Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/16/1997 03:20 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 16, 1997
3:20 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chairman
Representative John Cowdery
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Joe Ryan
Representative Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Gene Kubina
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 217
"An Act relating to certified nurse aides; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 217(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 159
"An Act relating to sale, gift, exchange, possession, and purchase
of tobacco and tobacco products; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED CSSSHB 159(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 235
"An Act relating to findings necessary before a certificate of
public convenience and necessity is issued to an electric utility
under certain circumstances; and relating to the definition of
`general public' with respect to the regulation of electric
utilities."
- HEARD AND HELD; ASSIGNED TO SUBCOMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 217
SHORT TITLE: CERTIFIED NURSE AIDES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) RYAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/27/97 872 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/27/97 872 (H) L&C
04/14/97 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/14/97 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/14/97 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
BILL: HB 159
SHORT TITLE: TOBACCO PURCHASE, POSSESSION, SALE, ETC.
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT, Mulder, Kohring, Sanders, Ryan,
Cowdery
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/25/97 465 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/25/97 465 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY
02/27/97 519 (H) COSPONSOR(S): SANDERS
03/27/97 871 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED -
REFERRALS
03/27/97 872 (H) L&C, JUDICIARY
04/09/97 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/09/97 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/10/97 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
04/10/97 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/11/97 1085 (H) COSPONSOR(S): COWDERY
BILL: HB 235
SHORT TITLE: ELEC UTILITY SERVICE
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE BY REQUEST
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/04/97 991 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/04/97 991 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE
04/16/97 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 204
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3764
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SSHB 159.
ERIC YOULD, Executive Director
Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative Association
703 West Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 561-6103
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 235.
BOB MARTIN, General Manager
Tlingit Haida Regional Electrical Authority
P.O. Box 210149
Auke Bay, Alaska 99821
Telephone: (907) 789-3196
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 235.
VAYLA COLONELL, Manager of Member Services
Golden Valley Electric Association
P.O. Box 71249
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Telephone: (907) 452-1151
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 235.
ALYCE A. HANLEY, Commissioner
Alaska Public Utilities Commission
1016 West 6th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1963
Telephone: (907) 276-6222
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding HB 235.
BOB LOHR, Executive Director
Alaska Public Utilities Commission
1016 West 6th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1963
Telephone: (907) 276-6222
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding HB 235.
NORMAN L. STORY, General Manager
Homer Electric Association
3977 Lake Street
Homer, Alaska 99603
Telephone: (907) 235-8167
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 235.
CHARLES Y. WALLS, President and CEO
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 561-1818
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 235.
ROBERT WILKINSON, General Manager
Copper Valley Electric Association
P.O. Box 45
Glennallen, Alaska 99588
Telephone: (907) 822-3211
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 235.
ROGER KEMPPEL, Attorney at Law
Kemppel, Huggman and Ellis, PC
255 East Fireweed Lane, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2025
Telephone: (907) 277-1604
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 235.
JOHN HANDELAND, Mayor
City of Nome
P.O. Box 281
Nome, Alaska 99762
Telephone: (907) 443-6663
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 235.
TIM COOK, Commissioner
Alaska Public Utilities Commission
1016 West 6th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1963
Telephone: (907) 276-6222
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding HB 235.
DONALD W. EDWARDS, General Counsel
Chugach Electric Association
P.O. Box 196300
Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6300
Telephone: (907) 762-4790
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified regarding HB 235.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-42, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:20 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Rokeberg, Cowdery,
Sanders and Ryan; there was a quorum. Representatives Brice and
Hudson arrived at 4:24 p.m. and 4:25 p.m., respectively.
Representative Kubina was absent.
HB 217 - CERTIFIED NURSE AIDES
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the first order of business was House
Bill No. 217, "An Act relating to certified nurse aides; and
providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE JOE RYAN made a motion to rescind the committee's
action of April 14, 1997, moving the bill out of committee. There
being no objection, version 0-LS0737\B, Lauterbach, 4/9/97, as
amended, was back before the committee.
Number 0156
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN made a further motion to rescind the
committee's action regarding the amendment changing the title. He
said he didn't believe that action was appropriate because it
affected the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG specified that the motion was to rescind
the committee's action adopting Amendment 1, relating to the title
change and the language on page 7, line 27. He noted that
Representative Brice was now in attendance. He asked whether there
was any objection to rescinding that action.
Number 0218
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS objected to find out the reason.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said changing the title causes problems and
makes it quite a bit different from the companion bill in the
Senate. On reflection, it wasn't really necessary to do.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE said it violates the single-subject rule.
Number 0261
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG agreed and noted there was a related memorandum
from the Division of Legal and Research Services discussing
deletion of Section 16 and the single-subject rule.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS withdrew his objection.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced that there being no objection, the
adoption of Amendment 1 was rescinded. He noted that
Representative Hudson was now in attendance.
Number 0309
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN made a motion to delete Section 16. He said
this is language that the Office of the Attorney General had
advised them to include in case of any problem down the road. It
is not really applicable and perhaps causes further problems with
the single-subject rule relating to the title.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called that "conceptual Amendment 3." He asked
whether there was any objection. There being none, conceptual
Amendment 3 was adopted.
Number 0391
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN made a motion to move the bill, as amended, out
of committee, with individual recommendations and accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 217(L&C) moved from
the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called an at-ease at 3:30 p.m. He called the
meeting back to order at 3:36 p.m.
SSHB 159 - TOBACCO PURCHASE, POSSESSION, SALE, ETC.
Number 0517
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the next item of business was Sponsor
Substitute for House Bill No. 159, "An Act relating to sale, gift,
exchange, possession, and purchase of tobacco and tobacco products;
and providing for an effective date."
Number 0555
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON made a motion to adopt 0-LS0287\L, Ford,
4/14/97, as a work draft. There being no objection, that version
was before the committee.
Number 0572
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT, sponsor, addressed changes in the
proposed committee substitute. Referring to page 4, line 8, he
said the $100 was changed to $250 to add internal consistency.
Page 4, line 3, added a new subsection (f) to prohibit the sale of
loose cigarettes, an idea suggested by Chairman Rokeberg. On page
3, line 2, the phrase, "for consumption on the licensed premises",
which appeared in version K immediately after "sold", was deleted.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked the reason for that.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said current law permits vending machines in
package stores; this retains the present law. Page 5, line 15,
adds the language, "and may not apply for a license endorsement
under AS 43.70.075 under a different name." As discussed at the
last hearing, they didn't want a person applying for another
endorsement under a different name if that person's license was
suspended.
Number 0741
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said in Section 9 on page 6, the phrase,
"ADOPTED UNDER AS 43.70.090", was deleted. In version K, this
phrase occurred three times, whereas in version L, it no longer
occurs. The statute in question, AS 43.70.090, authorizes the
promulgation of regulations to determine and collect fees. By
removing this limitation, a violation of any regulation
implementing Section 9 of the bill may be used as an aggregating
factor in imposing a suspension or revocation. This change was
requested by the Division of Occupational Licensing; someone from
that division had testified at the previous hearing.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT provided the rationale for not adopting other
suggestions made at the previous hearing. They had gone through
the tapes and tried to cover some of the issues brought forth.
Several people had suggested that the language should be removed
which makes it a violation for minors to attempt to purchase
tobacco, or that they should provide a law enforcement exemption.
However, to his knowledge, present law does not contain such an
exemption. Neither does he believe they should encourage kids to
become undercover operatives.
Number 0884
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked whether that was the "Synar amendment" on
the federal statute. He requested clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he wasn't familiar with that, but if it
was covered under federal law, it wouldn't change under state law.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG, noting that Anchorage had adopted ordinances,
asked whether anything in the bill would prohibit a local
municipality from doing that.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said no, then specified it was a weak no.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested that Representative Kott check on that.
Number 0929
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said there were suggestions that fees collected
be rebated to the municipalities. He explained, "We already have
some intent language in here that would provide funding, based on
legislative approval, back to municipalities and boroughs. And the
fee structure, as it currently exists, as we were discussing it in
relationship with the ABC Board, just wouldn't work. There's a
total of about $66,000 generated in license fees. And if you
divided that among the municipalities and boroughs equally, you
probably wouldn't have enough for one-tenth of an enforcement
officer. So, that in and of itself really wasn't worthy of further
evaluation."
Number 0973
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked: What about the fines?
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said the fines themselves would be reimbursed
to the municipalities, stating, "That's, again, why we have the
$8,000 court note, to determine what municipalities collected and
what would be rebated." He emphasized that there is no guarantee
of that going back to the municipalities. However, the intent
language ensures that the legislature understands the reason it was
inserted in the bill in the first place.
Number 1002
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to the change from 19 to 21 years of
age. He asked whether that action was taken in the last committee.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said it was not new language.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said they had adopted that in the committee
substitute.
Number 1020
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked whether Representative Kott had thought
about the administrative costs of collecting these fines through
the state instead of having a direct reimbursement to the
municipality from the court system.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT replied that they had not considered it, nor
did he believe there would be a tremendous administrative cost
associated with that reimbursement, according to discussions they
had with the division.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT addressed Chairman Rokeberg and Representative
Ryan regarding whether clerks under the age of 21 could sell
tobacco on behalf of their employers. He said the present law does
not contain an express exemption. In discussions with Mike Ford,
the drafting attorney, Mr. Ford didn't feel that the courts would
construe these activities as possession, as that word is used in
this bill. Mr. Ford believed the court would give that a narrow
interpretation but said it would be all right to clarify that in
the bill, which a proposed amendment does.
Number 1118
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said Representative Kubina had questioned the
wisdom of including mail orders and had asked whether some proof of
age should be required in such transactions. Representative Kott
stated, "We believe that this would be unfair, especially as it
relates to rural Alaska, out in the bush, where mail orders are
often done." He indicated there was another amendment that might
tighten it up, under which an initial transaction would require
that a photo identification showing the person's age be faxed to
the wholesaler.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked whether there was a federal law relating to
using the mail to distribute tobacco products to underage people.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said no, not that he was aware of. He had
looked at a catalog two days before, and there was no requirement
to send in photo identification. However, there was a signature
block and check-off block, and he believed most mail orders require
a person to be 21 years of age. That was the extent of the
requirement for potential purchasers.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT mentioned a question by the chairman as to
whether the exception to the general prohibition on vending
machines covered by page 2, line 31, was redundant. Representative
Kott said there is no redundancy. This covers places that exclude
persons under age 21, such as smoking clubs. It is not the same as
the next exception concerning places where alcohol is sold.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG acknowledged the three proposed amendments that
Representative Kott had handed out.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE offered Amendment 1, 0-LS0287\L.1, Ford,
4/16/97, which read:
Page 5, line 16:
Delete "endorsement under AS 43.70.075"
Insert "under AS 43.50.010 - 43.50.180"
Page 6, following line 20:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Sec. 10. AS 43.70.075(e) is amended to read:
(e) If a person who receives an endorsement under
this section has multiple retail outlets, a suspension imposed
under (d) of this section applies only to the retail outlet in
which the violation occurs. If a person receives a suspension
under (d) of this section, the person may not apply for a
license endorsement under this section under a different
name."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT explained that Amendment 1 was basically what
had been discussed by the division. If one retail outlet was
suspended, they would not want that outlet to apply for another
endorsement under a different name. This tightens it up.
Otherwise, there could be multiple endorsements from the same
retail establishment, and the suspension or revocation would serve
no real purpose.
Number 1296
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG removed his objection and asked whether there
were further objections. There being none, Amendment 1 was
adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, 0-
LS0287\L.2, Ford, 4/16/97, which read:
Page 2, following line 13:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(c) In this section, "possess" does not include
possession for the purpose of retail sale by a person under 21
years of age who holds a license endorsement under AS
43.70.075 or who is the employee of a person who holds a
license endorsement under AS 43.70.075."
Number 1305
An unidentified member objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT explained that this amendment relates to the
drafting attorney's suggestion that they could make it clear to the
courts that for a person under age 21 who was working for a retail
establishment, selling tobacco products of itself would not be
considered possession and a violation of the statute. Currently,
a person who is 18 years old may sell tobacco products.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked whether there was any objection. He then
noted that the objection was removed and Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 1365
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he was moving Amendment 3 for discussion
purposes. Amendment 3, 0-LS0287\L.3, Ford, 4/16/97, read:
Page 2, line 25, following "order":
Insert ", and the person selling the tobacco product has
a copy of the purchaser's photo identification indicating that
the purchaser is at least 21 years of age"
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT explained that Amendment 3 requires that photo
identification be supplied when a purchaser orders by mail.
Number 1400
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY mentioned the possibility of it not
being that person's identification, saying he didn't know how to
correct that.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT acknowledged there are several ways to get
around the under-age prohibition; this just tightens it up. He
believes a photo identification stating the person's age would at
least give the vendor more assurance that the mail-order purchaser
is of legal age.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN suggested it would take the liability off the
vendor, who could produce a photocopy of the identification and
state that he or she had acted in good faith.
Number 1446
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to adopt Amendment 3. There
being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 1462
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a brief at-ease at 3:50 p.m. He called
the meeting back to order at 3:51 p.m.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG expressed concern about the age of 21, having
been drafted as a youth into the U.S. Army, where they provided
"gags" in C-ration boxes overseas.
Number 1502
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said they no longer do that. The same
situation had been discussed when the age for legally drinking was
raised to 21. He believes the military establishments would
conform, as they did then. He also believes the state has an
interest in protecting the public health, and by elevating this to
21, it gives those contemplating smoking an opportunity to
reevaluate it. He suggested at some point the federal government
would probably elevate the age for possession to 21 as well.
Number 1551
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked how many military personnel now serve in
Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said there are approximately 8,500 active-duty
personnel. He suggested that in the military, both nationwide and
statewide, tobacco use is being deglamorized as much as possible.
He estimated that of those 8,500, ten percent use tobacco.
Number 1612
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said having been employed at a military
installation for some time, he found the general policy is that the
military makes its people adhere to the laws of the local community
in which they are stationed, as well as to the uniform military
justice code. If they enact this legislation, Representative Ryan
believes the commanders would instruct their troops accordingly.
Number 1645
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he didn't see any grandfather clause to
provide, for example, for a 20-year-old smoker who will suddenly be
made underage. Recalling that there had been discussion of that
relating to alcohol consumption, he asked whether there had been
similar discussion about this.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT replied, "In my opinion, and it's strictly
that, there was no discussion on grandfathering-in anyone. There
is an effective date on the bill, obviously, and someone who has
been smoking a relatively short period of time, hopefully, if
they've been abiding by the laws as they currently exist, should be
able to kick the habit. And there's a number of tools out there
that will help." He commented on the chairman's efforts to quit.
Number 1714
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said there are people age 14 or 15 who are
addicted to "crack," and that didn't mean they should adjust laws
to make that legal. He said no bill is perfect. This is a health
bill, to try to keep youth from starting to smoke. "And the ones
that have started early, God bless them, I guess," he said. He
himself had begun at age nine, smoked for 40 years, and quit. He
believes this goes a long way towards solving the concerns that
many people have of youths' smoking.
Number 1766
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked the justification for raising the age
from 19 to 21 in Section 2. He also had served in the military.
He expressed concern that many young men and women are emancipated
by age 18 and out of school. He asked whether they may be trying
to over-protect that upper-age group of young people.
Number 1844
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said the main thought was to conform it to
essentially the same standards as for alcohol use. Based on what
he had heard, he believes that a small percentage of young people
start smoking once they leave school and get into another
environment. This would at least postpone that potential for a
couple of years, providing an opportunity to perhaps make a more
rational decision.
Number 1838
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked whether there is any bar in the federal
law to people this age smoking.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT replied, "We can be more stringent but not
less."
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked what the federal law is currently.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said he wasn't sure. He thought it was under
19.
Number 1857
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS commented that had this law been in effect
50 years ago, his mother might still be alive. She had her first
cigarette at age 20 and died of emphysema at 74.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT recounted that he had joined the U.S. Air Force
at age 19. The drill instructor marched them around for a couple
of hours and then said those who smoked could fall out, whereas
those who didn't had to stand at-ease in formation. The best way
to get under the shade was to light a cigarette, and that was his
introduction to tobacco products. He suggested if the law was 21,
he wouldn't have had his initial contact.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he started at age 12 or 14 and had smoked
for more than 40 years. He mentioned movie stars and sports
celebrities who had influenced him.
Number 1949
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG offered a conceptual amendment to change the age
from 21 to 19, the age of majority in Alaska. Because the
committee substitute raised the age without a grandfather clause,
they would be telling somebody who is fully emancipated that, at
age 20, it is now illegal to do what they already do. He did not
condone smoking but believed this would be "socially dislocating."
Mentioning the alcohol prohibition era, he pointed out that when
something is prohibited, that itself can entice a young person.
The transition period between the late-teen stage into young
adulthood is a difficult time. For numerous reasons, he was
offering a conceptual amendment to move the age from 21 to 19 in
all portions of the legislation.
Number 2011
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS objected.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked to hear from the sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated, "My thoughts are that tobacco use is
prevalent among our youth, whether we like to know it or not. But
beyond that, if there are any young individuals out there in the
community that have the thought of starting once they are of the
existing legal age, we can at least postpone that for a couple of
years and protect them from the negative effects of nicotine and
tobacco use in general."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested a roll-call vote. Voting for the
amendment were Representatives Rokeberg and Hudson. Voting against
it were Representatives Cowdery, Sanders, Brice and Ryan.
Representative Kubina was absent. Therefore, it failed, 4 to 2.
Number 2089
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN made a motion to move 0-LS0287\L, Ford,
4/14/97, as amended, from committee with individual recommendations
and accompanying fiscal notes.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG pointed out that the fiscal notes were for the
sponsor substitute: $7,900 from the Alaska Court System, 66.3
thousand dollars from the Department of Commerce and Economic
Development, and the rest for zero.
Number 2115
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked whether there was any objection. There
being none, CSSSHB 159(JUD) moved out of the House Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a brief at-ease at 4:07 p.m. He called
the meeting back to order at 4:08 p.m.
HB 235 - ELEC UTILITY SERVICE
Number 2175
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the next item of business was House
Bill No. 235, "An Act relating to findings necessary before a
certificate of public convenience and necessity is issued to an
electric utility under certain circumstances; and relating to the
definition of `general public' with respect to the regulation of
electric utilities."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG advised members that HB 235 was submitted at the
request of Eric Yould's organization. Following Mr. Yould's
presentation, they would hear testimony via teleconference. If Sam
Cotten of the Alaska Public Utilities Commission (APUC) was still
available, he would also testify.
Number 2175
ERIC YOULD, Executive Director, Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative
Association (ARECA), explained that their membership consists of 38
utilities statewide: 18 Rural Electric Association (REA)
cooperatives and 20 municipal or investor-owned utilities. He
speculated that collectively, ARECA's utilities provide 95 percent
or more of all electricity in Alaska.
MR. YOULD advised members that on December 6, the board of
directors, which includes members from the 18 electric cooperatives
throughout the state, unanimously adopted a resolution with
language similar to this bill.
MR. YOULD provided a detailed history. The need for the
legislation began the previous year, but its genesis goes back
several years. The previous session, SB 54 had attempted to
establish specific exclusive service areas for electric utilities
throughout Alaska. The reason for that bill was a conflicting
opinion between the electric utilities throughout Alaska and the
APUC as to whether there are exclusive services areas. This
confusion stems from the genesis of the APUC itself, which he
believes was started in 1959 under AS 42.05. Because of that
statute and subsequent statutes governing electric service through
municipal utilities (Title 29), throughout the 1960s there were
occasionally service areas on top of each other, which were
basically duplicate service areas.
Number 2258
MR. YOULD said as a result, two lawsuits in 1967 attempted to
clarify who had jurisdiction to serve certain clients; the first
was between Homer Electric Association and the City of Kenai, and
the second was between Chugach Electric Association and the City of
Anchorage. The two lawsuits were heard ultimately by the supreme
court; it adjudicated them, but it also indicated to the
legislature that there was confusion between Title 29 and the
generic statutes of the APUC, and it requested that a change be
made to clarify jurisdiction.
MR. YOULD said in 1970, the legislature significantly amended the
APUC statutes, to at least the utility industry's belief, reserving
specific areas for individual utilities. From 1970 through recent
times, it has been the general impression of the electric utility
industry that each had a specific, exclusive service area.
However, with the more recent national interest in deregulation of
the electric utility industry, there has been increasingly more
discussion within the APUC that, in fact, they have authority
within the commission to issue competing jurisdictional service
areas. "And they cite the case law going back to 1967," he stated.
Number 2371
MR. YOULD advised members that the electric utility industry has
indicated they don't agree with the APUC's interpretation but
believe the changes made in 1970 by the legislature should prevail.
Because of the confusion, last year Senator Tim Kelly introduced SB
54, which reserved exclusive service areas for electric utilities
throughout the state; that bill passed in the Senate but not the
House. He suggested part of the reason for that was the pending
federal deregulation.
MR. YOULD said the electric utility industry realizes some form of
retail "wheeling" may be considered in the future by the federal
government. They believe HB 235 gives the APUC the statutory
authority, which they don't believe it presently has, to provide
that. More important to the utilities, HB 235 sets criteria by
which the APUC may consider duplicate certification, thereby
precluding arbitrary standards and removing the possibility that
utilities would fight over new or existing customers.
Number 2395
MR. YOULD explained that Section 1 simply establishes that electric
utilities are the only entities affected by this legislation.
Section 2, the meat of the bill, does two things: It allows the
APUC the authority to provide retail "wheeling," and it establishes
a criteria and standard for them to allow that to happen. For
example, in order for the APUC to provide duplicate certification,
it must first find that there is clear and convincing evidence that
it is in the public interest and will not adversely affect service
or rates to certificated service areas. The bill attempts to
ensure that one utility cannot go into another's service area,
"cherry pick" the best customers and leave the rest high and dry to
pay the cost of the "imbedded plant" and the capital for which the
utility and its customers will have to assume payment.
TAPE 97-42, SIDE B
Number 0006
MR. YOULD read from a letter that discussed "cherry picking." It
said while this predatory practice may cause rates to go down for
certain large commercial customers, rates for residential and small
users would almost surely go up. Eventually, because of the need
to pay the long-term debt service and stranded investment, the
original utility may experience financial difficulties or be forced
out of business, leading to higher overall rates.
Number 0036
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN wondered whether this legislation would have
cured a problem that once existed in Fairbanks. People using the
municipal utility system paid 40 percent more for electricity than
if they could have obtained it from Golden Valley's utility system.
The problem was resolved through sale of the utility. He asked
what precludes that from happening under this legislation or what
the bill would do to cure that situation.
MR. YOULD said he believes HB 235 would preserve the status quo of
those two service areas, the Fairbanks Municipal Utilities System
(FMUS) and the Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA). He noted
that a GVEA representative would testify that day. Mr. Yould
believes the ultimate and proper solution is taking place: The
GVEA is in the process of buying out FMUS. As he understands it,
the sale is under review by the APUC, which apparently has ultimate
authority on whether this will be allowed to happen.
Number 0105
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked, "Am I to assume, then, that the
Anchorage utility will maintain that area and won't have any
competition from anybody else, as far as the ability to lower the
rates?"
MR. YOULD replied, "From the standpoint of this present piece of
legislation, it would not allow, for instance, Golden Valley to
come into Chugach's territory and try and pick up their customers;
that is correct."
Number 0124
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS said he realizes how significant this is in
smaller towns and villages in Alaska. He asked whether Mr. Yould
believes this competition poses the same problem in Fairbanks and
Anchorage as in the rest of the state.
MR. YOULD said this issue is being debated nationwide. "And I can
tell you that Senator Murkowski is going to be a major player in
how it is ultimately adjudicated throughout the United States," he
said. "There were original attempts made by certain congressmen in
the Lower 48 to dictate what the deregulation standards shall be.
I think that Senator Murkowski has taken the position that every
state is so different that instead they will mandate deregulation,
but it shall be up to the individual states and their legislators
to establish what works best for their individual states."
MR. YOULD said Alaska is very different from the Lower 48. In
Alaska, perhaps 95 percent of all power is produced by REA
cooperatives or municipal utilities, and their savings go back to
the rate-payers. In contrast, the Lower 48 has investor-owned
utilities, and their benefits may go back to investors instead.
MR. YOULD suggested electricity produced in California could end
up, at least on paper, in New York. It is different in Alaska,
with the exception of the railbelt area. He stated, "And I would
say that this piece of legislation does exhibit many of the same
problems in the railbelt area that we have throughout rural Alaska.
But certainly rural Alaska, because it's not an ... inter-connected
entity, has a more chronic problem."
Number 0124
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS recalled when they were deregulating
telephone utilities; there was a limit, a certain number of
telephones, that "threw Anchorage outside of the rest of the
state." He asked whether that might be possible or prudent here.
MR. YOULD said he couldn't answer that. This bill has gained
almost unanimous, but not total, support throughout Alaska. He
believes there is concern because the utilities use different types
of generation: Anchorage uses natural gas and a little hydro-
electric power; Fairbanks uses predominantly coal; and rural Alaska
uses diesel. It creates unlevel playing fields that allow one
utility to have predatory pricing capability. However, there is
not a preponderance of investor-owned utilities with large pools of
capital reserves that allow them to get into predatory pricing,
hook customers, drive other entities out of business, and then
raise prices.
Number 0274
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked what the standard is for clear and
convincing evidence.
MR. YOULD offered to read a definition that he believed to have
legal standing.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested that he afterwards provide a copy.
MR. YOULD read: "Clear and convincing is a legal standard/burden
of proof which is used throughout civil cases. A fact is
established by clear and convincing evidence if the evidence
induces belief in the minds that the alleged fact is highly
probable. It is not necessary that the alleged fact be certainly
true or true beyond a reasonable doubt or convincingly true.
However, it must be more than probably true."
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE suggested it was in between "beyond a
reasonable doubt" and "a preponderance of evidence."
Number 0329
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked when Mr. Yould foresees federal
deregulation happening. He further asked whether it would be
appropriate to wait for that and then adjust Alaska's statutes.
MR. YOULD replied that from everything he'd read, federal
deregulation is probably at least two or three years away; it is
hard to say. He restated that Senator Murkowski is probably a key
player regarding "what federal deregulation looks like" and how it
would be applied across the nation. Mr. Yould stated his personal
belief that if Alaska enacted a statute and brought that to Senator
Murkowski, he could ensure that the federal regulation is friendly
to Alaska's needs.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked which Alaskan utilities produce the
cheapest electricity.
MR. YOULD replied, "I wish I had done a little bit more homework
before coming here. But I suspect that Chugach's would be as low
as anybody's. ... And I can tell you that throughout the railbelt,
the rates are becoming much more competitive. And certainly when
the Healy clean coal project comes on board, that will have an
impact on Golden Valley's rates as well. And I can also tell you
that right here in Juneau, partially because of a prior investment
in hydro-power, that the rates are competitive here as well."
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY suggested that while this was a deregulation
bill of sorts, they were also asking the APUC to restrict or
regulate some aspects.
MR. YOULD responded, "We believe that it's inevitable that
eventually deregulation will take place on a national basis and
that we might as well get ahead of the power curve and see if we
can't get something that's friendly to the industry."
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked how many utilities are in Anchorage.
MR. YOULD said essentially two: Anchorage Municipal Light and
Power (ML&P) and Chugach Electric Association. Farther out toward
Eagle River, he believed that came under Matanuska Electric
Association (MEA).
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked whether ML&P was going to testify.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said not to his knowledge. There was a lengthy
letter from MEA.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked what position MEA and ML&P took on the
bill.
Number 0474
MR. YOULD noted that there was a letter in support from ML&P, as
well as a lengthy letter in support from MEA.
Number 0484
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked, "What if this body, in its infinite
wisdom, were to make APUC go away? What would that do to the
competitive structure and your ability to conduct business?"
MR. YOULD replied, "I suspect there'd be a loud cheer, for
starters. But frankly, I guess I would also have to say that APUC
provides a certain amount of order that is positive. Our concern
... is the timeliness of decisions that we get out of APUC. And
frankly, under regulation, if APUC is still in existence and we
have a utility that's subject to APUC, we would not be able to
respond very well to a utility coming in from outside that would
try and ... `cherry pick' some of our customers."
Number 0526
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced there were several people on-line to
testify. He asked that Mr. Yould stand by to answer questions.
Number 0544
BOB MARTIN, General Manager, Tlingit Haida Regional Electrical
Authority (THREA), testified via teleconference from Anchorage in
support of HB 235. A generation and distribution utility serving
seven Southeast villages, THREA has headquarters in Auke Bay
(Juneau). They use diesel engines, which is extremely expensive;
with increasing regulations and inflation, it is getting worse.
MR. MARTIN said like all utilities, THREA is required by law to
serve all customers in the service area. Some are less expensive
to serve, on a per-kilowatt-hour basis, simply because of the big
loads that use lots of energy at a single point. These are highly
desirable loads for a utility, and THREA has put a lot of thought
into attracting and nurturing them.
MR. MARTIN explained, "For instance, for the very largest loads in
our villages, those with the capability of generating their own
needs, we created a special rate at slightly above our incremental
cost of generation. In the three years since we implemented those
rates, those loads have grown ... to a point now that they consist
of 24 percent of our total sales. Those loads have generated a
great deal of stability ... to our rates. Our concern is based on
the fact that these large loads are cheaper to serve. And as a
public utility, we have to serve everyone. And we have to install
generation and distribution to meet those highly variable loads.
MR. MARTIN continued, "A competitor currently can come in, provide
generation for only the largest loads, and offer rates that we
simply could not compete with. For instance, a school in the
wintertime and a fish processor in the summer are complementary
loads; it would be simple and inexpensive and would use the same
generation (indisc.). The loss of that revenue would raise the
fixed cost components of our rates per kilowatt hour, because then
we would be selling fewer kilowatt hours. While this would be good
for the large loads, those lost revenues would have to be made up
by the remaining customers, small commercial and the residential
customers."
MR. MARTIN said THREA now has several loads that consume more than
one million kilowatt hours per year. At 12 cents per kilowatt
hour, which is about as low as possible with diesel generation,
that is more than $120,000 per year in revenue, which would easily
qualify an independent generator as a public utility. He concluded
by saying HB 235 would protect the smallest consumers, whom the
utility was created to serve. He urged its passage.
Number 0715
VAYLA COLONELL, Manager of Member Services, Golden Valley Electric
Association (GVEA), testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in
support of HB 235 and the position of ARECA. She said approval of
competitive electric service without due consideration of possible
adverse impacts on rates or service to all retail electric
consumers has a strong potential for creating winners and losers
among consumers; the losers would almost certainly be the
residential and small commercial customers.
MS. COLONELL offered some history of GVEA's interactions with the
Fairbanks Municipal Utilities System (FMUS). The FMUS serves the
interior of Fairbanks, while GVEA's service territory completely
surrounds it. For a number of years, because GVEA's commercial
rates are considerably lower, GVEA has been approached by FMUS
customers asking to receive service from GVEA. However, the
certified service areas are currently protected, which has
prevented GVEA from taking on those customers.
MS. COLONELL reported that during the past year, GVEA has entered
into a complex contract with the City of Fairbanks, PTI and
Fairbanks Sewer and Water to purchase the electric utility system
from FMUS. They are now engaged in a complex and time-consuming
process with the APUC to show that they are ready, fit and able to
serve those customers without adverse impacts on the rates or
quality of service to customers of GVEA or FMUS.
MS. COLONELL said this is the way it should be. However, without
this kind of legislation, the potential was there for GVEA to take
only the large industrial loads from the city, adversely affecting
the remaining FMUS customers, whose rates would have increased
substantially to cover the existing debt, imbedded costs and costs
of service. "But this is our community, and we have no interest in
creating severe problems for the people that live here," she
commented. On behalf of GVEA's 22,000 member-owners and rate-
payers, she urged the committee's support of HB 235.
Number 0893
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked for confirmation that GVEA is an REA or
member-owned utility.
MS. COLONELL replied, "Yes, we are a member of the cooperative, and
REA, of course, is now RUS, the Rural Utility Service, but we are
an RUS."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked whether Chairman Sam Cotten of the APUC was
available to testify.
Number 0959
ALYCE A. HANLEY, Commissioner, Alaska Public Utilities Commission,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage, informing members that
Mr. Cotten had had to leave. With her from the APUC were Bob Lohr,
Executive Director, and Tim Cook, Commissioner.
MS. HANLEY stated, "We haven't taken an official position on this
bill. Last year we did; we felt that Senate Bill 54 was certainly
anti-competitive and locked the door to ... any competition. While
we haven't taken an official position on this bill, I think that
this bill may open the door a crack. We still consider it anti-
competitive. And I think the `clear and convincing' standard is
certainly greater and will be more difficult in our findings than
the `preponderance of evidence.'"
Number 1010
BOB LOHR, Executive Director, Alaska Public Utilities Commission,
testified via teleconference, indicating he would point out several
specific elements concerning the bill and previous testimony.
MR. LOHR stated, "The lawyers can better speak to interpreting
supreme court cases than I can, but in 1967, it was mentioned, the
supreme court did address the issue of what the commission's
certificate means. And that was in the case of Chugach Electric
Association vs. City of Anchorage, and the citation to that is 426
P.2d 1001, and it was in 1967. The holding of that case was,
quote, `We adhere to our decision in Homer Electric and hold that
appellant Chugach's certificate of public convenience and necessity
does not, in relation to the City of Anchorage's electrical utility
system, act in a monopoly to furnish electrical energy throughout
the service areas which have been allotted to it. There is no
exclusivity in the eyes of the supreme court with respect to
commission certificates.'"
MR. LOHR stated, "There is no way that the commission could issue
overlapping certificates of public necessity to (indisc.)
utilities, as in fact occurred in the Mat-Su Valley and in
Anchorage, if this exclusive certificate provision were as
previously stated. In fact, the only way that overlap is possible
is because those certificates do not confer a monopoly grant or an
exclusive grant of certificate."
MR. LOHR referred to the "clear and convincing" standard and
stated, "The difficulties of that are in particular related to how
they are linked to a commission making a negative finding that the
customers and the quality of service in existing service areas
would not be impacted by this. The combination of a higher
standard of proof ... with such vague findings, it would be very
difficult to sustain. And, as a result, the commission did prepare
and approved a fiscal note reflecting the need for expert witnesses
and one additional staff person to handle that kind of work load.
We do expect that ultimately that would taper off, if, as
predicted, competition comes to the state."
Number 1143
MR. LOHR said in the opinion of the assistant attorney general
advising the APUC on this matter at a public meeting held the
previous morning, no additional authority is required for the APUC
to undertake a competitive approach toward electric utility
service.
MR. LOHR stated, "That authority is quite broad, in her
interpretation, and is found in the commission's general powers and
duties, as well as in AS 42.05.221. The commission has used that
authority in the past to allow competing utility service where,
based on a careful examination of the applicant's ... fitness,
willingness and ability, and the market conditions for the
particular utilities involved, the commission felt like that was in
the public interest." Mr. Lohr said to his knowledge, none of
those decisions had been overturned in court in terms of allowing
that competing market structure.
Number 1197
MR. LOHR agreed that "cherry picking" is a genuine risk. However,
he believes the APUC has ample existing authority to deal with it
and control it. He also agreed that the GVEA did not have
authority to go into the City of Fairbanks itself and offer a lower
commercial rate; they would have needed to apply to the APUC to get
that authority. Although he could not speak for the APUC on that
matter, his guess was that the commission would have looked
critically on any effort to "cherry pick" and would have asked,
"What about others?"
MR. LOHR stated, "The commission is well-versed and works with the
public to ensure that the public interest concerns are represented,
and those certainly include the interests of small customers, to
make sure that they're not adversely affected by some kind of
organization that deals with the largest customers. There's a
very, very great deal of attention paid to balancing of rates here
among different customer classes; it's what we call the `cost of
service.' And in every rate case of any significance, there is a
component of the case that deals with the cost of service, which is
allocating costs to customer classes according to the cost to the
utility of serving them. ... It's one of the most (indisc.) that we
deal with. And believe me, we have ample pull to do so."
Number 1272
MR. LOHR agreed with Commissioner Hanley that the bill is anti-
competitive. It attempts to hold back what is clearly a national
tide to bring increased competition to the electric industry and to
treat it less like a regulated natural monopoly. While Senator
Murkowski is in a position of great influence, he cannot change
that national tide. The sooner Alaska utilities start to plan
intelligently for competition, the better. That competition is
likely to come first to urban areas, where Mr. Lohr believes the
focus perhaps should be at this point.
MR. LOHR stated, "Representative Cowdery asked a very valid
question: Why not wait? I think that's an excellent question.
Since the authority does exist at this point, possibly legislative
oversight of how the commission approaches this question is
appropriate. But I'm not sure at this point that legislation is
needed. Each utility can certainly speak for itself, but my
understanding is that the utility representing half of the
customers in this state does not support this approach or this
legislation. If that's the case, I'd urge the committee to take a
very careful look at it."
Number 1339
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said he was not trying to be unduly critical,
but seemingly everybody whom the APUC regulates comes to him or
testifies publicly that one of the largest costs of doing business
is trying to deal with the APUC, that the time and costs involved
in trying to get a decision are extraordinary and burdensome. He
asked whether the APUC could expedite any of these so that people
don't have to constantly have the same complaints.
Number 1377
MR. LOHR said as competitive forces come in, in the long run it
will mean less need for commission decisions on issues better
handled by the market. However, the transition period between
full-blown monopoly and introducing competition is a difficult time
to make the kind of regulatory decisions that are needed. He
stated, "It's more complicated, because sometimes what you might
end up with is relaxed regulations but still a lot of monopoly
power in the market. And an unregulated monopolist is the worst of
all possible worlds, from the point of view of incentives to
maximize profit at the expense of customers."
MR. LOHR said otherwise, it is a fairly straightforward resource
question, and the commission has identified specifically what
resources they feel are needed to address that problem. He
believes there has been good progress toward accomplishing those
additional resources this year. They are funded entirely by the
regulatory cost charge, which is from customers of regulated
utilities; therefore, he believes there is broad-based support from
the utilities on the need for those resources, which has been very
helpful. With the two additional positions requested, Mr. Lohr
hopes the APUC can make a substantial dent in the backlog.
MR. LOHR pointed out that the most significantly delayed cases
involve market structure issues. Those are quite complex cases
involving a lot of work. There is no statutory clock ticking on
those, whereas in other cases such as individual tariffs, if the
APUC fails to act on the tariff request within 45 days, it
automatically becomes law. To avoid having unreviewed tariff
provisions become law through default, the APUC gives those
priority, and those more complex proceedings necessarily take
longer. It is a concern at the APUC, and they are doing their best
to address it with the resources they have.
Number 1509
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN commented that he was looking forward to the
APUC's resolving problems in Anchorage relating to "GCI and Pacific
Telecom and ATU, so that we can get on and take advantage of the
deregulation and telecommunications act from the federal
government." Mentioning possible substantial savings to consumers,
he encouraged a little more prompt action if possible.
MR. LOHR replied, "At this time, both GCI and (Indisc.) Alascom are
authorized by this commission to provide local service in Anchorage
in competition with ATU. In addition, ATU has formed a subsidiary,
which is a long-distance company, which has also been authorized by
this commission to provide long-distance service statewide. And
there are several other applications pending from local exchange
companies to form long-distance subsidiaries and provide service
statewide. And I think we're seeing the market become competitive
within the first year after the federal legislation authorizing
(indisc.--coughing) such competition. And I think the commission
has moved expeditiously in that area and is actively considering
regulations to bring increased competition to those (indisc.)."
Number 1583
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked which assistant attorney general is
assigned to the APUC, indicating there were follow-up questions for
that person.
MR. LOHR replied that Virginia Rusch gave the opinion to the APUC
at the public meeting. Ron Zobel is also an assistant attorney
general for the commission.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked whether they were located in Anchorage.
MR. LOHR said yes.
Number 1604
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to their fiscal note. He stated,
"There's only really one logical competing area in the state right
now, in the Anchorage area. And so, I'm kind of curious who you
think would be coming into the market to ask for a competitive
certificate of operation, number one; and number two, are you aware
of any profit-making utilities in the state of Alaska that are on
the railbelt grid right now?"
MR. LOHR replied for the first part of the question, the
possibilities are twofold. First, under the Energy Policy Act of
1992 that amends old federal legislation called the Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), competition at the
wholesale level, at the transmission level, has been encouraged.
He mentioned "exempt wholesale generators" and "co-generators" that
are actively considering projects. For example, he had received a
call the previous day from an attorney whose unidentified client
was interested in coming to the state and wanted to know the rules
of the game for applying for a certificate. Although Mr. Lohr
didn't know how quickly that would bear fruit in terms of an
application in front of the APUC, it was actively being discussed.
MR. LOHR said the second possibility would be by an existing
regulated public electric utility. There had certainly been
competition discussed within the Anchorage market, and he
understands that one major electric utility is interested in the
possibility of competition and considering proposing legislation to
clarify the legislative findings that might be made in that area.
MR. LOHR said one profit-making, investor-owned utility came to
mind: Alaska Electric Light and Power Company (AEL&P), which
serves Juneau. In addition, the "power side" of Alaska Power and
Telephone, under its new holding company, Alaska Power Company, is
investor-owned, serves a number of communities throughout Southeast
Alaska and the Interior, and is on a fairly aggressive expansion
campaign to buy additional small village utilities.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG thanked Mr. Lohr and asked that APUC
representatives stand by in case there were further questions.
Number 1803
NORMAN L. STORY, General Manager, Homer Electric Association,
testified via teleconference, saying his organization serves 21,000
consumers on the Kenai Peninsula between Kenai and Homer.
Including three large industrial facilities, roughly 14 percent are
commercial operations that provide 56 percent of their annual
revenue. This is a much higher ratio of commercial-to-residential
consumers than found in national averages. The system is about
2,200 miles in length, with approximately 10 consumers per mile.
MR. STORY said obviously, the loss of large loads is of concern
because it would have an adverse financial affect on them; it would
probably result in higher rates and reduced quality of service to
remaining consumers, whom they would be required to serve under a
"must serve" obligation. This bill would require the APUC to be
convinced that a competitor's offer of service to their larger
loads would be in the public interest and would not be likely to
reduce quality of service for remaining consumers. He indicated
further comments would duplicate others' testimony. He urged
approval of HB 235 by the committee.
Number 1933
CHARLES Y. WALLS, President and CEO, Alaska Village Electric
Cooperative (AVEC), testified via teleconference from Anchorage.
Referring to testimony by Bob Martin, he said AVEC's system is
similar to THREA's, serving some 50 villages scattered throughout
Western Alaska and using diesel plants. He believes they are
highly vulnerable to "cherry picking" and its negative results.
MR. WALLS stated, "Listening to some of the comments from the APUC,
I don't see where we have a lot of difference here." He said the
bill opens the door to competition, but with caution that there is
a downside to unbridled competition. It gives the APUC tools and
provides guidance as to how this opened competition market should
be ushered into the state. He urged favorable action on HB 235,
emphasizing that AVEC considers it a consumer protection bill.
Number 2068
ROBERT WILKINSON, General Manager, Copper Valley Electric
Association (CVEA), testified via teleconference from Glennallen.
The CVEA is an RUS utility with 3,100 members. They have extremely
high rates, due primarily to the environment in which they do
business and to the fact that they serve two different and discrete
communities. Geographically, CVEA's service territory is roughly
the size of Ohio.
MR. WILKINSON had listened with interest to testimony about coming
competition. He believes competition in Alaska is alive and well,
particularly in CVEA, where it is intense. They are "under attack"
by three independent operators who are attempting to take all of
CVEA's large commercial and industrial customers. He believes HB
235 is needed to help CVEA with that and to ensure that there is no
catastrophic impact to remaining customers.
MR. WILKINSON cited examples. Entities are attempting to secure
CVEA's largest customer, a Valdez refinery that uses about 20
percent of their total system load; the Valdez schools, their
fourth largest customer; and the U.S. Coast Guard, their eleventh
largest customer. Together, these represent 25 to 30 percent of
CVEA's total load. They are concerned that a company that comes in
to displace these loads be subject to a reasonable and appropriate
standard, which they believe HB 235 accomplishes.
MR. WILKINSON emphasized that CVEA is not philosophically opposed
to competition. Their strategic plan adopted six months before
aims squarely at beating the competition, and their goal is to
become the "least cost" energy provider and source within their
franchised service territory.
MR. WILKINSON expressed concern, however, that competing utilities
be held to an appropriate standard: an APUC finding of clear and
convincing evidence that competitive electric service is in the
public interest and will not adversely affect the quality of
service or the rates provided by existing retail utilities. He
believes HB 235 clarifies that standard and ensures that the public
interest remains paramount in the APUC's decision-making process.
Number 2422
ROGER KEMPPEL, Attorney at Law, Kemppel, Huggman and Ellis, PC,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage, saying he is general
counsel for ARECA and many of the cooperatives. He referred to
cases cited by Bob Lohr, Chugach Electric Association vs. City of
Anchorage and Homer Electric Association vs. City of Kenai, from
1967 and 1969. [Testimony cut-off mid-speech by tape change.]
TAPE 97-43, SIDE A
Number 0006
MR. KEMPPEL said in 1969 and 1970, the legislature passed the
present Alaska Public Utilities Commission Act, making the APUC a
full-time commission and giving them the necessary tools, including
those under AS 42.05.221. Subsection (d) of that states, "In an
area where the commission determines that two or more public
utilities are competing to furnish identical utility service and
that this competition is not in the public interest, the commission
shall take appropriate action to eliminate the competition and any
undesirable duplication of facilities." He said clearly, the
thrust of the act passed by the legislature in 1970 was to solve
this problem and eliminate fighting between utilities.
MR. KEMPPEL reported that the APUC did that, starting in 1971; it
resolved service areas and split up the Chugach Electric
Association and ML&P service areas. The 1970 act re-regulated
electric municipal utilities and required that they have a
certificate, which was not previously required. Suddenly, there
were competing, overlapping certificates.
MR. KEMPPEL stated, "And the courts said, ...`Your certificate is
not a[n] exclusive certificate.' But you have to remember the
context they said that in, nonexclusive certificate because for the
first time we have competing, overlapping certificates, and so
we're going to take away some peoples'. And, in fact, the
commission did that, took away some of Chugach's certificate and
took away some of the municipality's, ... and set the service area
boundaries so that they were exclusive."
MR. KEMPPEL said he didn't believe they need to argue whether the
commission has jurisdiction over competition in the electric
utility industry. If they have it, they don't have it
specifically; Mr. Kemppel doesn't believe anything in AS 42.05
gives the commission specific authority to put competition in place
in the electric utility industry. This bill would give them that
specific statutory authority.
Number 0228
MR. KEMPPEL discussed the standards of "clear and convincing" and
"preponderance of the evidence." The APUC in some other areas must
find certain facts by the preponderance of the evidence; that
standard is that a fact is probably true, more likely than not to
be true, with the chance of its being true even slightly greater
than the chance that it is false.
MR. KEMPPEL explained that for "clear and convincing," however, it
must be highly probable that it is true. It is not necessary that
it be true, nor that it be true beyond a reasonable doubt; the
latter standard is much higher, a criminal standard. Rather, for
"clear and convincing," it must be more than just probably true.
If the APUC were to grant competition that adversely affected rates
and services in an existing area, he believed they ought to be more
than just quite a bit convinced that there would not be adverse
effects.
MR. KEMPPEL advised members that he had been quoting from the
pattern jury instructions for the state, specifically, those
relating to a civil case on defamation because that particular
issue has both "preponderance" and "clear and convincing"
standards.
Number 0419
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that AS 42.05.311 has a provision that
transmission facilities are to be shared if it won't result in
substantial injury to the owner or to the detriment to service to
customers of the owners. While it seems to give some authority to
the APUC, testimony from the APUC had indicated they believe they
have the authority. In addition, Mr. Kemppel had indicated it
would be moot if HB 235 passed. Chairman Rokeberg asked what would
happen if HB 235 did not pass.
MR. KEMPPEL responded that AS 42.05.311 is titled, "Joint use and
interconnection of facilities." It applies to all utilities and
requires them to interconnect with each other. However, it does
not necessarily require utilities to open up their whole systems
and allow the sharing of customers or the serving of each others'
customers. It is simply an interconnection statute.
MR. KEMPPEL pointed out the significant difference in how electric
utilities and telephone utilities are set up. The experience with
competition in the telephone industry doesn't apply across the
board to the electric industry. For instance, there are economies
of scale in the electric industry that aren't there in the
telephone industry. There are also high "stranded costs" in the
electric industry, if large loads or customers are lost, that don't
exist in the telephone industry.
MR. KEMPPEL suggested if HB 235 doesn't pass, presumably the APUC
would still have the power to open up the transmission system and
allow electric utilities to transmit on a wholesale basis, between
each other, over the systems of another utility. "Here, this bill
is a retail bill," he concluded.
Number 0611
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he took it that Mr. Kemppel had experience
in utility law. Noting the APUC's indication that they have
adequate protection to prevent "cherry picking," Chairman Rokeberg
asked whether a statutory provision could be adopted to prevent
that yet not impede competition.
MR. KEMPPEL stated his belief that HB 235 is just that, an "anti-
cherry picking" bill that puts in the "clear and convincing"
standard before the APUC can order competition.
Number 0674
JOHN HANDELAND, Mayor, City of Nome, testified via teleconference
from Anchorage, stating that the city owns and operates a
certificated electrical utility through its Nome Joint Utility
System. The city and the utility boards support HB 235. They
presently are evaluating system additions. He believes they need
a guarantee that the large-load, stable users, which are cheaper in
many cases to service, are not pulled from their system. High
costs, infrastructure and huge investments by the communities need
to be amortized. While they certainly don't oppose competition, it
must be clear that adding another provider or providers will not
adversely affect consumers. They believe HB 235 sets the standard
and would serve the public interest.
Number 0753
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked whether Nome uses diesel generation.
MR. HANDELAND said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked what the cost is per kilowatt hour.
MR. HANDELAND said about 16 cents a kilowatt.
Number 0793
TIM COOK, Commissioner, Alaska Public Utilities Commission,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage, restating that the
APUC had taken no formal position on the bill. He offered
background on their philosophy and where they are headed. There
had been a recent change in the APUC's make-up. Mr. Cook believes
for the first time since its inception, a majority of commissioners
very much favor competition. He believes this bill is, in essence,
a result of that change in philosophy, because as the APUC pushes
forward with competition, many entities, particularly the
monopolies, have "a certain fear." Although couched as opening the
door for competition, by raising the bar to this "clear and
convincing" standard, the bill actually makes the APUC's job more
difficult in introducing competition into these markets.
MR. COOK advised members, "Under our statutes, we have, we believe,
and the Attorney General has indicated ... that we have the ability
to allow competition or to prevent competition, whichever is in the
public interest of that particular community. And to do so, we
will get a preponderance of the evidence, whether it's probably in
the best interest of that community. If you raise the bar to the
`clear and convincing' standard, it makes it much more difficult;
we have to do a huge analysis, and the net effect is that it makes
it almost impossible to allow new competition into an area."
MR. COOK suggested the standard of "any harm to a utility"
approaches ludicrous. He reported having been in a hearing where
federal officials testified that if rates were raised one cent for
one customer, that wouldn't serve the federal purpose under the
federal regulations.
MR. COOK stated, "In essence, that's what this bill is doing, is if
it raises the rates one cent to one customer but lowers it two
cents to the remaining customers, it's not in the federal purpose.
It's a very convoluted concept, but what it does is it creates a
situation where it's almost impossible to allow competition. And
I think that I speak for the majority of the commissioners here
when I say that this commission wants to promote competition and
that, if that's where the legislature wants to go, this bill is not
the way to do it."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG thanked Mr. Cook and noted his previous statement
that the APUC had not taken a position on the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked whether Mr. Cook feels that HB 235 is
appropriate for both the metropolitan and rural areas in Alaska.
MR. COOK replied that he hadn't given a great deal of thought to
rural versus metropolitan areas. He did understand there is a
great problem in rural areas because of stranded investments and so
forth. He said the real problem with HB 235 is raising the
standard to "clear and convincing," for either rural or
metropolitan areas.
Number 1070
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested of Mr. Lohr that the APUC prepare a
paper outlining basic definitions and procedures that would justify
the assertion that the APUC now has this authority. He also
requested a background report on: what a `certificate of need and
convenience' is; what rights that certificate conveys; and what
responsibilities the certificate holder has, including legal
requirements to provide service to everybody. He suggested they
could provide copies of relevant case law. However, he didn't want
it to be too voluminous or place a burden on the APUC staff.
Number 1137
MR. LOHR said they would be happy to do that. He noted that there
had been two assertions: that the APUC has authority to undertake
competition under existing statute and that the APUC can deal
appropriately with "anti-cherry picking." He asked whether
Chairman Rokeberg wanted both covered.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said yes, indicating the need to establish a
"comfort zone." He stated his intent to send HB 235 to a
subcommittee and his belief that this issue is extremely important
to Alaskans. He wanted to ensure that this committee gave it a
full hearing, with a full understanding. He suggested that with
private-sector companies wanting to move into Alaska, the
legislature needs to enlighten itself.
Number 1204
MR. LOHR asked whether the committee was seeking a position paper
from APUC on the bill as well.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied that he'd prefer to get the backup first.
Further analysis would be fine, but he didn't want to slow down the
process.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to the fiscal note and the request for
a Range 21 engineer. He asked Mr. Lohr whether any applications
for certification were on the agenda or requested of the APUC.
Number 1270
MR. LOHR replied that there were no pending applications for
competitive electric service that he was aware of, except for under
the old PURPA. As Mr. Wilkinson from the CVEA had mentioned, there
is a "pending application there for (indisc.) costs, as a
calculation, and a qualifying facility, a coal-fired facility in
Valdez."
MR. LOHR said the fiscal note assumes that by the fourth quarter of
FY '98, such proceedings would be active, which is why the position
is not scheduled to begin until then. He concluded, "That's why
the lower amount for personal services during the FY '98 reflects
an assumption that that's when that engineering analyst would be
needed."
Number 1315
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Don Edwards to present his views on the
competitive angle.
Number 1339
DONALD W. EDWARDS, General Counsel, Chugach Electric Association,
came forward to testify, saying HB 235 had caught their attention
because it raises the issue of competition. They didn't want to
speak against this bill so much as express concern about
competition in Anchorage, where they had favored retail competition
for some time. Nor did they want to speak to areas outside of
Anchorage, where this may be appropriate. However, they are
confident that circumstances in Anchorage are ripe for retail
competition; they don't want to see anything that would raise the
bar, as this might, to create an impediment to competition there.
MR. EDWARDS handed out a diagram of an electric system to
demonstrate which portions of the electric system they believe are
open to competition: the generation plant and retail transactions.
Others will remain "regulated and monopoly facilities," and they
aren't looking at anything that might duplicate those facilities.
Nor are they seeking an outcome such as in the past, when "they had
to break up a fight between Chugach and ML&P, where there were
facilities running down both sides of the street."
Number 1473
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked, given the federal legislation about
wholesale "wheeling," whether this is unusual just because it is
Alaska and whether there is wholesale "wheeling" now in Alaska.
MR. EDWARDS responded, "There's a debate among lawyers about
whether the federal legislation requires transmission access here.
Chugach has always taken the position that its system is open, and
it's willing to provide transmission access to people who need to
use it."
Number 1503
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked whether that was because it was paid for in
large part by the state.
MR. EDWARDS replied, "Some parts of it were. Parts were paid for
by our rate-payers as well. So, I don't think the transmission
system is really the main issue here. ... Our concern is mainly
with retail competition. There already is competition at the
generation level. ... We compete with ML&P for the Fairbanks load.
We compete with them for Copper Valley. Seward, we're right now
competing. What we would like to do is to leave the way open for
competition at the retail level."
MR. EDWARDS pointed out that competition at the retail level also
strengthens competition at the generation level. Under current
circumstances, the cost of a mistake in acquiring power at the
generation level can be passed through to retail customers, who are
"captive customers."
Number 1572
MR. EDWARDS indicated he'd been absent for a portion of the APUC's
comments, then stated, "I think we agree with them. We believe
that under existing law, the commission does have the ability to
permit competition. And we believe that there's authority there as
well for requiring access over distribution facilities. And I also
agree that the [A]PUC is there and available, and empowered by
existing law, to deal with `cherry picking' problems."
MR. EDWARDS said the statute, which Mr. Kemppel had read, assumes
that competition can occur; if competition occurs and the APUC
finds that the way the competition is happening is harmful, the
commission is empowered to step in and sort it out. Mr. Edwards
stated, "Now, he's correct that the context of that legislation was
with power lines running down both sides of the streets and some
fairly wild-and-wooly competition. The circumstances now are
different, because we're not talking about that. But the authority
for the commission to deal with problems like that, should they
arise, is there."
MR. EDWARDS said that one person's "cherry picking" is another's
competition. He suggested looking at other industries that had
gone through a process of becoming more competitive. Suggesting
the natural gas industry may be a good example, he stated, "Except
where utilities had their rates completely out of whack, there
really have not been negative impacts of that."
MR. EDWARDS pointed out that in Anchorage for the last several
years, there has been retail competition in natural gas, including
small companies picking off large customers. To his knowledge, it
hasn't negatively impacted retail gas customers there. There has
been heavy "cherry picking" in the telephone long-distance business
as well, and to his knowledge, the residential customers have done
fine through that. He believes it is highly questionable whether
that practice will do harm in Anchorage. He again specified that
he wasn't familiar with other areas.
MR. EDWARDS said it is important to remember whom they are trying
to protect. They should think about the consumers, from large to
small, and not worry about whether an electric utility loses a
customer so much as the impact on other customers. They need to
ensure that competition occurs and is open at all levels.
MR. EDWARDS proposed an example: "If Chugach were to lose a load
to ML&P after competition, and we were to try to simply take other
costs and jam them through to our retail customers, if there was no
competition allowed at the retail residential level, then we might
be able to get away with that. But if there's competition at that
level, then we can't do that, because if we do, we'll lose those
customers because our price will go too high." He said the
marketplace can solve those problems if allowed to run.
MR. EDWARDS mentioned residential customers and the role of load
aggregation. For example, airlines give package-tour companies
excellent deals on tickets; the tour companies aggregate a group of
customers and bargain with the seller for those. Similarly, he
believes that could be expected in the retail residential market in
the electric industry. He explained, "You will see people go out
and gather up a group of customers and then come negotiate with the
electric ... power providers. And that's a way in which
residential customers will ... package themselves as cherries ripe
for the plucking and be able to do just fine after retail
competition occurs."
MR. EDWARDS said, "What we think makes sense for Anchorage is an
`access now, litigate later' kind of approach. ... It may be
beneficial to arrange a situation where access is required
immediately and you develop a[n] access charge immediately, based
upon ... each utility's most recent filing with the commission.
And that would allow competition to start immediately and quickly,
without a high hurdle to get over, because in Anchorage, we know
we've got two capable, qualified electric utilities that can and
presumably, in our view, quickly open to competitive pressure,
because we think it will result in benefits to the customers."
Number 1856
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said he was familiar somewhat with tour
companies' buying large blocks of hotel rooms and airline tickets.
If they can't fill them, they discount them and take the loss or
try to recover it, which results in substantial discounts. He
asked: If competition came into Anchorage with ML&P, what benefits
could the consumer see in cents per kilowatt hour?
MR. EDWARDS said it would depend on whether the competition got
started at the large-customer or mass-market level. Except for
residential customers, current and traditional rate-making is that
the customer is charged two different prices, for the amount of
kilowatt hours used and the demand placed on the system.
Therefore, for nonresidential customers, it is difficult to make a
broad pronouncement on rates without looking at each customer and
that customer's load pattern.
MR. EDWARDS said obviously they think there are savings to be given
to customers; otherwise, they wouldn't be interested. His company
feels strongly that competition will happen eventually, as it is
happening in the Lower 48 and worldwide. People have figured out
that the generation and retail components are not natural
monopolies, don't have to be rate-regulated, and can be opened to
competition. He believes the best way to prepare for that day is
to "start doing it."
Number 1971
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said, "You would have to do some kind of a
market survey to present a rate change to APUC. ... The usual
pattern of APUC is taking forever-and-a-day to get anything done
and charging a bunch of money for that service." He asked how that
impacts Chugach Electric Association's time, value, money and
opportunity to be competitive.
MR. EDWARDS said he was going to be careful not to be critical of
the agency that regulates them, but it definitely figures in his
company's decisions about whether to compete for a load and how to
price services. That is one reason they would rather not have HB
235 apply to Chugach Electric Association and ML&P in Anchorage;
they don't want the ability to get into competition contingent upon
this process that would be required in front of the APUC to get
regulatory approval. They like it better the way it is. They'd
prefer that nothing be done, as far as Anchorage goes. He re-
emphasized that he wasn't talking about the rest of the state.
MR. EDWARDS suggested one option for initial competition, at least,
would be offering some services on the basis of existing tariff
rates rather than new rates.
Number 2075
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked what retail rates are in Anchorage.
MR. EDWARDS indicated it is 9 or 9-1/2 cents for residential use,
somewhat less for commercial loads.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked what areas Chugach Electric
Association serves and how far south they go.
MR. EDWARDS indicated they serve Cooper Landing, Girdwood, Portage,
Alyeska and Whittier.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked whether their rates change in various
areas.
MR. EDWARDS replied, "No, postage-stamp rates throughout the
Chugach retail service area."
Number 2113
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked what area would be attractive to them
for possible "wheeling."
MR. EDWARDS said they believe their existing retail service
territory and ML&P's are sufficient to allow them to compete. He
added, "... we take it more seriously than that, but if you want to
think of it as an experiment, you could."
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked, "Are your energy costs about the
same?" He specified he was referring to generation costs.
MR. EDWARDS replied that they are comparable. "But we, of course,
don't know what their generation costs are," he said. "If you're
talking about prices, our prices are similar. In fact, I saw a
publication from ML&P that showed their prices lower on a number of
customer classes than ours."
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said he was talking about production costs.
MR. EDWARDS indicated he didn't know ML&P's production costs.
Number 2173
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG suggested those production costs may change in
the next few years, "given the acquisition of a large amount of
fuel source by ML&P, the purchase of a portion of the Beluga gas
field."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked whether Mr. Edwards' association would be
comfortable with a form of legislation that allowed people outside
the Anchorage area to maintain their relative exclusivity and yet
opened Anchorage for more competitive review by the APUC.
MR. EDWARDS replied that he'd have to discuss it with "my board and
so forth." However, it struck him as a reasonable proposition, and
it was similar to what they had been thinking for Anchorage. He
restated that they didn't want to presume to say what is
appropriate elsewhere.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG pointed out that committee files contained a
letter from ML&P supporting HB 235, indicating they would probably
oppose Mr. Edwards' view.
MR. EDWARDS said that didn't surprise him.
Number 2246
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Yould, "If we could draft some type of
legislation that basically left the status quo but gave you ... a
little further comfort and allowed the Anchorage area to fight it
out amongst themselves, do you think that would satisfy most of
your membership? Or have you had that kind of conversation?"
MR. YOULD replied that they hadn't had that kind of conversation.
Given that MEA, ML&P and Chugach Electric Association are all three
members of his service organization, he suspects it would have some
fracturing effect on the organization itself. He stated, "But
what's really important is what is best for the consumers. We have
at least two of those entities [that] have indicated that they
would not like to see competition at the retail level. And
Chugach, I have to say - in all fairness to their position, and I
understand the awkward position that they're in - they would like
to see some sort of retail `wheeling.'"
MR. YOULD stated, "It was mentioned that some sort of competition
will take place in the future no matter what. `Dow Jones Reporter'
indicates that some time in the future, if deregulation goes
through, that we will probably see, rather than a preponderance of
utilities throughout the United States, probably eight large mega-
corporations throughout the United States. I guess I would presume
that one of those would be up here in Alaska, if what Mr. Edwards
says is true; that is, we would have some sort of competition."
MR. YOULD continued, "The problem that I have is, is if we bring in
investor-owned utilities to the state of Alaska, because it will
not be an REA co-op or it will not be a municipal entity where all
the benefits go straight back to the consumers, instead, we're
going to have an entity that has to pay taxes, which I'm not
necessarily against in this day and age; it certainly has to be
considered."
Number 2353
MR. YOULD continued, "They're going to have to charge a 15 percent
rate on return. They're going to have to have dividend
distributions, probably to somebody in the Lower 48. They're going
to have management that I can tell you has a salary structure
probably ten times greater than the salary structure that we have
in the state of Alaska right now. We're going to have entities
that have to get their financing from other than where our present
utilities do, and that is generally through some sort of tax-exempt
entity or state or federal entity that gives favorable interest
rates."
MR. YOULD continued, "And then, finally, and this is maybe a
negative in your own way of thinking, but because we are all owned
by the people, any subsidy that goes to our utilities as a result
of a state appropriation or a federal appropriation goes straight
back to them, not the case with an investor-owned utility. So, I
find it hard to believe that an investor-owned utility that comes
up to the state of Alaska can truly, without predatory pricing,
provide power for the long term cheaper than what the existing
utility structure can, which really means that what you're going to
see ... is some early-on predatory pricing until they gain the ...
strangle-hold. And then in the future you will see the cost of
electricity going up. That's what I see with deregulation in the
state of Alaska."
Number 2402
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN mentioned the 600,000 people in Alaska, as well
as infrastructure costs and everything being spread over long
distances. He said he didn't see where an industrial-owned company
could come to Alaska and be profitable.
MR. YOULD responded that he seriously questioned that also. "And
frankly, they don't have a technology better than what Chugach
already has," he stated. "I mean, we are providing state-of-the-
art power generation. I don't see it happening, either." However,
someone could pick off the local school and an industrial facility
of a small village, for example, leaving other customers stranded.
"They could do that," he said, "That's the problem. And the same
thing could happen in the railbelt as well."
Number 2433
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced that the public hearing on HB 235 would
be held open. He requested that Mr. Yould ask the three members
about the question posed earlier, to have that information
available for the subcommittee he was appointing.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG appointed Representative Sanders as chairman of
the subcommittee, with Representatives Cowdery and Brice as
additional members; he offered to participate as well. He noted
that they expected to receive background information requested that
day from the APUC, and he suggested that they communicate with Mr.
Yould, Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Stahr from ML&P, in particular. He
further suggested that they talk with Mr. Wilkinson again about the
Copper Valley situation.
TAPE 97-43, SIDE B
Number 0006
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG mentioned focusing on "cherry picking" and
looking at whatever legislative mandate exists in statute,
indicating that information should be provided by the APUC.
(HB 235 was held and assigned to a subcommittee.)
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG adjourned the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee at 5:48 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|