02/18/1998 01:05 PM House JUD

Audio	Topic

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled

Schedule
Detailed Minutes
Documents
Doc

txt

HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE February 18, 1998 1:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Joe Green, Chairman Representative Con Bunde, Vice Chairman Representative Brian Porter Representative Norman Rokeberg Representative Eric Croft Representative Ethan Berkowitz MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Jeannette James COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 336 "An Act relating to eligibility for power cost equalization." - MOVED CSHB 336(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE * HOUSE BILL NO. 272 "An Act to permit a court to order a defendant who receives a sentence of imprisonment for a misdemeanor to serve the sentence by electronic monitoring; and relating to the crime of unlawful evasion." - MOVED CSHB 272(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 336 SHORT TITLE: ELIGIBILITY FOR POWER COST EQUALIZATION SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) KUBINA, Kott Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 01/20/98 2090 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)

01/20/98 2090 (H) CRA, JUDICIARY, FINANCE 02/04/98 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124 02/04/98 (H) MINUTE(CRA) 02/06/98 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124 02/06/98 (H) MINUTE(CRA) 02/06/98 2235 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) 3DP 3NR 02/06/98 2235 (H) DP: JOULE, IVAN, KOOKESH; NR: OGAN, 02/06/98 2235 (H) SANDERS, DYSON 02/06/98 2235 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DCRA) 02/06/98 2248 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOTT 02/18/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 272 SHORT TITLE: DO JAIL TIME BY ELECTRONIC MONITORING SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) GREEN Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 05/06/97 1553 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 05/06/97 1553 (H) JUDICIARY

01/21/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120

01/21/98 (H) MINUTE(JUD)

01/26/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120

01/26/98 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 02/18/98 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120 WITNESS REGISTER REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 404 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4859 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 336. JIM ROBERTS, General Manager Cordova Electric Cooperative, Incorporated P.O. Box 20 Cordova, Alaska 99574 Telephone: (907) 424-5555 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 336. HAP SYMMONDS, Plant Manager Ocean Beauty Seafoods; Vice President, Board of Directors Cordova Electric Cooperative, Incorporated P.O. Box 2646 Cordova, Alaska 99574 Telephone: (907) 424-5933 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 336. ERIC YOULD, Executive Director Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative Association 703 West Tudor Road, Suite 200 Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Telephone: (907) 561-6103 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 336. PERCY FRISBY, Director Division of Energy Department of Community and Regional Affairs 333 West 4th Avenue, Suite 220 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-2341 Telephone: (907) 269-4640 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 336. KEVIN JARDELL, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Representative Joe Green Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 118 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-4990 POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 272 on behalf of sponsor. ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General Legal Services Section-Juneau Criminal Division Department of Law P.O. Box 110300 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300 Telephone: (907) 465-3428 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 272; suggested amendments. ALLEN J. COOPER, Deputy Director Division of Institutions Department of Corrections 4500 Diplomacy Drive, Suite 207 Anchorage, Alaska 99508-5918 Telephone: (907) 269-7411 POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 272. JAYNE ANDREEN, Executive Director Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Department of Public Safety P.O. Box 111200 Juneau, Alaska 99811-1200 Telephone: (907) 465-4356 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 272. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 98-19, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Green, Bunde, Porter and Rokeberg. Representatives Berkowitz and Croft arrived at 1:07 p.m. and 1:08 p.m., respectively. Representative James was excused. HB 336 - ELIGIBILITY FOR POWER COST EQUALIZATION [Three microphones were out of order during this meeting, and some portions are difficult to hear on the tape.] Number 0033 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the first item of business would be HB 336, "An Act relating to eligibility for power cost equalization." Number 0041 REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA, sponsor, advised members that he represents District 35 and the community of Cordova. Before coming to the legislature, he had served for five years on the board of directors for the Copper Valley Electric Cooperative. A previous bill of his, passed by the legislature, had related to power line extensions. He has worked with the community of Cordova on trying to find a way to lower their electric base. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA told members that with power cost equalization (PCE), the individual's rate is lowered. However, PCE really does nothing for business. For example, Cordova's many fish processors, that community's main industry, have very high rates and are therefore looking for ways to get alternative energy. Representative Kubina cited a hydroelectric project that wouldn't be a dam but that would funnel water in-line to a turbine. They have been working with U.S. Senator Stevens and have about $4 million appropriated from the federal government. Although the cost will be $15 million, they hope to get federal and state grants and then propose to give up $750,000 per year in PCE. By getting this going, they could lower their rates. Number 0221 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA referred to the individual residential rate and explained, "They have promised them that their rates will not go up with this project, but they would be able to go down to about where they are at the subsidized rate now." However, he said, they would be able to lower the business rates, which would help immensely in providing jobs for the community. This bill sets up that program. A utility receiving PCE may apply to the state for a grant, which for this situation would be $7.5 million, and for up to ten years of PCE. Once granted that, they would build an alternate energy project. After that project is done, six months later they would no longer be eligible for PCE. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA explained that it is a trade-off, with capital costs provided and ten years' worth of PCE. But as soon as they get this project done, they will be off PCE. It is an incentive for communities, worded to also apply to geothermal or wind projects, "anything to get off this shipping out diesel fuel." Number 0337 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA concluded, "I recognize that the money part of this is not even in this bill, and that is something that is in the Finance Committee and obviously will be part of this whole mix. The bill that we have before us just sets up this program in statute, to allow it to happen if the legislature appropriates the money." Number 0369 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE said he applauds the efforts of communities to get away from PCE. Noting the ongoing discussions about whether that will continue, however, he asked what would happen if this bill passed, Cordova got ten years of guaranteed PCE, and in two years the legislature cut off the PCE program. He suggested the community would actually get a little extra PCE in that case. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA concurred that there is no guarantee PCE will be funded in any year. However, if they'd had a program like this in place 10 or 15 years ago, many people would have been off of PCE. He suggested it isn't fair to say they don't if it will exist next year or ten years from now but still not address the problem. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA told members there has been a helter-skelter energy policy in Alaska for a long time. For example, Valdez has a dam that some believe actually keeps rates a little higher; they pay a high cost but are not eligible for PCE because of it. In contrast, the Railbelt has a lot of money for energy projects. Representative Kubina again agreed there is no guarantee PCE will continue, adding, "But I still think that we should go forward as best we can to help economic development of the state and diversify our economy. And doing the best we can to get people in the rural areas to have energy that comes closer to what the Railbelt energy is will help diversify that economy and make people more self-sufficient and se Number 0581 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked whether there has been discussion of a local match. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA replied that there has been discussion on this project for many years. One reason it hasn't been built yet is that it will not meet year-round needs; diesel generation will still be necessary. Without grant money, they couldn't tell the people they provide energy to that their rates will be as low as with PCE. People in the community haven't wanted to build a project that would result in higher rates. Number 0687 REPRESENTATIVE ERIC CROFT referred to the 75 percent and the fact that the project wouldn't carry the entire electrical need. He asked about that and mentioned the match. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA explained that at certain times of year when the river is flowing, the project will supply all needs. But in winter, they will need diesel generation, which the utility will still pay for, but at a much higher rate. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said there will be no PCE money to cover that. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA concurred. He indicated the community is willing to give up that $750,000. Number 0762 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated his understanding that average consumers would pay about the same as they pay now; although they would pay more in the cold months, they could pay less in the warmer months, so the total cost would be a wash. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA replied that the total bill they would pay is the same as what they pay with the PCE subsidy. He noted that Valdez has a similar situation, with a hydroelectric project that doesn't provide all the energy for Valdez; at times of the year, it doesn't work because there isn't enough water. He told members that the PCE law contains a stipulation that if they put in hydroelectric power, they are no longer eligible for PCE. He suggested that should have been carried forward with an offer to help built a hydroelectric project if that will help take that community off the PCE. That is what this bill does. Number 0871 REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG asked whether there is a provision built into the companion bill for failure of the legislature to fund the PCE in the future. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA explained that the other bill that would go with this merely says that according to the provision, that is a $7.5 million appropriated for this project. He stated, "Let's say, though, that there's no intention, really, of passing that bill. It was just a mechanism to go along with this, to discuss it, and if there is any money that would go for this project, we'd go through the normal budget process, ... through the capital budget, with the stipulations, you know, that the legislature set according to this program." Number 0909 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked, "Strategically, for the folks in your district and Cordova, what you would like to do is basically pass this particular bill, and then work on the appropriation as a separate item and endeavor to get a capital appropriation; is that correct?" REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said that is correct. Number 0927 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated his understanding that there is a little pool of PCE money in an endowed account now or something. He asked, "You're not going to ask to reach into that money?" REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said the appropriation bill he'd introduced with this just says "general funds." He doesn't want to do anything that would have other small communities that depend on PCE think they are being attacked; some of those communities may want it even more than Cordova, and they might be paying 50 cents a kilowatt hour without PCE. "So, I did not specify anything like that," Representative Kubina concluded. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether the 75 percent of the total electric load in HB 336 is essentially to accommodate the circumstances in this particular project. He asked whether the problem relates to the reservoir not being big enough. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA explained that some people had felt that if PCE was removed, a project like this should be a full 100 percent of what they are providing. However, he had felt that was asking too much and that if they could get their rate down to what the PCE rate was, it was fair to give up PCE. Representative Kubina concluded that for Cordova, that number seems to work. However, a different number may be better elsewhere. Number 1051 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, requesting correction if he got the nomenclature wrong, suggested that in power generation there is normally a need for "what is called a spinning reserve, other reserves that are behind your ability to meet your demand load at one point in time, in case there's spikes in the load." He posited that rural Alaskan communities would have generation capacity less than that and which could never meet an "engineered spinning reserve load." He suggested this is another argument for having less than 100 percent. He asked Representative Kubina to define what 100 percent of load means, saying it means different things to different people, especially taking into account something like the spinning reserve. Noting Chairman Green's background, he asked whether this is on the right track. CHAIRMAN GREEN replied, "Somewhat, yes. I think that's a little different, but I understand what you're coming from." Number 1122 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that in the Nineteenth Alaska Legislature, he and Representative Ogan passed a bill that set up a leasing program for shallow gas development. He asked, "Because of the proximity to Katalla and maybe some other known potential gas reserves in the Cordova area and Prince William Sound, is there any possibility that any gas could be found, explored, or it might create another alternative to this particular thing and may even be more prospective? Do you know if they've looked into that?" Number 1161 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA replied that a road is being designed right now by the Chugach Native Corporation to go into that area. However, that is probably five years down the line. He indicated that ARCO Alaska, Incorporated, in particular, has shown great interest there. Representative Kubina said testimony would show that the community already has permits for this project, and the engineering is done. He pointed out that this is a renewable resource that will always be there. Number 1210 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA referred to a previous question and advised members that Version H, not yet adopted, changes the language from "supplies more than 75 percent" to "is designed to supply more than 75 percent." Someone applying for this grant will do so under this section. He stated, "And it's very clear that when you apply under this section, you are no longer going to have PCE once it's done, so that nobody can try to weasel out on this 75 percent level." Number 1250 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ suggested one collateral benefit of this program is priming the pump of the local economy by doing a construction project there. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA answered that the construction project itself is always good for any community. The main benefit, however, is lower electrical costs for the fish processors, which will provide long-term employment. Cordova has been a fishing town for a very long time but has lost processors to other places, including Valdez, because of cheaper rates. Representative Kubina stated, "They've worked, they've deregulated themselves so to try to give the best rate they can, but they have to make enough to pay for that diesel oil." He added that getting this project will do much towards sustaining the fish processing in the community. Number 1301 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented that it seems there is a wider benefit than simply weaning a community from PCE. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE suggested that enough opposition had existed there to stop logging. He asked what level of support there is in Cordova for expanding economic development. He further asked how big an impact this fish processor has, as a guaranteed purchaser of potential electrical energy, in a time of worldwide instability of fish prices. Number 1402 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said that both Native corporations have had logging operations going on for some time. While it has caused some debates and disagreements in the communities, he doesn't believe those corporations stopped because of that. As for the road planned towards the Katalla area, the first project out there will be a logging operation that the community is well aware of. Representative Kubina maintained, however, that Cordova's long-term base is fishing. While the price of fish doesn't help, he said that everything we can do to lower electric costs, so they can better compete with Chilean fish, is to our advantage as a state. Number 1461 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE responded that he doesn't disagree, but the question is what happens to this plan if that processor goes away. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA explained that there are at least four processors, three of which are major processors that employ a lot of people during the season. He said they have offered them the best rate they can to keep open in the winter, to process pollock, for example, or to attract cod fisheries to come onshore; they are trying to expand beyond salmon, to operate year-round. He suggested that testifiers from the community could speak to that. Number 1521 CHAIRMAN GREEN said that is a good point. He noted that the major resources of timber, fish and hydrocarbons are all subject to fluctuations, although the state has often weathered those. He asked if there were further questions of the sponsor, then called upon testifiers from Cordova who were present. Number 1569 JIM ROBERTS, General Manager, Cordova Electric Cooperative, Incorporated (CEC), told members that CEC's debt service is one of the highest in the state. They had become a cooperative in 1978, prior to which they were a municipally-owned utility. Consequently, they could not qualify for federal funding at the lower interest rate and had had to borrow money. Their average cost of power in 1997 was more than 20 cents per kilowatt hour; with grant financing, the projected cost would be lowered to an average of 15.8 cents per kilowatt hour, quite a savings. Canneries, for example, would then be on a par with Seward and other communities that have access to the Railbelt energy, which he indicated is their objective. MR. ROBERTS referred to the project status, indicating they had received the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license on December 24. They had been going through the licensing process and working on this since 1992. He indicated they've said all along that if they could get 50 percent funding from the state, they would be willing to give up PCE. Mr. Roberts commented that in addition to logging, Cordova will have cruise ships this year for the first time, which will provide a new industry. He said the CEC has received $4 million in grants from the federal government and is lined up for an additional $3.5 million this year; they are basically trying to finance the whole project with grant funds. Number 1718 REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER asked whether the estimated $7.5 million in state contributions is on top of the additional $3.5 they are trying to get from the federal government. MR. ROBERTS said yes. The total project cost is $15 million. They are looking at $7.5 million from the state. They've already received $4 million from the federal government and are in for an additional $3.5 million. They have already set up a line of credit with their supplemental lenders because they are basically set to start this spring. Number 1774 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated his understanding that the CEC would have no capital costs in this. He asked about the transmission lines, for example. CHAIRMAN GREEN said they are existing. [Mr. Roberts' reply was indiscernible.] REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that the lowered per-kilowatt-hour cost would be 15.82 cents. He said testimony he'd heard that morning was that the statewide average cost is slightly more than 10.4 cents per kilowatt hour. He asked whether that is right. MR. ROBERTS replied that he believes that what they receive through PCE is lower. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated his understanding that the 15.8 cents excludes any PCE. Number 1833 MR. ROBERTS concurred. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that he'd be a little disappointed if it wasn't lower than that, particularly if there was no capital cost. He then asked the reason for the requested six-month delay in the cessation of PCE in the bill. MR. ROBERTS pointed out that peak production from the river is in the summertime, the CEC's highest load period. If the project comes on-line in fall or winter, they won't have 100 percent of what they need out of it, because the water isn't there. Therefore, this is a transition period. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated his understanding, with round numbers, that there is a $15 million package, with $7 million from PCE. The grants from various governments would be a local contribution. MR. ROBERTS said that is basically correct. Right now, they have a $1 million loan through the state Division of Energy, used for permitting. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE suggested that $1 million loan is a local contribution, and the rest would come from grants. MR. ROBERTS noted that to date, they have spent approximately $350,000 that is not reimbursable under the grants. Number 1912 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether essentially 25 percent would be generated with diesel year-round, with a big increase in both hydroelectric power and in the load during the summer. MR. ROBERTS said no. They got a small hydroelectric wheel in 1991; depending on rainfall, that provides 10 to 15 percent of their needs right now. This additional hydroelectric power will cover all community needs during the summertime. However, during the winter, that will drop off and must be supplemented with diesel. Number 1956 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that he had been to Cordova this past summer for the Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative Association (ARECA) convention. He had seen a huge, expensive machine digging an underground electrical service wire over some five or six miles, with two houses at the end of this road. He asked who financed that and what the purpose is. MR. ROBERTS answered that they had borrowed money through the federal Rural Utility Service (RUS) for a line extension and upgrade, putting lines underground. He indicated there are more than two houses out there, and there is a new subdivision. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that loan is in their rate base. MR. ROBERTS concurred. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked who had financed the small hydroelectric project mentioned earlier. MR. ROBERTS replied that there was a $1.5 million debt from a supplemental lender, and he believes there were state grants also. Number 2048 HAP SYMMONDS, Plant Manager, Ocean Beauty Seafoods; Vice President, Board of Directors, Cordova Electric Cooperative, Incorporated, came forward to testify, indicating his company is the largest private employer in Cordova. He characterized HB 336 as a vehicle that provides a win/win situation. It allows communities to seek alternatives to diesel generation, and it allows the state to wean Bush and rural communities from PCE. MR. SYMMONDS discussed the importance of non-Railbelt communities having access to competitively priced electrical services, suggesting that Cordova's Power Creek hydroelectric project will save the state more than $700,000 per year in PCE, as well as save over one million gallons of diesel fuel. The reduction in the cost of electricity will help Cordova processors be more competitive with other processors in Alaska. Mr. Symmonds concluded, "The amount of PCE received by industry is insignificant, and it is the lower power cost of the hydro project which is of the greatest importance." Number 2113 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked Mr. Symmonds if he is aware of any other area that has a project which would take advantage of this bill, or if this is basically a Cordova bill at this point. MR. SYMMONDS said although it is a Cordova bill now, it is a vehicle that could fund wind generation, hydroelectric generation or other alternate energy projects that would fit into the rural communities' needs. Number 2143 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated his understanding that this is the general bill, which could apply to any plant, anywhere, for any type of electrical generation. MR. SYMMONDS agreed, adding that HB 337 would set out funding for the Power Creek project. Number 2174 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked how many jobs per year they can provide. He also inquired about the fishing season. MR. SYMMONDS stated his belief that the fishing season will be as good as or better than the previous year. He indicated his company provides more than 250 jobs in the community, noting that they have a one-million-pound cold storage in town that hasn't operated since 1992 because of the cost of electricity. He told members that as a company, they would like to do much more value-added production in Cordova. He pointed out that their electrical costs in Cordova are approximately 20 percent of the entire overhead of the plant annually, a very significant number. Number 2215 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked for confirmation that the $750,000 annual savings to the state, mentioned earlier, wouldn't be realized for ten years, because there would be ten years of PCE. MR. SYMMONDS replied, "I don't know if I'm the one to speak to this, but ... I feel that the legislature's going to have to do something for the rural communities. We can all sit here and say that PCE is going to run out. Many of the rural communities are not going to be able to afford essential services without some sort of help from the state government, be it called PCE or whatever. ... In some form, this program is going to continue. We're just saying that given a grant to the City of Cordova, we, as your largest customer, will go away. That money will be available for other rural communities. Hopefully, with Representative Kubina's bill, other communities will take a look at the same type of thing. ... I'm quite sure that they don't want to be hung on this type of financing on an annual basis. If they could set up some sort of a project that would get them off PCE, I'm sure that there are a number of communities that ... would do that. And HB 336 sets that mechanism into place." Number 2323 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he doesn't disagree but is trying to get a handle on the amount of money the state would save. Giving it with one hand instead of the other is still providing money. He agreed that after ten years the state would realize some savings, but not until then. Number 2339 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked what percentage Mr. Symmonds' company or the fishing industry uses of the total electricity sold. MR. SYMMONDS said Cordova has two major processors and a minor one, which use more than 20 percent of Cordova's total. Number 2363 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether they pay a discounted amount now for electricity. MR. SYMMONDS said their rate is lower than the residential rate. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether it is significantly lower. MR. SYMMONDS indicated Jim Roberts would know that. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether it is 20 percent of the use or 20 percent of the total dollars. MR. SYMMONDS replied, "Revenue." Number 2390 CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "What I'm getting at is if there were to be a reduction because of the position that Representative Bunde mentioned earlier, there would be a 20 percent decrease in the revenue to the system but a significantly greater amount of reduced power demand." MR. SYMMONDS responded, "But there would be no reduction of PCE." CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether the total dollars would decrease but the rate would stay the same. MR. SYMMONDS replied, "No, because the PCE line on my electric bill, which can be $50,000-plus a month, is a constant $54.86. I mean, that's what I get out of PCE." CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether that is true for everyone on the system. MR. SYMMONDS explained, "It's based on 700 kilowatt hours. You get PCE on your first 700 kilowatts, and that's it." Number 2423 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked, "If you reduce the total consumption from the system, is it the same? Would it be prorated directly on the number of reduced kilowatt hours that you'd have to generate?" He suggested perhaps he should have asked Mr. Roberts, then stated, "So, let's just say you cut it in half, the amount of power that you're actually using. You're only paying 20 percent, but maybe you're using 50 percent. If all of that went away, the PCE total dollar value should decrease, that the state pays." MR. SYMMONDS replied that of the two major processors that contribute 20 percent of the revenue to CEC, the state would save $108 in PCE if those went away, because it is only on the first 700 kilowatt hours which those two canneries use that they get PCE. TAPE 98-19, SIDE B Number 0006 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked, "And is that why you said that the PCE that goes to industry is negligible when you started out?" MR. SYMMONDS said that is correct. Number 0014 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested it may make sense, now that money is relatively cheap and interest rates are low, to let them have the money, rather than paying PCE in perpetuity. Number 0055 ERIC YOULD, Executive Director, Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative Association (ARECA), informed members he represents most of the utilities in the state, both large and small. He is also on the Governor's PCE task force, which has a twofold charge: to identify potential sources of revenue that could be considered in the long-term solution to identify constructive changes to the program that would perhaps be an incentive for the utilities to get off of PCE. MR. YOULD told members ARECA has always been a strong component of the PCE program, because it provides cheaper electricity, primarily in rural Alaska "where we have a very weak underpinning to the economic base in the first place." Consequently, they have supported PCE strongly in the past. They feel that this particular bill is very good, and they support it. They feel it is a good incentive and a good way to put in place capital-intensive projects and to provide long-term solutions. MR. YOULD pointed out that they are talking about a hydropower project that will very possibly be in place for 50 or 100 years. The hydropower project in Ketchikan has been in place for almost a hundred years now, and there is no reason to believe most hydropower projects such as this won't be in place for a long time. Mr. Yould said they are talking about giving up ten years of PCE, with a capital appropriation, that essentially will help ensure that a long-term solution is put in place. He likened it to buying a house, which is expensive up-front, versus renting. He concluded by saying a capital-intensive project like hydropower is basically an inflation-fighter, and it is there for the long term. Number 0171 PERCY FRISBY, Director, Division of Energy (DOE), Department of Community and Regional Affairs, came forward to testify. [Some of Mr. Frisby's testimony is particularly difficult to hear.] He informed members he had been working with Cordova for the last three years developing and trying to put a financial package together. In addition, the DOE loaned Cordova $1 million to kick the whole effort off. He referred to the Governor's PCE task force and indicated that while the worst-case scenario would be eliminating that program, they are looking at alternative programs including shallow gas, small coal developments and a (indisc.) project in Kotzebue. MR. FRISBY said that for these new technologies, they are trying to determine whether they may be applied in areas of rural Alaska. He said the problem they are dealing with in rural Alaska now is that there are systems using generators with an output as small as 60 kilowatt hours. A hydroelectric or wind project is hard to apply to such a system, and Mr. Frisby suggested they may need more time to do that. He complimented Cordova for coming up with an innovative way to put their financial package together. He said the power cost equalization (indisc.) committee is going to address a lot of these issues. Number 0314 REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he could have several other people speak, but he believed the committee had the gist of it. He offered to answer questions. Number 0325 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER commented that this is the easy part of the equation, as this bill is enabling but not funding, which will be the challenge. He also congratulated Cordova for coming up with a plan that he believes is "very appropriate to be considered for state government to make an expenditure for infrastructure that gets away from the continual state allotment." He said it is not only the right thing to do but is timely, considering the current revenue projections. Number 0367 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked about the fiscal note and alleged savings. He said the fiscal note makes a lot of assumptions, then suggested it could be argued either way. He stated that he doesn't necessarily agree with what it says. "I don't think that damages your cause or anything," he added. REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA expressed confidence that it would be a good debate in the House Finance Standing Committee as to whether it is appropriate. Number 0397 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to adopt Version H [0-LS1132\H, Cramer, 2/18/98] as a work draft. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Number 0450 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to move the proposed committee substitute for HB 336 [Version H] from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was any objection. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE objected for discussion purposes. He said this is innovative, although it sounds like somewhat creative financing. He suggested its stature would be enhanced by requiring legitimate or actual local contribution, as he doesn't look at federal grants or state grants as a local contribution. Number 0483 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG concurred, then congratulated the sponsor, indicating this is the type of mechanism needed in rural areas, particularly for alternate energy sources such as shallow gas, coal and so forth. He suggested it is even perhaps a good use of capital monies. Representative Rokeberg said he would be voting for this bill and wished the sponsor good luck in the House Finance Standing Committee. He added that vote for this bill should not be viewed as an endorsement of the PCE program. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE removed his objection. Number 0565 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that there being no further objection, CSHB 336(JUD) was moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee. HB 272 - DO JAIL TIME BY ELECTRONIC MONITORING [The three microphones continued to be out of order, and portions are difficult to hear on the tape.] Number 0580 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the final item of business would be HB 272, "An Act to permit a court to order a defendant who receives a sentence of imprisonment for a misdemeanor to serve the sentence by electronic monitoring; and relating to the crime of unlawful evasion." As sponsor, he called on his staff member, Kevin Jardell, to present the bill. Number 0595 KEVIN JARDELL, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Representative Joe Green, Alaska State Legislature, referred members to the work draft in their packets, Version E. He explained that HB 272 is an attempt to provide the Department of Corrections an additional tool to help ease overcrowding and relieve some budget problems; it is not meant to be a solution to all the problems. Mr. Jardell offered to go through the work draft and then answer questions regarding the changes. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt as a work draft version 0-LS0821\E, Luckhaupt, 2/18/98. There being no objection, it was so ordered. MR. JARDELL referred to AS 11.56.310(a) and said the first portion of the bill relates to penalties for violations off of electronic monitoring. There is a two-stage penalty classification. If a person on electronic monitoring for a felony violates off of electronic monitoring, it would be escape in the second degree, a class B felony. If a person on electronic monitoring for a misdemeanor violates off of electronic monitoring, it would be escape in the fourth degree, a class A misdemeanor. Number 0685 MR. JARDELL referred to Section 3, relating to AS 12.55.015, and said it sets up the opportunity for the sentencing judge to put on the record his or her concerns or feelings regarding an individual's propensity to violate or whether they are high-risk or low-risk. He next referred to Section 4, relating to AS 33.30.061, and explained that it eliminates the eligibility of prisoners who are convicted of domestic violence (DV) crimes or crimes against the person. MR. JARDELL referred to Section 5, relating to AS 33.30.065, and explained that it gives the Department of Corrections the authority to develop and implement an electronic monitoring program. Subsection (b) establishes criteria that the commissioner of that department is to look at in evaluating whether a prisoner would be a high risk or a low risk. Most of these criteria are similar to those used in the furlough program now established by statute. Subsection (c) limits prisoners' due process rights regarding the placement on or off of electronic monitoring. Mr. Jardell indicated they equate it to the department's moving somebody from the Mat-Su Pre-Trial Facility to the Cook Inlet Pre-Trial Facility, in which now a prisoner has no say. He expressed the hope that prisoners could be placed on or taken off of electronic monitoring in the same fashion. Number 0771 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE referred to subsection (b) on page 3. He asked whether those considerations for placement are listed in order of priority. MR. JARDELL replied that they are not meant to be prioritized. It is just a list, and not an exhaustive one. Number 0797 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE suggested that item (3), the availability of program and facility space, is certainly not the third-highest priority. He asked if there is any danger that someone could list this as a list of priorities. MR. JARDELL said he doesn't foresee that, indicating his belief that item (3) parallels item (3) in the furlough statute. He acknowledged it may be of some concern, however, and he said it wouldn't be a problem to make that item (8) and renumber the list. CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out that it is a parallel construction to other language in the code, where it is not considered a priority listing. Number 0848 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that this addresses conviction but not bail. MR. JARDELL concurred and explained that they don't want to get too expansive in this project. They want to allow the Department of Corrections to focus on a specific group of prisoners that have already been convicted, and to try to implement an effective program. He expressed hope that if it is successful and can be done economically and efficiently, it could be expanded later to address those concerns. He noted that Fred's Bail Bonding in Anchorage now has some private electronic monitoring for pre-trial or bail situations. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented that Fred does have a quasi-governmental sta can get bail with electronic monitoring, that person would qualify for Nygren or jail term credit. CHAIRMAN GREEN said that may be. Number 0912 MR. JARDELL stated his impression that Representative Berkowitz is correct. He added, "My understanding of Nygren is that if the court orders you to any type of incarceration, that that incarceration can be counted as Nygren credit. I'm not so sure if it was allowed and not an order; I would imagine under any kind of electronic monitoring, it would be ordered by the courts." Number 0935 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether they are defining "electronic monitoring." MR. JARDELL referred to page 3, beginning at line 3. He told members the manner in which they have tried to define it is in the discussion there, which says it should be designed so that any attempt to remove, tamper with, or disable the monitoring equipment will result in a report or notice to the department. It is defined by the result rather than by the actual technology. MR. JARDELL further indicated that in speaking with various people involved in electronic monitoring, he had learned that it involves a wide range of technology that is increasing daily. He said their feelings were that if it is broad enough, and if it states the required result, it would allow those people to do research and implement technology that fits the situation. Number 0988 CHAIRMAN GREEN commented that the McLaughlin Youth Center currently has 20 to 25 people on electronic monitoring. Number 1003 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that this could be construed to mean that if someone is required to sit by a telephone and answer it, that could constitute electronic monitoring. CHAIRMAN GREEN said he supposed that could be, without a strict definition. However, the bill allows the Department of Corrections to determine who will be subject to electronic monitoring, and he would seriously doubt that the telephone would suffice. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER commented that the last time he was involved in it, the technology required a telephone line to monitor and to report. CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed, saying it still does. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he could think of situations in the Bush where monitoring by telephone might be appropriate or the easiest and cheapest thing to do. CHAIRMAN GREEN responded that these aren't that expensive. If it were inefficient in the Bush, however, the person wouldn't be on electronic monitoring, which the Department of Corrections would have the authority to determine. Number 1114 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the requirement is that the electronic monitoring shall be administered by the department and shall be designed so that any attempt to remove, tamper with or disable the monitoring equipment, or to leave the place selected for the service of the term or period, will result in a report or notice to the department. He stated, "That is a general description of the technology that is involved, not just sitting by a telephone." Number 1202 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referred to Section 4 on page 2, which precludes electronic monitoring for a person serving a term of imprisonment for a crime against a person. He pointed out that it includes such things as barroom brawls. While he endorses not including domestic violence, he said he is curious why they are including all assaults. CHAIRMAN GREEN replied that first, this is an experimental program. He explained, "Even though it's being used nationwide and is increasing, the concept is let's walk before we run, and if we can confine it to those people who are less likely to offend another person, and see that it works, then broaden it later, rather than to take in too big a scope now and have it fail because we tried to cover too many people. Again, it's not a cure-all. It's a help for Corrections." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he understands that and is very supportive of the concept, but has concerns about carving out all people who have crimes against a person. Number 1307 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER expressed concern also. He said he would be interested to see what the Department of Corrections and the Department of Law have to say about that section. Especially in light of the following page, which lists considerations including what the person has been charged with and the person's individual situation, he believes it is unnecessarily restrictive to have specific folks that cannot qualify. Representative Porter stated, "I can't imagine that too many domestic violence offenders would want to be in this situation, but I could if the victim of the domestic violence was in Pennsylvania and this person otherwise was going to be transitioned into the community in a few months anyway. For every rule, there's an exception. So I really don't think that an across-the-board exclusion is appropriate." CHAIRMAN GREEN replied, "Well, we'll hear from some other people, and I hope we can change your mind." Number 1395 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he finds the language in Section 4 ambiguous. He suggested tightening that up. Number 1444 ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section-Juneau, Crim testify. She stated that the department supports this legislation, noting that they had worked with the sponsor. She advised members that she had planned to mention several things, but those had already been taken care of, with a couple of exceptions. MS. CARPENETI referred to page 3, line 21, which she believes was added as a result of conversations between the Department of Law and the sponsor's staff because of not wanting to create the right for a person to have a hearing before going back into a facility if that person is not succeeding. She suggested on line 25, after the period, adding the words, "Placement of a prisoner on electronic monitoring does not create a liberty interest, [comma] and", which would be followed by the existing language, "[a] decision of the commissioner ...." Ms. Carpeneti explained that those words are used in the regulations, and she believes they need to say those words to avoid a person having a right to a hearing before being moved to a facility. Number 1564 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Ms. Carpeneti whether they can define what is and is not a constitutional liberty interest. MS. CARPENETI replied, "Well, I think we can. We do in regulations, in terms of furloughs." She noted that somebody from the Department of Corrections was present who could assist. She indicated the Department of Corrections would consider this a part of their facilities. "What they are doing is transitioning a person from strict supervision back to the community," she added. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether right now they don't have a protected liberty interest in substantial changes in prisoner conditions, such as moving them from minimum to maximum facilities. He asked about due process. MS. CARPENETI said they do have a right to a hearing. Number 1641 ALLEN J. COOPER, Deputy Director, Division of Institutions, Department of Corrections, said Ms. Carpeneti is talking about the Ferguson decision, relating to a liberty interest. He indicated that to remove a prisoner from a program, they must provide a hearing to determine that. In this particular case, he would be very concerned if they had an individual out there doing something such as smoking dope, and he would want to be able to take action to put that person back into more confined quarters. The department would still have to provide a hearing about classification to address procedural due process. "But when I make those decision, I want to make them very swiftly and immediate, and I think I need that flexibility to do that," he added. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT responded, "I think I want you to, too." He said although not familiar with the Ferguson decision, he is familiar with the general idea of the liberty interest under the constitution and the right to a hearing before that is invaded. Representative Croft stated, "I know we can do this, I guess; I'm just not sure what the effect of doing it is. Have you guys had decisions where you've written in statute or regulation, 'This is not a liberty interest,' and the courts saying, 'That's good enough'?" MR. COOPER said no, this would be the first time they had done that. The way he deals with a liberty interest is to go out and make that decision to remove a substantial immediate threat to the public, and then they would have 24 hours in which to have a hearing. "But I need to demonstrate that," he said. "And I guess in this particular case, Law is a better judgment as far as the legal part of me making those decisions, but that's how I resolve it now." Number 1778 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he believes that is the right corrections approach. He asked whether they can do that constitutionally. MS. CARPENETI indicated she believes so. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT replied that saying the hearing is held after the revocation makes more sense to him than just saying it is not a liberty interest. He added, "It seems like, in my reflections, those cases, the courts uphold both." MS. CARPENETI said she believes they need to do both in order to (indisc.). CHAIRMAN GREEN advised members that Representative Porter had a suggestion that might address this. Number 1820 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he had often complained about the court issuing decisions that are tantamount to writing law. He stated, "I guess we should be fair and say that perhaps we shouldn't be making constitutional decisions either. With that in mind, I wonder if it wouldn't be within the intent of what you're looking for to say that we do not intend that this create a liberty interest, as opposed to 'does not create.'" MS. CARPENETI said that is a good suggestion. She also suggested reiterating that the person would have a right to a hearing after the fact, but not beforehand. Number 1883 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented, "Regardless of what we say, though, it seems to me that anyone in the state's custody has procedural due process rights related to the classification question, in that those rights would not be impinged by the language you're suggesting." MR. COOPER said that is correct. Number 1942 CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested amending it now, indicating the language he had was: "Placement of a prisoner on electronic monitoring is not intended to create a liberty interest, and a ....", with the remaining language following. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked, "And a decision of the commissioner?" CHAIRMAN GREEN said yes, adding, "All that I read just substitutes for the capital 'A'." Number 1966 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that regardless of what the language says, it is subject to review because of the procedural due process requirements. He suggested ending it with the language proposed by Representative Porter. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested, in the alternative, saying it is not subject to review before the revocation. Number 1999 MS. CARPENETI told members Mike Stark had drafted a similar amendment for her that read, "A decision by the department that a prisoner is released to serve a sentence or part of a sentence under electronic monitoring does not create in the prisoner a liberty interest in the status. The prisoner may be returned to the correctional facility at the discretion of the department." Ms. Carpeneti pointed out that this doesn't say it is not subject to review. CHAIRMAN GREEN said he would have no problem with that. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he would certainly accept that language, with the amendment of, "does not intend to create." MS. CARPENETI offered to provide written copies of that language. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he wanted to be clear that when they are talking about discretion of the department, they are talking about some level of cause. MR. ALLEN indicated it would be based on some behavior that would cause them to bring the person back because of public safety interests. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether that approach is enshrined somewhere in either statute or regulation. MR. ALLEN said yes, the safeguards are under the classification regulations. CHAIRMAN GREEN called an at-ease at 2:34 p.m. He called the meeting back to order at 2:36 p.m. Number 2129 MR. ALLEN said for any prisoner or individual placed on electronic monitoring, if they decide to change that, particularly if they move to the institution side of things, the department would have due process safeguards under the classification regulations. Number 2163 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, to replace subsection (c) on page 3, lines 21 through 27, to read: "(c) A decision by the department that a prisoner be released to serve a sentence or part of a sentence under electronic monitoring is not intended to create in the prisoner a liberty interest in the status. The prisoner may be returned to a correctional facility at the discretion of the department." CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was any objection. Hearing none, he announced that Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 2204 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked whether the department is utilizing electronic monitoring now. MR. ALLEN replied that on the institution side of things, they haven't used electronic monitoring, although he understands that on the community corrections side, there have been several pilot programs over the past several years. He said in the past, they had money to do it but never had the chance to develop it or add to it. He said overcrowding is his paramount concern, and any avenue or sanction they can provide to alleviate that will be welcome. Number 2260 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred to page 3 and the criteria for selecting who goes on the program. He read from item (6), which says, "the record of convictions of the prisoner, with particular emphasis on crimes specified in AS 11.41 or crimes involving domestic violence". He then asked, "Would you think that Section 4 on page 2 is necessary?" MR. ALLEN replied that his answer would be a double shuffle at this point, suggesting that Representative Porter was asking if limiting that criteria would limit the people to whom this would apply. Although he agreed it will narrow the field, he said he would like to review statistics to ensure there will be a sufficient pool, then respond later. Number 2414 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT apologized for missing the earlier answer and asked, "Are we doing it now?" MR. ALLEN said no. CHAIRMAN GREEN said they are doing it with juveniles. MR. ALLEN said they are doing juveniles, through the Department of Health and Social Services, but they only had a couple of pilot projects the past year. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether, for those juveniles, they had excluded certain classes of juvenile crimes. MR. ALLEN restated that it was the Department of Health and Social Services. TAPE 98-20, SIDE A Number 0001 [During the tape change, Representative Croft asked about driving under the influence (DUI) cases.] MR. ALLEN replied, "We may not, because we had some requirements that with a DUI, you have to serve a certain amount of time. ... And that's mandatory. So, we have to look at those things. But there were some other folks with other crimes, particularly nonviolent crimes, trespassing, theft, those kinds of things." CHAIRMAN GREEN mentioned forgery. MR. ALLEN said they have found nationally that this works well with "nonviolent folks." Number 0058 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to a study relating to the electronic monitoring "self-pay" program. He stated, "And it seems like there's a wide variety, from 70 percent to about 90 percent, in their success rates. And I just wondered whether anybody has seen reasons for that variance. ... What factors in this program lead it to the higher success rates and what factors for the lower?" MR. ALLEN said it is too early for him to answer that from his department's perspective. He suggested his next step would be going back to look at the groups and the types of people they'll be looking to use this for. Number 0111 CHAIRMAN GREEN mentioned that there had been a couple of national symposiums on this, and he speculated that it is probably because of the net widening beyond that narrow band for which this might be more applicable. He emphasized the importance of having the Department of Corrections, rather than judges, make the determination, because department personnel are a lot closer to the prisoners' behavior. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether there was an actual monitor available, which was then passed around for members' inspection. Number 0171 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked, "Your testimony is that the Department of Corrections is not doing this now. Has not the legislature, in the course of the last three years, asked the department to do this? And the department's not doing it, even though the legislature has asked for them to do it?" MR. ALLEN replied, "That is not been in my purview to not do that." He said that is the best way he can answer that. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said having served the last three years on the budget subcommittee for Corrections, he finds that answer a little humorous. He restated his understanding that the legislature has asked the department to do this, which they apparently have refused to do. CHAIRMAN GREEN stated, "Well, now they're willing to accept it." MR. ALLEN said he could understand Representative Rokeberg's disenchantment. Number 0258 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked whether his understanding is correct that the standard sentence for a DWI is mandatory jail time and wouldn't be available for electronic monitoring. MR. ALLEN said, "I misspoke." REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked whether for the 10 days a person gets for driving with a revoked license, for example, those things are mandatory jail time and would take other legislation before they could utilize this kind of a system. MR. ALLEN said yes, restating that he had misspoken. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said that is why he is concerned about cutting down how many folks can get on this program. He encouraged the department to look into contracting for this service, rather than adding state employees. He said his research has indicated it can save substantial money if the criteria isn't set up so that nobody can do it except some outfit in Florida and employees of the Department of Corrections; he said that is one iteration of a request for proposals (RFP) that he had seen. Number 0235 CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated he and his staff have been assured, in several meetings, that there are enough candidates without DWIs to make the pilot testing work. He stated, "And if it works, we can certainly expand it." REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he didn't want to hold up the bill but would be interested in the information Mr. Allen would get for the committee regarding the number of eligible people. Number 0428 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Mr. Allen, "If you said it's not your responsibility to not implement the electronic monitoring program, whose responsibility in the Department of Corrections is it to not implement the electronic monitoring program?" MR. ALLEN asked whether he could talk to Representative Croft after the hearing. Number 0466 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he was having trouble understanding what Section 4 really means. He asked Ms. Carpeneti to address it. MS. CARPENETI said she was glad he had asked that. Section 4 is intended to say that the commissioner may use electronic monitoring except when a person is convicted of a crime against a person, a crime under AS 11.41, or a crime involving domestic violence. She said she herself is a little confused about the meaning of the criteria on page 3, item (6), because she doesn't know whether "particular emphasis" is negative or positive, although she assumes it is negative emphasis. Ms. Carpeneti suggested it would be clearer to say, for item (6): "the record of the convictions of the prisoner;". She indicated she would delete the remainder of the paragraph, as she isn't sure what it means. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said considering Section 4, the language that Ms. Carpeneti is suggesting should be stricken is superfluous. MS. CARPENETI concurred. Number 0608 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he wasn't sure his original question had been answered, and that the sentence structure is still confusing. MS. CARPENETI agreed, saying she'd had to read it three times. She offered to try to redraft it. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if it is the sponsor's intent that these individuals, who have committed a crime against a person or who are domestic violence offenders, are excluded from the program. CHAIRMAN GREEN said they are excluded. He asked for a suggestion to make it clear. Number 0674 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ offered to try. He stated, "I would submit that Section 4 is the enabling portion of this whole legislation. And I think it should be real clear that the commissioner may designate a prisoner, then get rid of the clause that begins, 'who is not serving a term of imprisonment, or a period of temporary commitment for a crime against a person or a crime involving domestic violence,' remove that, because what you want to say is the commissioner may designate a prisoner to serve by electronic monitoring, period. Then on the next page, what you're saying is [that] in determining whether or not to allow someone to serve with electronic monitoring, please, under Section 6, look to see whether these guys are in for an assault or a crime ... against a person or a crime involving domestic violence. And that allows the commissioner the latitude to say, 'No, you're in for a DV crime, you're not getting ... a monitor, tough luck.'" Number 0746 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked whether Section 4 is intended to mean that, "A prisoner serving a term of imprisonment, or a period of temporary commitment, for a crime against a person or a crime involving domestic violence is not eligible for electronic monitoring." CHAIRMAN GREEN said in essence, that is what they are saying. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested considering that wording, even though he himself doesn't agree with it. Number 0769 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT suggested if the second sentence was as Representative Porter had mentioned, the first sentence would be enabling and the second restricting. He said what Representative Berkowitz had suggested works but changes it from a "can't" to a "consider." He proposed translating it into understandable language first and then debating whether they want to weaken it. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said as he understands the sponsor's intent, he would use the sentence as he had read it and then the sentence provided by Representative Porter as a separate sentence within that section. He stated, "This legislation enables; these people are not eligible." REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he intended to speak against it. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested it would be easier to amend that way. Number 0936 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ indicated he would move Amendment 2 and then move to amend it to address policy. He stated the amendment as follows: "Section 4 should now read ..., 'The commissioner may, under AS 33.30.065, designate a prisoner to serve the prisoner's term of imprisonment or a period of temporary commitment, or a part of the term or period, by electronic monitoring. An individual serving a term of imprisonment, or a period of temporary commitment for a crime against a person or a crime involving domestic violence is not eligible for electronic monitoring.'" Number 0978 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was any objection. Hearing none, he announced that Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 0980 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to delete the second sentence. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected, suggesting they hear from witnesses first. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he would withdraw the amendment temporarily. CHAIRMAN GREEN said there had been some discussion of page 3, line 17, that they have a semicolon after "prisoner". REPRESENTATIVE PORTER proposed waiting on that one, as well. Number 1014 MS. CARPENETI told members the Department of Law supports the way it is written now, with not making eligible people convicted of crimes against the person or domestic violence crimes, at least at this point. CHAIRMAN GREEN agreed it doesn't make a lot of sense to send a domestic violence perpetrator home. MS. CARPENETI said her final comment was to suggest that the committee consider adding a provision that holds the state harmless for its decisions to release prisoners on electronic monitoring. She acknowledged that it wouldn't be popular. She explained that the decision to release is probably discretionary anyway, and wouldn't be something they would be liable for. She said they would suggest something like what is in the domestic violence law now, that says a civil suit cannot be brought for damages for the decision to release a person under electronic monitoring (indisc.). Number 1084 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Allen why there wasn't a fiscal note from the Department of Corrections. MR. ALLEN said they had just received the proposed committee substitute but would provide one. Number 1125 JAYNE ANDREEN, Executive Director, Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, Department of Public Safety, came forward to testify. She told members that when the council first reviewed this bill, it was written so that only misdemeanants would be eligible for electronic monitoring, and it was open for all misdemeanants. The council had been significantly concerned about that, and had spoken with the sponsor about those concerns. She said they feel very strongly that it is important to provide a policy statement that electronic monitoring is for nonviolent crimes that are not against a person. In particular, domestic violence should be excluded. MS. ANDREEN reported that domestic violence for the most part ends up being charged at a misdemeanor level, with little or no jail time in the vast majority of cases. She stated, "And when it does happen, we feel that having a venue for electronic monitoring to take place in place of incarceration is not an appropriate way to tell offenders that this isn't okay." She said there are other concerns, which go without saying, about victim safety. Having violent offenders be ordered to be at home, with possibly more contact with the victims, needs to be considered. MS. ANDREEN said she had served on the sentencing commission in the early Nineties, where she first learned about electronic monitoring and the options; she had also attended a national conference in Washington, D.C. She said although she could be wrong about it, she was fairly certain that when the sentencing commission had recommended that the state look at electronic monitoring as an alternative sanction, they had recommended that it not be used for crimes against a person. She offered to check on that. MS. ANDREEN referred to page 3, item (6), which says the commissioner shall consider, among other things, the record of convictions of the prisoner, with particular emphasis on crimes specified in AS 11.41 or crimes involving domestic violence. She explained that she is thinking about domestic violence cases where this particular time, the offense is not domestic violence or may not be a crime against a person. The person could be eligible for electronic monitoring and yet have a substantiating history of domestic violence. To order such a person to serve time at home is really not a policy way that we want to go, Ms. Andreen said. And keeping some type of language like this in there, so that the commissioner will take a look at what the history is, will ensure that we don't put victims at risk. Number 1303 CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to Representative Berkowitz' concern on page 2, Section 4, as amended. Number 1340 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested if they are going to pursue electronic monitoring and to give the Department of Corrections the latitude necessary to reduce jail populations, for example, they shouldn't second-guess them or micromanage their decisions. While the concern about domestic violence is clear, and he doesn't believe that anyone in the Department of Corrections, the Department of Law, or anyone else involved in law enforcement takes it lightly, he suggested that subsection (3) on page 3 addresses that concern. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ also said there are instances, such as the one described by Representative Porter, where the victim may be long gone from Alaska and not any imminent threat. There also could be extenuating circumstances to an arrest. Representative Berkowitz stated his belief that it is in the realm of micromanaging how the program is administered if they tie the hands of the Department of Corrections by saying at no time, ever, can they use electronic monitoring on someone with a conviction for assault or domestic violence. CHAIRMAN GREEN said Representative Berkowitz makes a good point, as does Representative Porter. However, in discussing this with members of the Administration and people in other states, the concern is about someone with a propensity for a crime against a person, a violent reactor. He is therefore thinking of starting slowly, restricting eligible persons until they know this is really working. Chairman Green said far more people are eligible than they had wanted for a pilot program, even with this restriction, as the pilot program they were talking about was perhaps 50 people. Number 1466 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ mentioned the wide range involved in crimes against persons, pointing out that causing a car crash where people in the other car are hurt can be charged as assaultive behavior if there is a DWI attached to it. He suggested that perhaps the way around it is to just say that people involved in domestic violence aren't eligible for release, because that is pretty clear-cut. However, to him the range of assaults and crimes against a person is so big, including barroom fights or schoolyard tussles, that there might never be a pattern of conduct involved. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER agreed with Representative Berkowitz and said he thinks it is very appropriate, when making a designation, for the Department of Corrections to consider whether that person is a domestic violence offender and then what would be the likelihood of reoffense. He suggested there is bound to be a situation where reoffending would be impossible. From his experience, he doubts that the department would order seven days of electronic monitoring for someone charged with a domestic violence assault who only got seven days in jail. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated, "But, on the other hand, if it was six months, one of the methods of trying to determine whether or not this person is eligible for release, rather than probation or parole, rather than not, is transitioning. And ... electronic monitoring provides the opportunity for the final stage of transitioning. And like it or not, a person in general terms that's convicted of domestic violence or of a crime against a person is going to be released." Representative Porter said he doesn't look at this as a way to clear the jails so we don't have to build another one. He said he looks at it as one of the methods considered very useful in determining whether a person should go onto parole, and whether they will be successful in transitioning, in a form of probation. He suggested in that case the first stage might be electronic monitoring. Representative Porter concluded by saying it would be simple to leave it in, but he has a professional aversion to micromanagement. Number 1625 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he would tend to support what both prior speakers said, but he would exclude crimes against a person and leave domestic violence in. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether that is a compromise that Representative Berkowitz could stand. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said yes. He made a motion to strike "against a person or a crime". It would therefore say "commit a crime involving domestic violence". CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was any objection, and he labeled it Amendment 3. There being no objection, Amendment 3 was adopted. Number 1659 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to move HB 272, Version E [0-LS0821\E, Luckh individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was any objection. There being none, he announced that CSHB 272(JUD) was moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee. ADJOURNMENT Number 1709 CHAIRMAN GREEN adjourned the House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting at 3:10 p.m.

Document Name	Date/Time	Subjects

Open document in new windowX