Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/31/2011 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB78 | |
| HB103 | |
| HB127 || HB175 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 78 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 103 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 127 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 175 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 31, 2011
1:36 p.m.
1:36:57 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Vice-Chair Fairclough called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:36 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Anna Fairclough, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas Jr., Co-Chair
Representative Mike Hawker (Alternate)
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman; Representative Bob Herron,
Sponsor; Liz Clement, Staff, Representative Bob Herron;
Karen Perdue, Executive Director and President, Alaska
State Hospital & Nursing Home Association; Shelley Hughes,
Alaska Primary Care Association, Palmer; Pat Carr, Program
Manager, Health Planning and Infrastructure, Division of
Health Care Services, Department of Health and Social
Services; Marie Darlin, Alaska Association of Retired
Persons; Delisa Culpepper, Chief Operating Officer, Alaska
Mental Health Trust Authority; Kate Burkhart, Executive
Director, Alaska Mental Health Board and Advisory Board on
Alcohol and Drug Abuse; Denise Daniello, Alaska Commission
on Aging; David Morgan, Southcentral Foundation; Jeff
Lapage, President of the Alaska Chapter of the American
Physical Therapy Association; Sara Fisher-Goad, Executive
Director, Alaska Energy Authority; Brian Bjorkquist, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law; Anne
Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Margaret Soden, President Alaska Pharmacists Association;
Rhonda Schneider, Norton Sound Health Corporation; Nancy
Davis, Executive Director, Alaska Pharmacists Association;
Ian Erlich, President and CEO, Maniilaq Association; Emily
Hughes; Sonia Handforth Kome, Executive Director, Iliuliuk
Family and Health Services and President, Alaska Primary
Care Association; Elizabeth Ripley, Executive Director,
MatSu Health Foundation, Wasilla; Mary Sullivan, Alaska
Primary Care Association; Elizabeth Sirles, Director, UAA
School of Social Work, Anchorage; Joan Diamond, Self,
Anchorage; Bob Penney, Soldotna; Becky Long, Talkeetna;
Jeff Lepage, President, Alaska Chapter Of the American
Physical Therapy Association, Juneau.
SUMMARY
HB 78 INCENTIVES FOR CERTAIN MEDICAL PROVIDERS
HB 78 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 103 POWER PROJECT; ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY
HB 103 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 127 CRIMES INVOLVING MINORS/STALKING/INFO
HB 127 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 175 COURT APPEARANCES; ARSON; INFRACTIONS
HB 175 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 78
"An Act establishing a loan repayment program and
employment incentive program for certain health care
professionals employed in the state; and providing for
an effective date."
1:38:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BOB HERRON, SPONSOR, explained that HB 78
had been crafted to create a support for service program to
attract medical professionals to Alaska. He stated that
Alaska was one of only four states that did not offer
incentives to keep healthcare providers in-state. Ideally,
market forces would provide the state with access to
quality care; this was not happening and was creating an
ever expanding need. The legislation was based on a 2007
proposal, assembled by a workgroup of the Alaska Primary
Care Council. He relayed that participating healthcare
providers could choose from two options: loan repayment or
a direct cash incentive. He believed that he the direct
incentive option would give Alaska the necessary edge to
lure well experienced, mid-career professionals to the
state.
Representative Herron shared that the federally funded
workforce support programs that the state currently
participated in did not support the needs unique to Alaska.
The legislation would create a string program curtailed to
Alaska and to Alaskans. He pointed out that the program
could show high return with a low amount of investment and
that similar programs, in over 46 states, had been found to
be effective.
Vice-chair Fairclough clarified that the committee was
working with the "R" version of the bill.
Representative Herron replied in the affirmative.
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute, work draft 27-LSO147\R.
Representative Edgmon OBJECTED for the purpose of
discussion.
1:42:12 PM
Representative Gara offered support for the concept of the
bill. He noted that the biggest physician shortage faced by
the state was in primary care. He understood that other
areas periodically faced shortages, but high wages
maintained the pool of specialists within the state. He
stated that if funds were limited, a priority for primary
care providers should be written into the bill.
Representative Herron agreed that the biggest shortage in
the state was affordable primary care providers. He said he
would work with the committee to improve the priority
process.
Representative Gara asked if the language prioritizing
primary care already existed in the legislation.
Representative Herron replied that prioritizing primary
care providers was his intention when crafting the
legislation.
Representative Wilson asked whether similar legislation
passed in other states had inspired the crafting of the
bill.
1:46:26 PM
LIZ CLEMENT, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BOB HERRON, referred the
question to members of the work group that assembled the
initial bill.
Representative Guttenberg referenced page 5 of the bill. He
wondered how the work group had established the 90 person
cap for program participants.
Vice-chair Fairclough requested clarification between the
original legislation and the R version currently before the
committee.
Representative Herron highlighted the changes. A conforming
change had been made on page 3, line 10: "lending
institution or to the eligible health care", this allowed
payment to the health care professional or the lending
institution.
Representative Edgmon REMOVED his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
1:50:26 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough opened public testimony
MARGARET SODEN, PRESIDENT ALASKA PHARMACISTS ASSOCIATION
(via teleconference), testified in strong support of the
legislation. She stressed that there were currently no
pharmacy schools located in Alaska, which forced students
to seek schooling out-of-state for up to six years. She
believed that providing the incentives would entice future
pharmacists to return to the state to practice.
RHONDA SCHNEIDER, NORTON SOUND HEALTH CORPORATION (via
teleconference), testified in support of HB 78. She shared
that her area of Nome, Alaska was particularly limited in
transportation because it was not on a road system. She
believed that the incentives written into the bill would
help with retention of care providers in the Nome area.
1:52:51 PM
NANCY DAVIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA PHARMACISTS
ASSOCIATION (via teleconference), voiced support for the
legislation. She reiterated that there were no programs in
the state to recruit and retain pharmacists. She
highlighted that pharmacists were necessary for the
responsible distribution and use of prescription drugs.
IAN ERLICH, PRESIDENT AND CEO, MANIILAQ ASSOCIATION (via
teleconference), testified in support of the legislation.
He expressed curiosity concerning the employer match
written into the legislation. Felt that the shortage of
care providers was an issue that needed to be addressed to
ensure the future of quality care in Alaska.
1:55:51 PM
Representative Wilson asked how many doctors were working
in Kotzebue and how many more would be required.
Mr. Erlich responded that there were 15 full-time positions
and currently 13 of those positions were filled.
Representative Herron thought that the language referring
to priority for those who served as primary care medical
providers could appropriately be written into page 2 of the
legislation.
Vice-chair Fairclough noted that the committee had not
intended to move the bill at this hearing. She stated that
there would be further opportunity to entertain amendments
about primary care providers and have a conversation
concerning the employer match.
Representative Gara if the shortage of care providers in
Kotzebue were located primary care.
Mr. Erlich replied yes.
1:58:25 PM
EMILY HUGHES (via teleconference) shared that she was a
pre-med student who would be applying to medical school in
2012. She voiced support for HB 78. She hoped to return to
the state after completing medical school but worried about
the financial debt. She stressed that a financial incentive
to return to Alaska would be helpful when deciding where to
practice in the future.
SONIA HANDFORTH KOME, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ILIULIUK FAMILY
AND HEALTH SERVICES AND PRESIDENT, ALASKA PRIMARY CARE
ASSOCIATION (via teleconference), testified in strong
support of the bill. She expressed that 15 positions in
Unalaska would be covered by the legislation; 5 of which
were currently open. One registered nurse (RN) position had
been open for over a year. She stressed that the
legislation would be extremely helpful in providing
services to the community.
ELIZABETH RIPLEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MATSU HEALTH
FOUNDATION, WASILLA (via teleconference), spoke in support
of HB 78. She testified that that recruitment of quality
care providers in rural areas was a challenge. She stated
that keeping people out of the hospital began with chronic
disease management in the primary care setting. She stated
the legislation would make significant improvements in
reducing the rate in the growth of Medicate cost in the
state.
2:03:12 PM
MARY SULLIVAN, ALASKA PRIMARY CARE ASSOCIATION (via
teleconference), spoke in support of HB 78.
ELIZABETH SIRLES, DIRECTOR, UAA SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in support of the
legislation. She stressed that there were serious workforce
shortages in all of the areas listed in HB 78. She
specifically cited the possible increase in behavioral
health providers that could result by passing the bill.
KAREN PERDUE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND PRESIDENT, ALASKA
STATE HOSPITAL & NURSING HOME ASSOCIATION, voiced support
of HB 78. She stated that rural hospitals struggled to
assist communities in recruiting providers of all kinds.
She commented that there were severe shortages in the
medical field across the board and not just for primary
care providers.
Representative Guttenberg asked about the urban hospital
structure versus regional healthcare. He wondered if the
bill was indifferent to the different needs throughout the
state.
2:07:22 PM
Ms. Perdue thought that the bill had evolved to try and
target the greatest area of need. She believed that the
bill was flexible to meeting the different strategic needs
of the state.
Representative Gara spoke to the draft amendment to the
bill. He thought that the best way to move forward was to
deal with the shortage in primary care first and use any
leftover funds in the other recognized areas.
Ms. Perdue responded that the medical sites were good at
prioritizing what they needed. She was concerned there
would not be funds left over for specialty services.
SHELLEY HUGHES, ALASKA PRIMARY CARE ASSOCIATION, PALMER,
testified in support of HB 78. She stated that as a
healthcare consumer in Mat-Su it had taken her eight months
to get an internal medicine physician through an
application process. She stressed the importance of the
legislation for the future of quality healthcare in the
state. She said that clinics in Alaska were losing
candidates to other states that offer incentives to
providers.
2:11:47 PM
PAT CARR, PROGRAM MANAGER, HEALTH PLANNING AND
INFRASTRUCTURE, DIVISION OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES testified in
support of the legislation.
Representative Wilson asked whether there was a model that
the working group for the bill had used as a guide.
Ms. Carr responded that the working group had done research
across the country; information had been drawn from various
states.
Representative Wilson wondered if other states had chosen
to make one care provider group a priority.
Ms. Carr responded that some repayment programs set
priority on particular types of providers, and the
definition of "primary care" differed among the programs.
Representative Guttenberg asked how many different
categories of doctor fell under the term "primary care
provider."
Ms. Carr explained that the definition depended on who you
asked, but most often the definition included categories of
physicians, dentists, behavioral health providers, and
certain types of clinical psychologists. She said that some
states added others as needed.
2:15:43 PM
Representative Gara reiterated the importance of retaining
enough primary care providers. He repeated his query as to
whether there was language in the bill to give priority to
primary care providers, or would an amendment be needed.
Ms. Carr responded that needs assessments would indicate
that primary care should be a priority in the state. She
thought the needs criteria allowed for analysis and
priority setting. She believed that because a
prioritization scheme had been used to draft the
legislation, some priority language should be in the bill
already.
MARIE DARLIN, ALASKA ASSOCIATION OF RETIRED PERSONS, spoke
in support of HB 78. She offered that most significant
factor related to retaining the states retired population
was availability of quality health care.
2:20:02 PM
DELISA CULPEPPER, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, ALASKA MENTAL
HEALTH TRUST AUTHORITY, testified in support of the bill.
She explained that the trust had been involved in loan
repayment programs for the last four years. She stressed
that there were serious behavioral healthcare provider
shortages in the state; close to half the applicants for
loan repayment were for those positions, including clinical
and social workers. She noted that the trust had many
beneficiaries who were also in need of primary care.
Representative Gara asked whether the loan repayment and
financial assistance in the bill applied specifically to
medical providers working for a non-profit clinic.
Ms. Culpepper said she was not sure. She believed that the
current program pertained to non-profit entities because it
was tied to federal money that was designated for public
and tribal clinics.
Representative Gara requested further information
concerning the question. He informed the committee that he
had no present intention of offering an amendment.
2:23:29 PM
KATE BURKHART, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA MENTAL HEALTH
BOARD AND ADVISORY BOARD ON ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE, spoke
in support of HB 78. She argued that the vacancy rate and
workforce shortage for behavioral health providers was
equally to that of primary care providers. She felt that an
amendment that created a statutory priority for primary
care providers would be unfair. She hoped that any
amendment would embrace a broad definition of primary care
to include behavioral healthcare providers. She pointed out
that there was an advisory body referenced in the bill that
would provide recommendations for oversight and evaluation
of the program. The advisory body would be composed of
individuals with expertise in hiring and retention of
healthcare professionals; she believed this would keep
priorities relevant without creating a statutory priority
for one kind of provider.
Representative Guttenberg asked if a subspecialty or
additional training was necessary for a behavioral health
specialist to practice using telemedicine.
Ms. Burkhart understood that it would depend on the type of
behavioral health provider. Alaska was more reliant on the
telemedicine system than many others and the system was not
a regular part of formal training.
2:27:09 PM
DENISE DANIELLO, ALASKA COMMISSION ON AGING, voiced support
of HB 78. She noted that Alaska was first in the nation in
the growth of its elder population. She stated that the
number of health care professional preparing to retire
would contribute to the shortage of healthcare workers in
the state. The commission had recently conducted a survey
which had identified healthcare as the number one concern
for seniors in the state. The survey had revealed that 31
percent of the seniors questioned had experienced problems
finding a primary care provider in the community in which
they lived. One part of the problem had been finding a
provider that would accept Medicare reimbursement, but 10
percent had noted that they could not find a doctor because
there were not enough in the community.
Ms. Daniello continued that the issue was most common in
Anchorage, where one out of four seniors had indicated a
problem accessing primary care. She reported that many open
ended comments from the seniors surveyed had warned that
seniors were prepared to leave the state in order to find a
primary care doctor.
DAVID MORGAN, SOUTHCENTRAL FOUNDATION, testified in support
of the bill. He believed that, in his 30 year experience
with healthcare in Alaska, the legislation would be
effective. He relayed that most states already had similar
programs and that Alaska should become competitive in the
field. He understood that the bill did not require a person
to work for a non-profit to benefit from the incentives.
2:32:53 PM
JOAN DIAMOND, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference)
testified in support of HB 78. She shared that she had a
daughter who was finishing her masters in the mental health
field and who hoped to return to Alaska.
JEFF LEPAGE, PRESIDENT OF THE ALASKA CHAPTER OF THE
AMERICAN PHYSICAL THERAPY ASSOCIATION testified in support
of HB 78. He stated that physical therapists in Alaska were
in support of the legislation.
Vice-chair Fairclough closed public testimony.
Representative Herron responded to an earlier question by
Representative Gara. Any organization that provided
healthcare services could benefit from the bill, however,
the "underserved" of the state were to be considered first.
Representative Gara felt that it would be unnecessary for
the committee to amend the legislation.
Representative Edgmon discussed the composition of the
advisory board on page 2 of the bill. He suggested that
rural Alaska should be specifically considered when
creating the board.
2:37:18 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough requested that the committee review
the fiscal notes.
HB 78 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 103
"An Act relating to the procurement of supplies,
services, professional services, and construction for
the Alaska Energy Authority; establishing the Alaska
Railbelt energy fund and relating to the fund;
relating to and repealing the Railbelt energy fund;
relating to the quorum of the board of the Alaska
Energy Authority; relating to the powers of the Alaska
Energy Authority regarding employees and the transfer
of certain employees of the Alaska Industrial
Development Export Authority to the Alaska Energy
Authority; relating to acquiring or constructing
certain projects by the Alaska Energy Authority;
relating to the definition of 'feasibility study' in
the Alaska Energy Authority Act; and providing for an
effective date."
2:38:34 PM
SARA FISHER-GOAD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA ENERGY
AUTHORITY, introduced HB 103 and offered an explanation of
the legislation:
On January 18, 2011, House Bill 103 (Companion Bill SH
42) was introduced by request of the Governor.
Alaska's Energy Policy target is to reach 50 percent
if its electricity generation through renewable energy
by 2015. A new large hydroelectric project is needed
to achieve this goal. This legislation would authorize
the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA to move forward on
pursuing such a project to supply electricity to the
railbelt region of the state. In November 2010, AEA
released its "Preliminary Decision Document"
identifying the Susitna Hydroelectric project as the
recommended project to pursue. CS HB 103 (ENE)
requires passage this session in order for AEA to file
preliminary permit application for the Susitna
(Wantana location) project with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission this year.
The House Energy committee amended HB 103 by removing
AEA's ability to adopt its own procurement regulations
and amending the new Alaska Railbelt Energy Fund by
requiring legislative appropriation from the fund.
Minor technical corrections and edits by Legislative
Legal Division were also made to the bill. AEA has no
objection to the changes.
CS HB 103 (ENE) authorizes AEA to 1) acquire,
construct and own new power projects 2) hire staff in
exempt service 3) create subsidiary corporations for
the purpose of acquiring, construction, owning,
maintaining and operating power projects 4) creates a
new Alaska Railbelt Energy Fund in AEA and 4) defines
the Board of Director's quorum as four of seven
members.
Ms. Fisher-Goad explained that developing an Alaska
Railbelt Energy Fund in AEA statutes had been a challenge.
She added that restructuring of the Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) had resulted in
the restructuring of the AEA board; 5 public members and 2
commissioners. There had been a specific AEA statute that
defined the quorum as 3 and there was a provision to
correct the number.
Ms. Fisher-Goad provided history of the AEA. She shared
that the mission of the authority was to reduce the cost of
energy in Alaska. In the 1980s the AEA developed and owned
several energy projects: the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric
Project, the Alaska Intertie and the Larson Bay
Hydroelectric Project. At that time the first attempt to
develop the Susitna Hydroelectric Project had been
considered. In 1993 a reorganization effort removed the
power of constructing and owning new projects form the AEA.
The AIDEA board members became the AEA board and AIDEA
staff provided support and management of AEA programs. In
1999 the Department of Community and Regional Affairs had
been repealed in statute and former AEA programs were
reestablished into AEA. In the early 2000's most of AEA's
work was in rural energy construction projects which
received funding primarily from the Denali Commission. In
2008 the AIDEA and AEA boards made bylaw changes to allow
an AEA executive to be hired that was different from the
AIDEA executive director. In 2008 the Renewable Energy Fund
was established and in 2010 the Emerging Energy Technology
Fund was established. The AEA had been identified by the
governor as playing a key role in planning energy
infrastructure and financing projects. The legislation had
been introduced to further reestablish and recognized in
statute AEA's role in energy project and program
development.
2:44:33 PM
Ms. Fisher-Goad reiterated that the legislation allowed AEA
to construct and own new projects. She relayed that there
were approximately 40 people that were AIDEA employees that
would be transferred to AEA. She pointed out to the
committee that the provision to allow AEA to adopt its own
procurement regulations had been dropped. The ideas had
been that there were several ways for AEA to procure
services and that one consolidated regulatory process would
do. She said that there had been confusion as to how the
consolidation would be done which was deflecting time from
the Susitna project. The amended legislation also required
a legislative appropriation from the Alaska Railbelt Energy
Fund.
2:48:25 PM
BRIAN BJORKQUIST, SENIOR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, provided a sectional analysis (copy on
file):
· Section 1: Would expressly authorize the legislature
to appropriate amounts in the Railbelt energy fund to
capitalize the new Railbelt energy fund, called the
Alaska Railbelt energy fund, created by Section 3 of
the bill. This would allow amounts to be appropriated
and transferred from the existing Railbelt Energy fund
into the new fund.
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT CSHB 103(ENE), 27-
GH1822\B as a working document before the committee.
Representative Doogan OBJECTED for purpose of discussion.
Mr. Bjorkquist continued:
· Section 2: Would place in the exempt service the
executive director and other staff of AEA.
· Section 3: Would establish the new Railbelt energy
fund, called the Alaska Railbelt energy fund of AEA.
The legislature may appropriate money from the fund
for feasibility studies, license, permit, acquire or
construct, or to make grants for power projects and
electric transmission lines and interties that serve
the Railbelt region.
· Section 4: Would increase from 3 to 4 the quorum
requirement for meetings of the AEA board of directors
in reaction to statutory amendments made in 2010.
Those amendments increased the size of the AIDEA board
from 5 to 7. The AIDEA board serves as the board of
AEA. The proposed amendment would correct the quorum
for meetings of AEA's board of directors.
· Section 5: Would empower AEA to hire employees and
advisors in the exempt service. This power to hire
employees would be equivalent to powers the Alaska
Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA)
currently possesses.
Representative Gara understood that the "exempt" status
carried equal weight in both organizations.
Mr. Bjorkquist replied that the employees maintained equal
status as exempt employees.
2:52:53 PM
Mr. Bjorkquist continued with sectional analysis:
· Section 6: Would expand AEA's powers to allow AEA to
acquire and construct new projects, and to conduct
feasibility studies of new power projects.
· Sections 7: Would empower AEA to establish subsidiary
corporations to support the acquisition, construction,
ownership, and operation of power projects, and
thereby potentially limit potential liability of AEA
or strengthen the financial viability of a project.
· Section 8: Would enable an AEA subsidiary to exercise
powers currently granted to AEA under AS 44.83.090.
For example, an AEA subsidiary would be exempt from
regulation by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska
(RCA) to the same extent as AEA is exempt (but
utilities contracting with the AEA subsidiary would
not be exempted, and RCA would still need to approve
power sales agreements between the AEA subsidiary and
the Railbelt utilities).
2:57:18 PM
Mr. Bjorkquist continued to discuss the sequential
sectional analysis:
· Section 9: Would provide that AEA must exercise for
new power projects, existing statutory authority
managing power projects. This obligation is currently
limited to power projects from the pre-1993, "former
energy program for Alaska."
· Section 10: Would make AS 44.83.396 apply to AEA
subsidiaries that own power projects. AS 44.83.393
addresses how AEA administers the power project and
contracts for operators, and includes provisions
providing for AEA to contract with qualified utilities
for the operation of the project. The amendment in
Section 10 will impose these same duties on a
subsidiary of AEA formed for a power project.
· Section 11: Would amend the definition of "feasibility
study" under AS 44.83.990(3) so that the term is not
limited to only pre-1993 power projects.
Mr. Bjorkquist noted that previous public testimony had
suggested that the statutory definition for feasibility
study should go back to the language that existed before
1993 and have very detailed provisions dealing with what
needed to be included within a feasibility study. In
reviewing the regulations that existed in 1993, it was
apparent that the provisions dealing with all aspects of
developing a power project had been aimed at the FERC
licensing process (traditional licensing process). He
explained that the new process was considered to be better
because of the coordination between the licensing
applicant, stakeholders and interested parties, resource
agencies and FERC. He stated that reverting to earlier
process would not be appropriate with the new licensing
process. In addition, AEA was evaluating projects
differently than in the past.
3:01:56 PM
Mr. Bjorkquist continued:
· Section 12: Would repeal the existing Railbelt energy
fund, AS 37.05.520. This repeal would become effective
under Section 15 when the balance of the fund is
appropriated to AEA for deposit into the new Alaska
Railbelt energy fund (created by Section 3), or
appropriated and expended on projects.
· Section 13: Would provide transitional provisions to
address the status of existing employees who perform
AEA functions with the Alaska Industrial Development
Export Authority. AEA has not possessed the statutory
authority to hire its own staff since the
reorganization of AEA affected by 1993 legislation
(ch. 18, SLA 1993). Since the 1993 legislation, AEA
programs have been implemented by AIDEA employees.
AEA's executive director, for example, is an employee
of AIDEA, but is independent from the executive
director of AIDEA. Sections 2 and 5 would authorize
AEA to hire its own employees, and thereby assume
greater control over the implementation of AEA
programs. Section 13 provides for the transition of
these employees from AIDEA to AEA.
· Section 14: Would instruct the revisor of statutes to
amend the statutory heading of AS 44.83.040 to reflect
that the section would also address AEA employees.
· Section 15: Would make the repeal of the existing
Railbelt energy fund, AS 37.05.520, contingently
effective when the balance of the fund is appropriated
to AEA for deposit into the new Alaska Railbelt energy
fund (created by Section 3), or appropriated and
expended on projects.
· Section 16: Would provide for an immediate effective
date, excepting the contingent effective date for
repeal of the existing Railbelt energy fund.
Vice-chair Fairclough opened public testimony.
Representative Gara recalled a comprehensive energy bill
passed in 2010 which created a revolving loan fund to help
businesses upgrade energy efficiency. At that time many
thought the bill should be inside AEA since AEA already had
the staff to address building energy efficiency. He asked
whether AEA would be supportive of amendment to move the
function to AEA.
Ms. Fisher-Goad replied that AEA would willingly work with
the legislature to address the commercial energy efficiency
loan issue. She clarified that SB 220 was a repeal and
reenactment of an existing loan program within the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development
(DCCED). The fund remained with DCCED and was not
capitalized. Changes to the program with respect as to
where the loan program should exist were still being
considered. She did not believe that HB 103 was the
appropriate vehicle for the issue.
3:06:28 PM
Ms. Fisher-Goad shared that AEA had an energy efficiency
audit pilot program that had been started with ARRA funds
and had proven successful. She believed that AEA could
build upon it with respect to addressing commercial energy
efficiency needs.
Representative Gara asked if AEA was willing to move the
fund through different legislation, or had the authority
not yet decided how to move forward with the issue.
Ms. Fisher-Goad replied AEA was working to address the
issue and were exploring the options of how the fund should
be structured. She said that there had been concerns about
the existing language passed in SB 220.
Representative Gara asked whether AEA wanted to house the
program.
Ms. Fisher-Goad answered that it was not that AEA did not
want to house the project. She stressed that AEA needed to
do more work on the appropriate structure and owner of the
program. She felt that the agency had not had enough time
to address the issue.
Representative Wilson asked if the Railbelt Energy Fund was
currently used by most of the cooperatives in the state.
Ms. Fisher-Goad responded that the fund had a long history
that included more than just energy projects. She
understood that the original capitalization of the fund was
remaining money from the original efforts with the Susitna
project. The fund had been used for a variety of projects,
not always necessarily energy projects.
3:10:35 PM
Representative Wilson requested a listing of specific funds
that were being paid out to specific projects and what AEA
hoped to accomplish into the future.
Ms. Fisher-Goad stated that a history of the fund, as
requested by Co-Chair Stoltze, was available. She clarified
that the capital appropriation in capital budget was the
unencumbered balance of the existing Railbelt Energy Fund.
Representative Edgmon referred to the passage of HB 119,
which expanded AIDEA's authority relating to economic
development. He highlighted that AIDEA had the ability to
bond up to $400 million. He wondered why the power project
was not housed under AIDEA.
Ms. Fisher-Goad replied that in 2008 the intent was to
further distinguish AEA's mission as a corporation. She
relayed that AIDEA was a sister corporations to AEA and
should remain separate and distinct. The mission of AIDEA
was one of jobs and economic development. The two executive
directors were created with the intention that AIDEA and
AEA would pursue their missions separately.
Representative Edgmon hoped that the AEA could grow into a
recognized government department.
3:14:33 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked for a list of opportunities
for public comment on the project throughout the process.
Ms. Fisher-Goad said that the development of the
preliminary decision document had included a public hearing
process through the Railbelt. She assured the committee
that the legislation allowed for the public hearing
process.
Representative Doogan WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being no further OBJECTION CSHB 103(ENE), 27-GH1822\B
was ADOPTED as a working document before the committee.
Vice-chair Fairclough opened public testimony.
BOB PENNEY, SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), testified in
support for HB 103. He provided a brief history of the
project. He believed that the project should be funded in
full with state dollars.
3:23:51 PM
BECKY LONG, TALKEETNA (via teleconference), spoke in
opposition to HB 103. She opined that there had been a lack
of public hearing by AEA in the affected communities. She
stressed that there needed to be a meaningful, public
review on the state level, for the project. She expressed
concern that the state was committing significant financial
resources to one project. She felt that the AEA should be
required to conduct a state public process regarding the
Susitna project, and that an independent financial review
of the cost benefits of the proposal that reflected the
true overall cost of the project. She added that the
Talkeetna area would be the first area that would feel the
economic ramifications. She shared that studies had shown
that a 50 percent improvement in railbelt electrical
efficiencies could generate up to a $947 million increase
in economic output, $290 million in wages, $53 million in
business income and 9350 new jobs. She testified that she
was opposed to the Susitna project. She said that public
testimony for HB 103 had been the only means for the public
to express their opposition to the Susitna project.
3:29:51 PM
Representative Edgmon commented that talks with the AEA had
revealed that there would be further public involvement in
the process.
Representative Gara shared his frustration that there would
be significant impact to fisheries because of the Susitna
project. He stated that he had written AEA and the
Department of Fish and Game and they had replied that the
fisheries impacts had not been fully assessed at the time.
He wondered how an impact report could be determined
without a thorough assessment.
Vice-chair Fairclough closed public testimony.
Representative Gara pointed out that the bill did not
mention the Susitna project specifically but did allude to
it. He wondered whether the committee would have the
opportunity to delve into the economics of the Susitna
project before passing the bill.
Vice-chair Fairclough responded that it would be up to the
discretion of the chair.
Representative Gara pointed out to the committee that the
bill would move $67 million to AEA and that the governor
had announced he would use the money to start up work on
the Susitna Hydro project. He surmised that the legislation
was directly linked to the Susitna project. He felt that
debates surrounding HB 103 would be the only tome the
committee would have the opportunity to discuss the
economics of the project.
3:34:21 PM
Representative Doogan requested the official name of the
project at Susitna.
Ms. Fisher-Goad replied that the AEA referred to the
project as both the Susitna and Wantana projects; the two
were interchangeable in some respects. The site for the
project was at Wantana. She added that the bill did not
appropriate $67 million to the AEA; the capital
appropriation would AEA to move forward with the
preliminary permit application and the licensing and design
process. She offered that the FERC process could be further
discussed at the convenience of the committee.
Representative Doogan understood that the $67 million was
going to be used exclusively for work on Susitna/Wantana
project.
Ms. Fisher-Goad clarified that there were two items that
would allow AEA to move forward on the project: the
legislation and capital appropriation. She stressed that HB
103 would not move the funds. The governor's capital budget
proposed $65.7 million to AEA, as capital appropriation, to
move forward with the project.
Vice-chair Fairclough closed public testimony.
HB 103 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 127
"An Act relating to the crimes of stalking, online
enticement of a minor, unlawful exploitation of a
minor, endangering the welfare of a child, sending an
explicit image of a minor, harassment, distribution of
indecent material to minors, and misconduct involving
confidential information; relating to probation; and
providing for an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 175
"An Act relating to an appearance before a judicial
officer after arrest; relating to penalties for
operating a vehicle without possessing proof of motor
vehicle liability insurance or a driver's license;
relating to penalties for certain arson offenses;
amending Rule 5(a)(1), Alaska Rules of Criminal
Procedure, and Rule 43.10, Alaska Rules of
Administration; and providing for an effective date."
3:37:46 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES
SECTION, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, understood
that two bills had been combined into one committee
substitute. She offered her insight and expertise to the
committee concerning the legislation.
Vice-chair Fairclough explained that CSHB 127(FIN) was
before the committee which combined HB 127 and HB 175.
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT CSHB 127(FIN), Work
Draft 27-GH1840\I as a working document before the
committee.
Representative Edgmon OBJECTED for the purpose of
discussion.
Representative Doogan requested an explanation of the
combined bills.
Ms. Carpeneti explained that earlier in the session the
governor had introduced HB 127 which addressed stalking,
exploitation of children and related crimes.
Representative Doogan asked whether changes had been made
to the individual bills when the two were combined.
Ms. Carpeneti stated that HB 175 discussed four
inconsistencies between state statutes and court rules.
Discussions in House Judiciary Committee had resulted in
the recommendation that the two pieces of legislation be
combined. She relayed that a sectional analysis of CSHB
127(FIN) was available to the committee that would reveal
that substantive changes had not been made to the
individual bills upon combination.
3:41:13 PM
Representative Edgmon REMOVED his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Vice-chair Fairclough OPENED public testimony.
Vice-chair Fairclough CLOSED public testimony.
HB 127 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 175 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
3:43:09 PM
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:43 PM.