03/06/2017 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB120 | |
| HB20 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 120 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 6, 2017
1:18 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Matt Claman, Chair
Representative Zach Fansler, Vice Chair
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative David Eastman
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Lora Reinbold
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Charisse Millett (alternate)
Representative Louise Stutes (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 120
"An Act relating to the Department of Law public advocacy
function to participate in matters that come before the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 20
"An Act relating to marriage solemnization; and authorizing
elected public officials in the state to solemnize marriages."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 120
SHORT TITLE: DEPT OF LAW: ADVOCACY BEFORE FERC
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/13/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/13/17 (H) JUD, FIN
03/06/17 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 20
SHORT TITLE: SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE: ELECTED OFFICIALS
SPONSOR(s): CLAMAN
01/18/17 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/17
01/18/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/17 (H) STA, JUD
02/16/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/16/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/16/17 (H) MINUTE (STA)
02/18/17 (H) STA AT 11:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/18/17 (H) Moved CSHB 20(STA) Out of Committee
02/18/17 (H) MINUTE (STA)
02/22/17 (H) STA RPT CS (STA) 4DP 2DNP
02/22/17 (H) DP: TUCK, KNOPP, JOSEPHSON, KREISS-
TOMKINS
02/22/17 (H) DNP: JOHNSON, BIRCH
03/03/17 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/03/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/03/17 (H) MINUTE (JUD)
03/06/17 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
CLYDE "ED" SNIFFEN, Chief Statewide Section Supervisor
Regulatory Affairs & Public Advocacy (RAPA)
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 120, presented
legislation on behalf of the House Rules Committee by request of
the governor.
LINDA BRUCE, Attorney
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 20, answered
questions*.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:18:36 PM
CHAIR MATT CLAMAN called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:18 p.m. Representatives Claman, Fansler,
Eastman, Reinbold were present at the call to order.
Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins, LeDoux, and Kopp arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HB 120-DEPT OF LAW: ADVOCACY BEFORE FERC
1:19:14 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 120, "An Act relating to the Department of Law
public advocacy function to participate in matters that come
before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission."
1:19:41 PM
CLYDE "ED" SNIFFEN, Chief Statewide Section Supervisor,
Regulatory Affairs & Public Advocacy (RAPA), Department of Law
(DOL), explained that HB 120 is a fairly simple bill in that it
allows the Department of Law (DOL) to include some of the work
it currently performs before the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission as part of the budget, and seeks to use regulatory
cost charge funds. He explained that all regulated utilities in
the state are subject to oversight by the Regulatory Commission
of Alaska (RCA) and to pay for that regulatory oversight, there
is a regulatory cost charge that appears on utility bills. He
described it as a small amount that goes into this fund, and
that fund pays for the cost of regulation for pipelines and
regulated utilities. The attorney general has the function of
protecting the public interest in these matters before the RCA.
The Department of Law (DOL) appears in matters before the RCA to
protect the public from unnecessary rate hikes and protects the
public's interest in making sure those rates are just and
reasonable, which is paid for through this regulatory cost
charge. Recently, he explained, the department found that many
matters are before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC), and as the department works to limit its use of outside
counsel, it spends a lot of time on FERC matters now. The
department would like to charge some of that work toward the
regulatory cost charge and, he pointed out, the statute
recognizes that through the pipeline regulatory cost charge that
that is entirely appropriate.
MR. SNIFFEN noted that the total amount of the regulatory cost
charge is capped, which is set by the legislature, and it is a
certain amount of adjusted gross revenues from the utilities,
and the department gets to use .17 percent of that. He
explained that the department sets a budget every year within
that cap on how it believes it will spend its money. This bill,
he explained, would allow the department the flexibility to
allocate its funds among pipeline and utility matters in a more
efficient way and; therefore, utilize its budget more
efficiently. Those are funds that would normally be charged to
the general fund that DOL could now charge through an
appropriate use of the regulatory cost charge. He referred to
the handout he provided and said it explains the bill, and he
would be happy to answer any questions.
1:22:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN acknowledged that he is not familiar with
how the functions of the attorney general's office were
established in the statutes, and asked why the legislature needs
to create a statutory provision to permit the attorney general's
office to do something that the attorney general has deemed is
in the public's interest.
MR. SNIFFEN responded that he believes Representative Eastman's
question was in reference to these public interest functions the
attorney general pursues in statute versus not being an inherent
power of the attorney general. He said he was unsure he could
answer the statutory history, but the attorney general is
charged with enforcing certain public interest functions of the
state. For example, the consumer protection functions are
things the attorney general does just to protect the public's
interest, and the function through the Regulatory Affairs &
Public Advocacy Section is another one of those. He commented
that perhaps without those directions it would be more difficult
in this rapid context, for example, to get funding for that
function. The way the attorney general's authority is laid out,
those are the things she's been charged with doing and why there
are not others in there, he could not speak to that question.
1:24:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered a scenario that the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) was going through its process,
and he asked whether something is needed in statute to give the
attorney general the opportunity to participate in a public
advocacy role.
MR. SNIFFEN answered that it depends upon the role of the
attorney general. He explained that the attorney general is
charged with representing the agency that would enforce the
state's environment protection laws, so the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), for example, is a client of
the attorney general. The attorney general will provide legal
advice to that agency to the extent that the agency is pursuing
whatever remedies for whatever case it is pursuing, he advised.
1:25:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said that, clearly, the department is in a
predicament with its advocacy role, and the way the law is
structured now it makes it difficult for any costs recovery.
This bill resolves that, and he described it as a good piece of
legislation.
1:25:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to the fees people pay on their
utilities bills, and asked whether those are the fees that would
be used by the attorney general to go before FERC.
MR. SNIFFEN offered a qualified yes. He explained that it is a
complicated process in that DOL establishes a budget each year
that goes before the RCA, and that budget is limited by the
legislature. The RCA approves that budget, and depending on
what sectors received DOL's attention throughout the year, for
example, if DOL had a year that was heavily weighted toward gas
regulation versus electric or waste water, then a bigger portion
of the regulatory cost charge would be assessed for the gas
utilities, and vice versa. He advised that it is a process that
equalizes among the sectors fairly, and then that gets passed on
to the utilities, and the utilities can pass it on to their rate
payers if they so choose. The rate payers see that small line
item bill at the bottom of their utility bill, $0.17, or
whatever, for the regulatory cost charge, he explained.
1:27:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD surmised that the people pay through
their utility bills for the attorney general to perform work
before the federal government, which is another way to increase
the size of government. She asked "Why now," and whether this
has anything to do with the gas line, LNG project. She
explained that stories hit the news where the governor just
asked the current national administration for "a whole bunch of
help and loopholes for the state government to get out of doing
things that the private sector ought to do."
MR. SNIFFEN replied absolutely not. He stressed that this will
not affect the governor's gas line at all. The issue came to
DOL's attention now, because over the last couple of years it
was tasked with finding ways to save money, and one of those
ways was to reduce the department's reliance on outside counsel.
The FERC work has been performed by outside counsel for 30
years, and the department is now bringing that work in house,
thereby, saving significant amounts of money for the state. It
recently came to the department's attention that it was unable
to pass some of those costs on to the shippers and the customers
who are benefiting from the department's work. The FERC piece
is one piece the department saw where it performed work that
benefited the public's interest, and it could be properly
included within the pipeline regulatory cost charge. He
estimated that the people who would probably absorb most of
this, if anything, would be the shippers of oil on the pipeline,
and not to the normal utility customers. He said he suspected
that the regulatory cost charge for a person's water bill or
electric bill would not be affected at all.
1:29:09 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to Representative Reinbold's question
regarding charging the consumers, and responded that the
legislature made the decision many years ago for utility bills
to be part of the consumer protection function. The public
would want the attorney general's office involved in rate paying
cases, and the legislature determined that the attorney general
could participate, but could only charge .17 percent in terms of
paying the attorney general to perform that consumer protection
function. This bill is not actually adding new collection
authority, he explained, it is more about allowing the attorney
general's office to have more flexibility in what it can do with
the .17 percent it is already collecting.
MR. SNIFFEN replied that that is absolutely correct.
1:30:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether this has anything to do
with the current gas pipeline, and reiterated "why now." She
acknowledged that Mr. Sniffen explained it was to save money,
but that she finds this intriguing timing. She asked whether
this will impact any private businesses, the budget, or the rate
payers.
MR. SNIFFEN reiterated that the answer to "why now" is in an
effort to reduce its reliance on outside counsel and bring some
of the FERC work in house due to budget considerations. He
further reiterated that, as to the timing issue, it recently
came to the department's attention that the department is unable
to use this fund to pay for some of the FERC work that would
otherwise be before the RCA, but for the need to do it at FERC
first. In response to whether it has anything to do with the
governor's new pipeline, he reiterated that it does not.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she asked who would be impacted
now, such as any business in Alaska, or any rate payer.
1:31:56 PM
MR. SNIFFEN reiterated that the people who pay into the
regulatory cost charge are all of the regulated utilities and
pipelines. The work on FERC would be a pipeline related issue,
so the people impacted by this would be shippers on the pipeline
and they would have to pay the regulatory cost charge if there
was an increase.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked who the shippers are on the Trans-
Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS), and who it will impact.
MR. SNIFFEN answered that the shippers on TAPS include all of
the major producers, shippers, and also intrastate shippers on
the pipeline which includes the Tesoro Corporation and Petro
Star Inc., because they pay intrastate tariffs to receive
product off of the pipeline as well.
1:32:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked what kind of impact it will have
because it sounds like the attorney general will now "do a bunch
of work," maybe before the FERC Regulatory Commission. She
asked what kind of expenses would be incurred, and what the
state would ask the private sector to pay in this recession.
MR. SNIFFEN responded that it is hard to say, but it will not be
an amount that is very noticeable. Depending each year on how
the department's budgets fall out, if it allocates a certain
percentage of its time toward this FERC work, that cost will be
passed on to the shippers, they will pass it on through their
tariffs, and those tariffs are spread out over millions of
barrels of product. The customers who buy that product would
ultimately pay that price which, he opined, would be a small
amount.
1:34:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said this impacts the private sector and
she requested the name of every shipper this economically
impacts because they have investments over a long period of
time, and this is another way to get into another pocket of
theirs. It is important to understand the impact to the private
sector before passing legislation, she said.
1:34:56 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN queried as to whether she was asking Mr. Sniffen to
provide the name of any customer, not just for the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline System (TAPS), but any customer of any type that could
be impacted by this particular bill allowing the department to
participate in FERC matters.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD clarified that she is asking for the
information regarding this bill particularly, and who will be
impacted directly.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that there is TAPS, within which contains
some intrastate and interstate regulations, and the intrastate
is regulated by RCA, which is Tessoro and others that refine oil
in the state who take the oil off the pipe. Everything, he
explained, that goes out is regulated by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC). He then asked for clarification
whether she is just asking about people involved in the TAPS, or
asking about any utility bill or anything else that might come
before FERC.
1:36:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD explained that she is asking for anyone
who would be impacted by this bill overall so they could
prepare, she said to look at the intended and unintended
consequences of HB 120.
MR. SNIFFEN explained that the regulatory cost charge for
pipelines is assessed on all pipelines operating in the state,
and he will provide the list of the pipeline operators.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said that was not exactly what she was
asking.
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that that was the question he was
asking because when one asks the impact of a .17 percent
regulatory cost charge, he related that it impacts everyone.
For example, he said, Chugach Electric also has the .17 percent
factored in; therefore, not only does the utility pay it, but
the utility passes it on to the consumer, which means there is a
component in which everyone is affected. He said he is trying
to get some clarity as to who she wants Mr. Sniffen to provide
information for because the universe could be everyone in
Alaska, or a small number of people who own TAPS. He said that,
frankly, he is confused by the question himself, and it appears
Representative Reinbold is not happy with Mr. Sniffen's answers.
1:37:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD clarified that Mr. Sniffen can do it in
aggregate, but if a municipality or consumers, or if only the
shippers of TAPS are impacted, she would like to know in the
short term and the long term. Alaska is in a recession with
massive deficits and Alaska's economy is delicate, and sometimes
a tiny change can have a huge impact, she said.
MR. SHIFFEN said he understands Representative Reinbold's
question and that the impacts would be only to the pipeline
operators in Alaska, it will not be passed to the
municipalities, or to the RCC contributors. The department's
FERC work deals with tariffs on the TAPS pipeline, and the
people who pay those tariffs are the people who will be
impacted. Currently, he reiterated, the intrastate tariffs paid
in the state are only by two companies, Tessoro and Petro Star.
1:39:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to Mr. Shiffen's testimony
wherein only the tariff payers will be impacted by the FERC
portion of this, and noted that all of the expenses get split
with everyone.
MR. SNIFFEN explained that the department estimates how much of
its time will be spent on pipeline matters, and how much time
will be spent on utility matters. Within those different
sectors it breaks it down even further on how much time is
between the different types of utilities. The amount of money
the pipeline shippers would pay into the regulatory cost charge
is what might be affected by the department's decision to
perform more FERC work versus other utility work, he explained.
1:40:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP voiced his understanding that the state has
year-to-year appropriations for FERC work to the Department of
Law (DOL), and those have to be appropriated each year.
Therefore, he said, the legislature would have the authority to
not make appropriations if it so desired.
MR. SNIFFEN responded that that is not quite correct, the
legislature can make appropriations to the department, and the
department does use general fund money for its FERC work,
currently.
1:40:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether there is a projection as to
the cost impacts the legislature can expect from the
department's work, not being paid now but going forward as a
result of this legislation.
MR. SNIFFEN answered that he did not think the total amount the
department would spend, in addition to what it already spends,
as a result of this bill would change that much. The department
is operating under the cap set by the legislature already, and
it is pretty close to that cap with its current budgets. There
are some not used, which is carried forward to the next year,
and if the department is able to put some of its FERC work into
that pot of money, it may fill it up a little more. He said it
is difficult to predict, but it will be in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars or less, it certainly is not into the
several hundred thousand or even the million range. The
department set its budget where it is, and if it uses that
budget performing utility work, great - and if it isn't used,
then it goes into the next year's cycle, he said. In the event
the department is able to use some FERC work and put it into
that pot of money as well, then the department might use a
little more of that. Therefore, it would be less money rolling
over to the next year depending on where the work was
concentrated, but it is not a huge amount of money, he
explained.
1:43:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP offered that his understanding of the bill
was that it wasn't so much generating new revenue as it was the
department having access to receipts that are currently
collected, in a manner that is currently unavailable to
department when it advocates for FERC matters.
MR. SNIFFEN answered that Representative Kopp was correct.
1:43:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked the exact relationship
between the 0.7 percent statutory cap on RCC regulatory cost
charge, and the relationship between that 0.7 and the .17
percent that can go to the Department of Law (DOL), and where it
goes, he asked.
1:44:16 PM
MR. SNIFFEN responded that there is a statutory 0.7 percent cap
and a .17 percent cap. The 0.7 percent is what is used by the
regulatory commission to fund its operations, and the .17
percent is what the department uses to perform its public
advocacy functions.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS surmised that if this piece of
legislation passes and the department is able to start using
this to reimburse its FERC work, is that money coming to the
department because, currently, the department is not up to the
.17 percent cap and there is a delta between whatever the
department is right now, and .17 percent.
MR. SNIFFEN said Representative Kreiss-Tomkins is exactly
correct, that delta is the only thing that would be affected by
this bill. He offered that the department might shrink that
delta a bit in some years, and it might not, because it may be
able to cover the department's costs with the money it currently
spends by the way it allocates money among the utility functions
and its FERC functions. That's the delta that could be
affected, for example, he advised, in 2017 it was less than
$40,000, and as the department's budgets unfold, no one knows
what it will be in future years. He explained that this bill is
not more about increasing that cap because the cap is the cap,
but rather the bill gives the department the flexibility to move
money under the cap among the functions the department performs.
1:46:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS surmised that the department is
not at the delta, and asked approximately where the department
is in terms of percentage.
MR. SNIFFEN responded that he does not have the exact number but
it is closer to .167, and that is what the department budgets
for every year. He reiterated the department doesn't
necessarily use all of that budgeted money, but when it predicts
what its costs would be, it is pretty close.
1:47:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS surmised that this bill would
allow the department to close that 0.03 gap, $40,000 or whatever
it ends up being. He noted that the department is not up to its
cap currently, and whether that means the RCA is participating
in these extra 0.03 percent of overall utility funds. He asked
where the delta would go in the event the department was not at
its cap.
MR. SNIFFEN reiterated that it is carried over to the next cycle
and it is considered in the department's next budget.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS commented that, with Mr. Sniffen's
background, he likes the direction the Department of Law (DOL)
has been going in terms of becoming more self-sufficient, and
also, with this legal work it makes a lot of sense given the
fairly unsettled direction the legislature has given the
agencies over the last few years. He asked Mr. Sniffen to speak
to the amount of money the department had spent on outside
counsel for FERC work, how the department's overall expenditures
on FERC work has changed by moving from outside counsel to more
of an in house approach, and how the department might see that
trend continue to play out in the event this bill passes.
MR. SNIFFEN replied that over the last, at least, two years, the
department reduced its reliance on outside FERC counsel
significantly. The department's budget for FY18 is $375,000 and
previously it was over $1 million. He noted that [the reliance]
depends on whether the department, for example, was involved in
a large piece of litigation, and he pointed to the department's
"strategic reconfiguration thing" that legislators may have
heard about. He explained that a lot of effort was involved,
the department recovered just over $200 million for the state
largely due to its outside counsel. He acknowledged that the
department still needs the outside counsel, but it is trying to
bring it in house, with himself and one other attorney dealing
with these issues and learning "this stuff" to build in house
expertise and rely less and less on outside counsel. Although,
he pointed out, it is difficult when the outside counsel has
been doing this work for the state for 30 years and has much in
house knowledge and historical information from doing it so
long, and the department relies on that historical knowledge in
moving forward. Currently, he advised, the department is trying
to use that outside counsel in more of an advisory role to help
the department navigate the complicated FERC issues, and in the
future the advisory role will, hopefully, be less and less.
1:50:13 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that under the current scenario,
because the legislature hasn't given the attorney general
authority to participate in FERC matters, currently, in order to
participate in a FERC matter, the department, essentially, must
hire outside counsel. The department must then obtain a
separate appropriation or put it in the budget somewhere to give
the department funds, on top of the .17 percent, he said.
MR. SNIFFEN agreed, and he explained that the department uses
general fund money for its FERC work currently. Having the
ability to pass some of this cost on to the regulatory cost
charge will probably not eliminate the need for that general
fund money, but it will somewhat offset some of those costs.
CHAIR CLAMAN surmised that what is essentially happening today
is that the .17 percent, without the statutory change, is all
used in RCA matters.
MR. SNIFFEN answered in the affirmative.
CHAIR CLAMAN continued that if the legislature passes this
legislation, it essentially means that from that .17 percent, in
just picking a number out of a hat, if .07 was used for FERC and
.10 was being used for RCA, what would happen is that the people
regulated in RCA would pay a little less, and those regulated in
FERC would pay a little more, but the .17 remains the same.
MR. SNIFFEN answered in the affirmative.
1:51:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for verification that Tessoro and
Petro Star are the two main businesses that will be impacted,
and that Mr. Sniffen does not see any impact to anyone else.
MR. SNIFFEN noted that there may be some impact on some Cook
Inlet pipeline operators, such as Hilcorp Energy to the extent
they are also purchasing oil or gas from one of those folks for
their operation. Other than that, he said that Representative
Reinbold was correct.
1:52:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said the three main businesses are
Hilcorp Energy, Tessoro, and Petro Star, and acknowledged that
she doesn't understand anything that is going on with FERC and
TAPS right now. She asked whether there is something in the
works right now, and whether he was anticipating some need for
the attorney general to get involved with FERC right now.
MR. SNIFFEN explained that currently the state is in litigation
involving tariff rates on TAPS for the years 2011-2015, and is
in a settlement posture currently. Depending upon how that
goes, if the department ends up in litigation on that case, it
will require a lot of resources to litigate that case.
Although, the end result of that case could mean $500 million to
the state, plus or minus. Therefore, he pointed out, it is
important that the department deal with that litigation
appropriately.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked the name of the parties involved
in the lawsuit.
MR. SNIFFEN answered that joint parties are involved in this
case, it is the state, FERC trial staff, and Tessoro and
Anadarko Petroleum. The state is challenging the rates filed by
the carriers for the TAPS tariffs for years 2011-2015, he
explained.
MR. SNIFFEN, in response to Representative Reinbold, answered
that the carriers are ExxonMobil Corporation, ConocoPhillips
Alaska, Inc., and British Petroleum.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether those companies will be
impacted by this.
MR. SNIFFEN reiterated, "No."
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for verification that solely
Hilcorp Energy, Tessoro, and Petro Star are impacted by this
lawsuit.
MR. SNIFFEN agreed, and said it would be "the intrastate, the
instate folks who actually operate pipelines in the state."
1:54:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether Mr. Sniffen was asking for
a law change because the department needs something for a
lawsuit [involving tariffs from] 2011-2015, some sort of tariff
settlement.
MR. SNIFFEN said no, this law probably wouldn't impact that
much, to the extent the department can use some of the RCC funds
to pay for a little bit of that work, but that work will far
exceed any money the department might receive from shifting
money around in this regulatory cost charge.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD reiterated her previous questions and
asked whether there is any other reason "why now" the department
wants the attorney general to work with the FERC, and whether
RCA and FERC is supporting it.
MR. SNIFFEN answered that the department approached the RCA and
it did not express any opposition, it did not approach FERC
because it doesn't have a role in this.
1:56:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether there is anything else Mr.
Sniffen is anticipating going before the FERC that requires the
attorney general to be involved.
MR. SNIFFEN responded that the department will have ongoing
matters with FERC on the TAPS pipeline until the pipeline is
finished, and those matters vary year-to-year. He explained
that it is largely driven by what the carriers decide they want
to do, for example, when the carriers want to raise their rates
they have to make a filing, the department reviews it and
decides whether those rates are just and reasonable. He
explained that those rates directly impact production taxes and
royalties the producers pay to the State of Alaska because those
transportation costs are deducted when determining value at the
wellhead. He clarified that, currently, the state has a lawsuit
against these carriers for these TAPS rates before FERC. The
carriers filed their rates, the department is reviewing them to
determine whether the rates are [just and reasonable]. He said
he does not want to leave the impression that the department has
litigation out there against them, and explained that the
department has had this administrative process going on which
could become a lawsuit, but that is currently not happening.
1:58:01 PM
MR. SNIFFEN, in response to Representative Eastman, agreed that
the .003 amount is not expected to get to the full amount needed
to participate in the proceedings.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked the value of the .17, and how much
higher would it need to go to get the department to the amount
needed. He offered that he recognizes, from previous hearings,
that the department is under financial constraints, and if this
is an important issue he would not want to see these types of
proceedings competing unnecessarily against prosecuting cases in
the criminal division, for example.
MR. SNIFFEN responded that the .17 percent is a percent of
another number, it's the gross operating revenues of these
pipelines and utilities, which varies from year-to-year. He
opined that last year it was roughly $2.1 million, and there is
an amount under that which pays for the work performed at the
attorney general's office to represent the public's interest in
these proceedings, and that will not change. The department
would use a small amount for the department's work related to
pipeline work, for example, but that is mostly work before the
RCA on utility matters and not pipeline matters. As to how much
money is needed down the road to continue looking at these TAPS
tariff cases, he said he does not have that answer. The
department's budget now has attorneys devoted to working on
these matters, and maybe one or less attorneys to do FERC work.
He related that the department will rely on its outside counsel,
as it has in the past, and hopes to wean off a bit in moving
forward. It just depends on the type of cases that come up, in
the event complicated big pieces of litigation come up, and it
has to start hiring experts, for example, it may cost a little
more.
2:00:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that last year the amount was $2.1
million, and he asked how much above the .17 percentage point
the department would have needed in order to not incur general
fund obligations.
MR. SNIFFEN replied that he does not have an answer and will see
if the department can get that information to him.
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony. After ascertaining no one
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 120.
2:01:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked him to explain the procedure used to
ensure that the word had gotten out to the stakeholders who
could be impacted by the bill.
MR. SNIFFEN advised that the department spoke with
representatives of the utilities, it approached the Department
of Commerce, Community & Economic Development and the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska (RCA) to offer their input on the bill, and
their feedback indicated they did not have concerns with HB 120.
He offered that he heard from representative of Hilcorp Energy
who didn't express any opposition to it at that time, and the
department has not heard from any of the other potential
stakeholders.
2:02:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked Mr. Sniffen to explain exactly what
the department has done to make sure they are at least aware of
this bill.
MR. SNIFFEN answered that the department contacted the
stakeholders through informal communications, and advised that
Robin Brena, representative of Tessoro, is aware of the bill and
hasn't expressed any concern to Mr. Sniffen. Mr. Sniffen
related that the department couldn't think of any others who
would have an interest in this bill that are not already very
aware of the legislation and its impact.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD related that it is important to get
these people before the committee, because any time the bill
impacts the other side it is good to hear their thoughts.
[HB 120 was held over.]
2:04:40 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:04 p.m. to 2:13 p.m.
HB 20-SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE: ELECTED OFFICIALS
2:13:42 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 20, "An Act relating to marriage solemnization;
and authorizing elected public officials in the state to
solemnize marriages."
CHAIR CLAMAN reminded the committee that he is the sponsor of HB
20, and passed the gavel to Vice Chair Fansler.
2:14:05 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER recapped that on 3/3/17, the House Judiciary
Standing Committee adopted Amendment 1, and Amendment 2 failed
to pass. He stressed that when the members speak to the
amendments, to keep strictly to the amendment itself and not to
the entirety of the bill.
2:14:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 3, Version 30-
LS0242\D.1, which read as follows:
Page 2, lines 1 - 3:
Delete "; nothing in this paragraph requires or
obligates an individual holding an elective public
office in the state to solemnize a marriage"
Page 2, following line 3:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 25.05.261 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(c) Nothing in this section requires or obligates
an individual or organization authorized to solemnize
a marriage under (a) of this section to solemnize a
marriage."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
CHAIR CLAMAN objected.
2:15:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered that Amendment 3 is in response
to [Version D] which added a provision of not requiring elected
officials to solemnize marriage, and "we wouldn't want elected
officials" to have to solemnize marriage if that is not what
they were interested in doing. He explained that it would apply
this to the section, rather than simply to elected officials
only, and opined that if someone preferred not to solemnize a
particular marriage for any reason, they should not have to do
so.
2:16:08 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that this topic was adequately addressed in
Amendment 1, and he maintained his objection.
2:16:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for clarification that this
amendment exempts anyone or any organization wanting to
solemnize a marriage, does not have to.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN, in response to Representative Reinbold,
answered yes. In response to Chair Claman, he said that
Amendment 3 "does cover portions of this." He then advise that
Amendment 1 is substantially different from Amendment 3, because
Amendment 1 specifically mentions a person and how a person does
not have a duty. The language in Amendment 3 is different in
that it refers to an individual or an organization, and this
statute applies to congregations, religious organizations, as
well as individuals. Under a strict reading of Amendment 1, he
commented, only persons and individuals would be captured and it
is the desire of the committee to make sure that religious
organizations are also captured. Also, he said, Amendment 1
spoke specifically to having a duty, and the words in Amendment
3 are "requires or obligates," which is broader. Certainly,
duty is one thing, but there are other expectations and
obligations that may come into mind; therefore, this
establishes, with greater clarity, that "we are not expecting or
intending" for anyone on this list of those who can solemnize a
marriage, to be under an obligation to do so, he remarked.
2:18:44 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to the [previously failed Conceptual]
Amendment 1 to Amendment 1, which involved [Version J, Section
1], AS 25.05.261(a)(2), which read as follows:
(a) Marriages may be solemnized
(2) by a marriage commission or judicial
officer of the state anywhere within the jurisdiction
of the commissioner or officer; [OR]
CHAIR CLAMAN stated that with the adoption of Amendment 3, it
would now apply to court officials, which is another reason he
does not support Amendment 3.
2:19:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to Version D, AS 25.05.261(a)(3),
page 1, lines 12-13, which read as follows:
(3) before or in any religious organization
or congregation according to the established ritual or
form commonly practiced in the organization or
congregation;
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said he would like to hear from Legislative
Legal and Research Services as to whether it believes the word
"person" contained within Amendment 1, covers that. He opined
that the law sees corporations and persons in more of a
collective sense, and congregations are certainly made up of
persons. He said in his plain reading, the language "nothing in
this section creates or implies a duty on a person authorized to
solemnize under [paragraph] (3)" refers to "religious
organizations or congregations" which are all made up of
persons.
2:20:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX explained that, certainly, under elections
law, persons means corporations, or a wide variety of things.
Although, she said she was unsure that "persons" means that with
respect to other law, and it would be good to hear from
Legislative Legal and Research Services
2:21:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to Amendment 1, page [1], lines
2-3, which read as follows:
Delete all material and insert:
(4) by an individual holding an elective
public office in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that she wants it to read
"anybody in the state," and that Sec. 2 excludes judges. She
then paraphrased that it read "anybody who has authorization to
solemnize marriage." She expressed that it does not make sense
to her that on page 2, line 3, paragraph (4), she paraphrased as
follows: "by an individual holding an elective office."
2:22:05 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN recalled to Representative Kopp that they discussed
AS 25.05.261(a)(3) regarding marriage ceremonies before any
religious organization or congregation according to that
established ritual or form. He opined that Representative
Kopp's explanation was that there are certain congregations that
do not have, for lack of a better description, an ordained
minister. Paragraph (3) was designed to cover lay-led
congregations wherein through the way the church manages their
religious ceremonies, someone would take on that responsibility
on behalf of that organization. He again referred to paragraph
(3) and said he always understood that the statute was "designed
to accommodate still an individual person," and not the
organization, so it wouldn't be a business it would still be a
person it's just that because they are not formally ordained by
the Methodist Church, for lack of a better example.
2:23:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied that that is his understanding, and
also with paragraph (3), "it does accommodate religious beliefs
and practices that are non-Westernized, indigenous, to our
people here." He pointed out that the language particularly
makes clear that however a person brings two people together in
this union, it is according to their established ritual or form
that they commonly practice. The language goes back to the
spirit of independence in Alaska where it is recognized that
Alaskans want people to be free [according to their established
ritual or form], and that he certainly hopes this applies to
persons, he said.
2:24:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked why the committee adopted CSHB 20,
Version J, with the great new language in it, and then turned
around and took that language out in Amendment 1.
CHAIR CLAMAN explained that through the amendment process, an
amendment was proposed and then adopted by the committee, which
is the standard process. He pointed out that she was in
attendance and participated, and he didn't understand her
question.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said the committee agreed to adopt
Version J, and noted that Version J brought forward good
language. She reiterated that she didn't know why the committee
wasted its time adopting Version J, if it was going to turn
around and take the language out in the first amendment.
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that the committee adopted Version J
for purposes of discussion, and the committee is using Version J
as the basis to consider various amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD related that now the committee is going
back through the amendment process. She continued that it just
didn't make sense to bring a brand new committee substitute
forward with some incredible language in it, "and then to turn
around and go out and then want it back in." She offered that
her amendment would bring back that language.
2:26:43 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER noted that Legislative Legal and Research
Services was still not on online, and he would hold Amendment 3
until Legislative Legal and Research Services was available.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN concurred.
2:27:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 4, Version 30-
LS0242\D.17, which read as follows:
Page 2, lines 1 - 3:
Delete all material and insert:
"(4) by an individual holding an elective
public office in the state.
* Sec. 2. AS 25.05.261 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(c) Nothing in this section creates or implies a
duty on a person authorized to solemnize a marriage
under (a)(1), (3), or (4) of this section to
(1) solemnize a marriage; or
(2) provide services, accommodations,
facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related
to the solemnization, formation, or celebration of a
marriage.
(d) A person permitted to solemnize a marriage
under (a)(1), (3), or (4) of this section is not
subject to criminal or civil liability for refusing to
solemnize a marriage or refusing to provide services,
accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a
purpose related to the solemnization, formation, or
celebration of a marriage.
(e) The state or a municipality may not penalize
a person who is permitted to solemnize a marriage
under (a)(1), (3), or (4) of this section for refusing
to solemnize a marriage or refusing to provide
services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or
privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization,
formation, or celebration of a marriage. In this
subsection, "penalize" means to take an action
affecting a benefit or privilege guaranteed to the
person by law, including a tax exemption or state or
municipal contract, grant, or license."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected for discussion.
2:27:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that he had agreed to carry
this amendment at a colleague's request, and he understands that
this was a more comprehensive way of dealing with some of these
issues.
2:28:18 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN opined that Amendment 4 is inconsistent with the
limited purpose of the bill and he does not support the
amendment.
VICE CHAIR FANSLER advised the committee to return to the
discussion on Amendment 3.
2:28:55 PM
LINDA BRUCE, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, Alaska State Legislature, said she
was available to answer questions.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to adopted Amendment 1, subsection
(c), page 1, lines 5-6, which read as follows:
(c) Nothing in this section creates or implies a
duty on a person authorized to solemnize a marriage
under (a)(1), (3), or (4) of this section to solemnize
a marriage.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether the word "person" covers the
language in paragraph (3) with respect to those religious
organizations or congregations, for purposes of this law
2:30:30 PM
MS. BRUCE answered "Yes it does," under AS 01.10.060(8) the
definition of person, read as follows:
(8) "person" includes a corporation,
company, partnership, firm, association, organization,
business trust, or society, as well as a natural
person;
MS. BRUCE continued that the Supreme Court has interpreted this
provision expansively, and in her opinion it would include those
organizations.
2:30:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether a home church with no
501(c)(3) status, would also be covered under this amendment
with the word "person."
MS. BRUCE responded that it would be covered if it's a commonly
understood meaning.
2:31:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether home churches, with no legal
status, can solemnize marriage under current statute.
MS. BRUCE related that courts would interpret this broadly,
although, she didn't know about the legal status of those
churches.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to whether any organization
could call itself a home church and solemnize a marriage under
current statute.
MS. BRUCE responded that current statute read "any religious
organization or congregation" which is a broad term, and she
opined that it could as long as it had an established ritual or
form commonly practiced in the organization or congregation."
2:33:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether this amendment would
protect all Alaskans, with the authority to solemnize a
marriage, to refuse for any reason.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD, in response to Vice Chair Fansler,
advised that she was referring to Amendment 3.
VICE CHAIR FANSLER advised Ms. Bruce that Amendment 3, Version
30-LS0242\D.1, was before the committee.
MS. BRUCE pointed out that this amendment is similar to
[Amendment 1], Version 30-LS0242\J.1, and the only difference
being is that [Amendment 3] pertains to "all persons authorized
to solemnize marriage" whereas [Amendment 1] applies to persons
under (a)(1), (3) and (4).
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she did not hear an answer to her
question as to whether this allows anyone, with the authority to
solemnize a marriage, the right to refuse for any reason.
MS. BRUCE responded that it does, as the statute is already
permissive, and this does do what Representative Reinbold was
asking.
2:35:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN mentioned there are two categories of
people in subsection (a) paragraph (2), and marriage
commissioners are involved, and the committee might
inadvertently be leaving them out of this if they are not
included. He commented that Amendment 3 includes everyone.
2:36:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that the marriage commissioner is
a voluntary process, and by virtue of that fact, the person
voluntarily wants to be a marriage commissioner or they don't
apply for that opportunity.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that that might be the practice
within which Representative Kopp was familiar, the state statute
simply gives the judicial officer in each judicial district the
ability to appoint marriage commissioners. He added that it
does not read whether that will be voluntary, or any particular
member of the judiciary, or a legislator, and he was unclear
whether that was necessarily logically necessary that that be
the case in all parts of Alaska.
VICE CHAIR FANSLER called for the question on Amendment 3.
2:38:58 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman and
Reinbold voted in favor of adopting Amendment 3.
Representatives Fansler, Kopp, LeDoux, and Claman voted against
it. Therefore, adoption of Amendment 4 failed by a vote of 2-4.
2:38:37 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER advised that Amendment 4 was before the
committee.
2:39:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN withdrew Amendment 4.
2:39:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 5, Version 30-
LS0242\D.11, which read as follows:
Page 2, following line 3:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 25.05.261 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(c) Nothing in this section requires or
obligates an imam of any mosque in the state to
solemnize a marriage."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.
2:39:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that current statute recognizes
many different individuals, organizations, titles, and
ministers, priests, and rabbis, and does not mentioned imam of
any mosque. Mosques are located in Alaska and, he commented, it
is important that mosques are equally recognized in statute.
Therefore, it would not ever be in a situation of having an
expectation or obligation to perform a marriage in which it
wasn't enthusiastically behind, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered that her problem with it here is
that it doesn't parallel the language of Section 1. She
explained that the more appropriate place, if anyone believes it
is necessary, would be in Section 1, (a)(1), which would read as
follows:
(1) by minister, priest, rabbi, or imam ...
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX continued that by putting it in Section 1,
it would not be necessary to list them in Sec, 2 because they
would be covered by the way Sec. 2 work anyway. She pointed out
that to have it in Sec. 2 when it isn't in Section 1, is
confusing.
2:41:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referred to AS 25.05.261(a)(3), which read
as follows:
(3) marriage may be solemnized before or in
any religious organization or congregation according
to the established ritual or form commonly practiced
in the organization.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated that it clearly covers imams and
mosques.
2:42:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN related that "in the amendment that was
just voted down", all persons and organizations would have been
covered equally without the need to list or refer to anyone
specifically. Although, since the committee is continuing with
listing pastors, rabbis, priests, and so forth, there is an
argument that an imam should be mentioned as well, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related that she doesn't have any concern
with listing imams, but there are probably a myriad of religions
and they are covered by minister, priest, or rabbi, which are
the three major religions here. The caveat includes just about
anything else that is considered a religion, she pointed out.
In the event the committee lists Islam, then Buddhists, Hindus,
and others must be mentioned which would require a world
religion encyclopedia to make certain no religion was missed.
2:43:47 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN said he agreed that subsection (a) paragraph (3)
adequately includes Islam, Buddhism, and any number of
religions. He offered that the Department of Defense has
classifications of the different religions it recognizes, with a
large group titled "other religions," of which would all be
covered under paragraph (3) of this statute, and that Amendment
5 is overly specific.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she agreed with Representative
Eastman in that if the committee had passed the previous
amendment, it would have covered all. She explained that the
purpose of Amendment 5 is to show that because that amendment
failed, now the committee must go through each individual
[religion], which might take weeks. The language should be
inclusive for any individual and not just protect the rights of
legislators. She said that Legislative Legal and Research
Services previously testified that everyone would have been
protected and had the right to refuse, except now the committee
has the obligation to go through each and every single type of
religion or whatever because the committee refuses to protect
everyone.
2:45:58 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER said that while he appreciates Representative
Eastman's goal to be as inclusive as possible, his worry lends
toward Representative LeDoux's worry that when the committee
does these kinds of things, it creates legislative intent. The
intent suddenly becomes that the committee chose to purposefully
include one group, but perhaps it should have included something
else, and "why did we not." Therefore, he said he prefers to
leave it open to the widest possible group possible because when
putting in lists and simply forgetting one person or one group
suddenly opens a large can of worms. While he appreciates where
Representative Eastman is coming from, he was not in favor of
the amendment, he said.
2:47:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN agreed that the committee was setting
legislative intent in these decisions, and it will be difficult
for courts involved in HB 20's legislative history search to see
other than "we are setting up specific types of individuals and
categories and organizations to effect marriages in this state."
The committee specifically mentioned that some of those have to
perform marriages only because, by the passage of this bill,
there are other people who do not have to [solemnize marriages].
He related that the committee is setting the situation up
wherein he is a marriage commissioner, before this bill happens,
and he decides on the day of the wedding that he doesn't want to
perform the marriage. He then offered the committee this
question, "What about me," because the committee created the
expectation that if he initially agreed to be a marriage
commissioner, he must still want to do it, and he described that
as a presumption.
2:48:46 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN called a point of order. Chair Claman pointed out
that Amendment 5 has nothing to do with marriage commissioners,
it has to do with imam and mosques and Representative Eastman is
not on topic.
2:48:55 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER advised Representative Eastman to return to
the topic of his amendment, imams and mosques.
2:49:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said imams and mosques are important to
include because the language read that there are specific people
who can and cannot perform marriages. He described it as an
irony because elsewhere in statute "we kinda want everybody to
be able to do marriages," and created ways for that to be
accomplished. He said he would like to take a step away from
the state coming up with a list.
CHAIR CLAMAN objected. Chair Claman pointed out that
Representative Eastman was "way off topic of this amendment."
2:49:52 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman and
Reinbold voted in favor of the passage of Amendment 5.
Representatives Kopp, LeDoux, Fansler, and Claman voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 5 failed to be adopted by a vote of 4-
2.
2:50:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 6, Version 30-
LS0242\D.6, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 9, following "state;":
Insert "nothing in this paragraph requires or
obligates a minister, priest, or rabbi of any church
or congregation to solemnize a marriage;"
CHAIR CLAMAN objected.
2:51:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that this amendment is similar
to the previous discussion, and this amendment specifically
lists ministers, priest, and rabbi, as deserving of protection
under this statute.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX stated that adopted Amendment 1 does the
trick with respect to ministers, priests, and rabbis.
CHAIR CLAMAN maintained his objection, and stressed that he
agrees with Representative LeDoux.
2:52:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN wrapped up his testimony by stating his
hope is that Representative LeDoux is correct and that Amendment
6 is captured, if not, he intends to vote for this amendment.
2:52:18 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman and
Reinbold voted in favor of the passage of Amendment 6.
Representatives Fansler, Kopp, LeDoux, and Claman voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 6 failed to be adopted by a vote of 4-
2.
2:53:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 7, Version 30-
LS0242\D.7, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 9, following "state;":
Insert "nothing in this paragraph requires or
obligates a commissioned officer of the Salvation Army
to solemnize a marriage;"
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that the amendment lists
commissioned officers of the Salvation Army as deserving of
protection under the statute.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX offered her previous testimony with
respect to Amendment 6, in that it is covered under Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD advised that this is important and the
committee should probably do 100 more amendments because the
committee refused to sign off on the amendment that gave all
Alaskans the right to refuse. She stated that the committee has
an obligation to go through all of the people this might impact,
and that this committee decided to protect only select
individuals.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX acknowledged that she understands
Representative Reinbold's philosophical concern with the
protection of all Alaskans, as opposed to select Alaskans. She
reiterated that Amendment 1 takes care of these select Alaskans
that are the subject of Amendment 7, because there is no doubt
that the people referred to in Amendment 7 are taken care of by
Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD stated that she strongly disagrees with
that statement.
2:55:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked Representative Reinbold whether it
is her intent is to be certain everyone is covered.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she is hoping Representative LeDoux
is correct, but this amendment will protect one more class.
2:55:53 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman and
Reinbold voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 7.
Representatives LeDoux, Fansler, Kopp, and Claman voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 7 failed to be adopted by a vote of 4-
2.
2:56:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 8, Version 30-
LS0242\D.8, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 9, following "state;":
Insert "nothing in this paragraph requires or
obligates the principal officer or elder of a
recognized church or congregation to solemnize a
marriage;"
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that the amendment ensures that
nothing in the statute requires or obligates the principal
officer or elder of a recognized church or congregation to
solemnize a marriage.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she is passionate about this
amendment and supports it wholeheartedly. In the event the
committee chooses to exclude one branch of government, it is
"dead wrong." She asked permission of Representative Eastman to
add her name as sponsor to Amendment 8, because it is a critical
step in protecting anyone working in the judicial branch of
government.
2:57:47 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER pointed out that Amendment 8 does not speak
to the judicial branch.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD apologized.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX called for the question.
2:58:11 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman and
Reinbold voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 8.
Representatives LeDoux, Fansler, Kopp, and Claman voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 8 failed to be adopted by a vote of 2-
4.
2:58:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 9, Version 30-
LS0242\D.9, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 11, following "officer;":
Insert "nothing in this paragraph requires or
obligates a marriage commissioner or judicial officer
to solemnize a marriage;"
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN objected.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that the amendment specifies in
statute that both a marriage commissioner and a judicial officer
are not obligated or required to solemnize a marriage.
2:59:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD related that the committee previously
heard her loud and clear that she does not want to exclude the
judicial branch of government because it would be "dead wrong."
CHAIR CLAMAN maintained his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP reminded the committee that Legislative
Legal and Research Services pointed out that the language is
permissive. He referred to CSHB 20, Version J, page 1, line 5,
and paraphrased as follows: "Marriages may be solemnized." He
stated that the language does not say "Marriages shall be
solemnized," and that within adopted Amendment 1, the committee
basically "doubled down on legislative intent," even with
respect to marriage commissioners and judicial officers. He
reiterated that the language is permissive.
3:00:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to adopted Amendment 1, and
asked why the sponsor excluded [Sec. 2. AS 25.05.261(a)]
paragraph (2), and opined that it was with the intent to exclude
the judicial branch. She said, "I think you're talking outa
both sides of your mouth right now."
3:00:33 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN called a point of order, and explained that the
topic of adding paragraph (2) to the bill is the subject of an
amendment that previously failed.
3:00:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX called a point of order, and stipulated
that it is not appropriate to say that another representative is
"speaking out of both side of their mouth," in that it impugns
the representative's motives.
3:00:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said "As long as we keep consistent all
of the time, then I'm fine -- I'm fine with that. But we need
to not just call it out randomly, it needs to be consistent."
She explained that it is confusing when it is said that
[marriage commissioners and judicial officers] are covered by
one, and then exclude them on another. "I -- I think it's a
very fair statement, but if he could clearly explained why --
why [paragraph (2)] is taken out. Now, he says they're covered
in 9, I don't understand."
3:01:20 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER pointed out there are two points of order and
ruled that Representative LeDoux's point of order is well taken
and for the members to not impugn anyone as everyone is trying
to do what they think is best.
3:01:36 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER commented that Representative Claman's point
of order was that the committee previously spoke to this
amendment arguably with Amendment 3.
CHAIR CLAMAN clarified that prior to the adoption of Amendment 1
[Representative Reinbold] offered [Conceptual] Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1, adding paragraph (2) into Amendment 1. The motion
to add paragraph (2) into Amendment 1 [was withdrawn] and;
therefore, that topic had been addressed by the actions of this
committee.
VICE CHAIR FANSLER clarified that [Conceptual] Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1 was withdrawn.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD agreed, and said it was withdrawn
because one of Representative Eastman's amendments spoke to this
subject.
VICE CHAIR FANSLER pointed out that, at the time, Representative
Eastman said that Amendment 3 spoke to it, and he was inclined
to agree that Amendment 3 characterizes it because it now
includes marriage under subsection (a).
3:03:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said the question was whether this
subject had been spoken to previously, and the committee did
determine, prior to the motion to adopt Amendment 1, that each
amendment would be spoken to separately, which involves some
amount of overlap. The committee could say that by passing
Amendment 1, the committee undid the previously adopted
committee substitute, and he said he is okay with that. He then
noted that the question was "Well, what have we said," and he
would like to be clear "what is it that we are trying to say as
a committee on this particular issue."
VICE CHAIR FANSLER stated that Chair Claman's point of order is
well taken.
3:04:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP reiterated that the language in this statute
is permissive, it's not prescriptive or directive. He commented
that "perfect is always the enemy of good," and while
Representative Reinbold and himself want protections to apply
across all eligible persons, and it was his perspective that the
judiciary already has some flexibility. Sometimes, he opined,
when legislators choose the battles in front of them, they can
end up damaging the entire goal of what the [legislation] is
trying to accomplish. Currently, he said, he does not see this
bill as the vehicle for the [judiciary] issue to be addressed,
and that this bill does a lot of good by extending protections
to congregations, religious leaders, elected officials, and it
offers "some wonderful things." He concluded that by adding one
more thing to it, the committee could end up undoing it.
3:06:07 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman and
Reinbold voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 9.
Representatives Fansler, Kopp, Kreiss-Tomkins, LeDoux, and
Claman voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 9 failed to be
adopted by a vote of 2-5.
3:06:51 PM
The committee took a brief at ease.
3:06:57 PM
VICE CHAIR FANSLER passed the gavel to Chair Claman.
[HB 20 was held over.]
3:08:14 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:08 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB120 ver. A 3.1.17.PDF |
HJUD 3/6/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 120 |
| HB120 Transmittal Letter 3.2.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 120 |
| HB120 Summary of Bill 3.2.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 120 |
| HB120 Fiscal Note LAW-CIV 2.24.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 120 |
| HB020 Draft Proposed CS ver. J 3.1.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2017 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB020 Amendments 1-12 3.3.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2017 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB020 Amendment 1 replacement 3.3.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2017 1:00:00 PM |