be considered a premeditated act.
4:20:00 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough asked about taxi cabs. She
highlighted that some taxi's had an electronic screen for
communicating with dispatch.
Representative Gara replied that a section for dispatch had
been written into the original legislation. He cited page
3, line 3, which allowed the viewing of a dispatch screen
for use of passenger transport. He though a case could be
made to remove the provision, but noted that the removal
could negatively impact businesses. He said that the he had
not seen evidence that the dispatch screens were a major
danger.
Vice-chair Fairclough accepted why the provision was there.
She warned that technology was advancing quickly.
Representative Gara noted that even law enforcement had
internal manuals that were followed concerning visual
screens while driving.
Vice-chair Fairclough clarified that it would not be an
illegal act if a person were texting while completely
stopped.
Representative Gara agreed. He discussed that it was only a
crime if a vehicle was moving. He stressed that the intent
of the bill was not to throw innocent people in jail.
4:24:35 PM
Co-Chair Thomas opined the reality of people being injured
or killed because of texting while driving. He shared that
he pulled over to look at any texts that he received. He
did not believe officers should have the ability to text
while driving. He offered strong support for the
legislation.
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to adopt CS HB 255 (JUD), 27-
LS1165\T as a working document before the committee.
Representative Doogan directed attention to the
indeterminate fiscal note. He noted that indeterminate
fiscal notes made the committee's job much harder because
they know what was being agreed on in terms of cost. He
believed that people should even not talk on their cell
phones when driving. He urged support for the legislation.
Co-Chair Thomas asked the committee to zero out the
indeterminate fiscal note from the Public Defender Agency.
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to zero out the Public Defender
Agency fiscal note (OMB component number 1631). There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Representative Costello had signed on as a sponsor and was
in strong support of the bill.
4:30:26 PM
Co-Chair Thomas OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Thomas CLOSED public testimony.
Vice-chair Fairclough addressed the fiscal notes:
Department of Law, Department of Administration, Court
System, and Department of Corrections.
Co-Chair Thomas MOVED to report CS HB 255 (JUD), 27-
LS1165\T out of committee with individual recommendations
and the accompanying fiscal notes.
CSHB 255(JUD) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one zero fiscal note from the
Department of Law, one zero fiscal note for Department of
Administration by the House Finance Committee and three
previously published zero fiscal notes: FN1 (ADM), FN2
(COR), FN3 (CRT).
ADJOURNMENT
4:33:24 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 4:33 PM.