Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/28/1999 03:26 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 28, 1999
3:26 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chairman
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chairman
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative John Harris
Representative Tom Brice
Representative Sharon Cissna
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jerry Sanders
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 141(L&C)
"An Act relating to construction contracts and subcontractors;
relating to design-build construction contracts; and providing for
an effective date."
- MOVED HCS CSSB(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 110
"An Act relating to the sale, offer to sell, and labeling of fluid
milk, meat, and meat products."
- MOVED CSHB 110(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 208
"An Act relating to professional counselors; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED HB 208 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 183
"An Act relating to the powers and duties of the chair of the
Alaska Public Utilities Commission; relating to membership on the
Alaska Public Utilities Commission; and relating to the annual
report of the Alaska Public Utilities Commission."
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 141
SHORT TITLE: PROCUREMENT: CONTRACTS/SUBCONTRACTS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) LEMAN BY REQUEST
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
4/12/99 879 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/12/99 879 (S) L&C
4/20/99 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
4/20/99 (S) MOVED CS (L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
4/20/99 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
4/21/99 985 (S) L&C RPT CS 4DP SAME TITLE
4/21/99 985 (S) DP: MACKIE, LEMAN, HOFFMAN, TIM KELLY
4/21/99 985 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DOT)
4/22/99 (S) RLS AT 12:05 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
4/22/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
4/23/99 1064 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 4/23/99
4/23/99 1064 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
4/23/99 1064 (S) L&C CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
4/23/99 1064 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
4/23/99 1064 (S) UNAN CONSENT
4/23/99 1065 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 141(L&C)
4/23/99 1065 (S) PASSED Y20 N-
4/23/99 1065 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
4/23/99 1071 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
4/27/99 1020 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/27/99 1020 (H) L&C
4/28/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 110
SHORT TITLE: SALE/LABELING OF MEAT/MILK PRODUCTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) HARRIS, Dyson
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/24/99 300 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/24/99 300 (H) L&C, JUD
3/10/99 418 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
3/15/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
3/15/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
3/15/99 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
4/19/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
4/19/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/19/99 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
4/23/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
4/23/99 (H) <BILL POSTPONED TO 4/26>
4/26/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
4/26/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/26/99 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
4/28/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 208
SHORT TITLE: PROFESSIONAL COUNSELORS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) MURKOWSKI
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
4/21/99 900 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/21/99 900 (H) HES, L&C
4/27/99 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
4/27/99 (H) WAIVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
4/27/99 1036 (H) HES REFERRAL WAIVED
4/28/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 183
SHORT TITLE: ALASKA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
SPONSOR(S): SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON UTIL RESTRUCTURING
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
4/09/99 702 (H) URS, L&C
4/14/99 (H) URS AT 8:00 AM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
4/14/99 (H) SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
4/16/99 (H) URS AT 2:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/16/99 (H) MOVED CSHB 183(URS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
4/16/99 (H) MINUTE(URS)
4/20/99 880 (H) URS RPT CS(URS) NT 6DP
4/20/99 880 (H) DP: PORTER, KOTT, COWDERY, HUDSON,
4/20/99 880 (H) GREEN, ROKEBERG
4/20/99 880 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
4/20/99 880 (H) REFERRED TO L&C
4/09/99 702 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
4/23/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
4/23/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/23/99 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
4/26/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
4/26/99 (H) HEARD AND HELD
4/26/99 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
4/28/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
JEREMY KERR, Student Intern
to Senator Loren Leman
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 115
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2095
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented Sections 1 through 6 of SB 141 on
behalf of the bill sponsor.
DAVID ROGERS, Lobbyist/Attorney
for the City of Delta Junction
P.O. Box 33932
Juneau, Alaska 99803
Telephone: (907) 586-1107
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on Section 7 of the Version House
committee substitute for CSSB 141(L&C).
ROY GILBERTSON, Mayor
City of Delta Junction
P.O. Box 229
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-4656
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 141.
SUSAN KEMP, City Council Member
City of Delta Junction
P.O. Box 229
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-4656
POSITION STATEMENT: Read statement in support of Section 7 of the
Version H House committee substitute for CSSB 141(L&C).
RICK JOHNSON, City Council Member
City of Delta Junction
P.O. Box 229
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-4656
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented regarding Councilwoman Kemp's
statement on SB 141.
BRIAN ROGERS, Chief Financial Officer
Information Insights, Incorporated
751 Old Richardson Highway, Suite 235
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-2461
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding Section 7 of
Version H House committee substitute for CSSB 141(L&C).
MARK O'BRIEN, Chief Contracts Officer
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801-7898
Telephone: (907) 465-6990
POSITION STATEMENT: Available to answer the committee's questions
regarding Sections 1 through 6 of the Version H House committee
substitute for CSSB 141(L&C).
ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Loren Leman
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 115
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-5149
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 141 on behalf of the bill
sponsor.
PETE FELLMAN, Researcher
for Representative John Harris
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 110
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4859
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained change in Version K committee
substitute for HB 110.
ART GRISWOLD
Sleepy Hollow Farm
HC60 Box 4493
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-6248
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed his disappointment with the Version
K committee substitute for HB 110.
JANICE ADAIR, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation
555 Cordova Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 269-7644
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the department has no
objections to the Version K committee substitute for HB 110.
ANNE GORE, Researcher
for Representative Lisa Murkowski
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 406
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3783
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 208 on behalf of the bill
sponsor.
ANNE HENRY, Chair
Board of Licensed Professional Counselors
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 465-2538
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 208.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806
Telephone: (907) 465-2534
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 208.
JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Norman Rokeberg
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4968
POSITION STATEMENT: As aide to the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee, offered information on HB 208; conceptually
explained proposed amendments to proposed Version I committee
substitute for HB 183.
SHARON DANIEL
Copper Basin Sanitation Service Company
P.O. Box 88
Glennallen, Alaska 99588
Telephone: (907) 822-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of Version I of HB 183
but had not seen proposed amendments, testified against
deregulation of garbage service.
RON ZOBEL, Assistant Attorney General
Fair Business Practices Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
1031 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1994
Telephone: (907) 269-5100
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about amendments to HB 183.
ERIC YOULD, Executive Director
Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Incorporated
211 Fourth Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-3636
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained proposed and previously adopted
amendments to HB 183.
ROBERT LOHR, Executive Director
Alaska Public Utilities Commission
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
1016 West Sixth Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 276-6222
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 183.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-48, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:26 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Rokeberg, Halcro, Harris
and Brice. Representative Cissna arrived less than a minute after
the call to order. Representative Murkowski arrived at 3:30 p.m.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the day's calendar is SB 141, HB 110,
HB 208 sponsored by Representative Murkowski, and then HB 183. The
chairman noted it is not his intention to move HB 183 today; some
additional amendments keep filtering in.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE indicated he would be offering a couple
amendments to HB 183.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted it was his intention to adjourn the meeting
by 5:00 p.m., due to members' attendance at another committee
meeting.
CSSB 141(L&C) - PROCUREMENT: CONTRACTS/SUBCONTRACTS
Number 0124
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's first order of business
is CSSB 141(L&C), "An Act relating to construction contracts and
subcontractors; relating to design-build construction contracts;
and providing for an effective date."
Number 0137
JEREMY KERR, Student Intern to Senator Loren Leman, Alaska State
Legislature, came forward to present CSSB 141(L&C) on behalf of the
bill sponsor. He indicated he is a student at the University of
Alaska Southeast and conveyed Senator Leman's regrets that he was
unable to testify in person due to a recent injury. Mr. Kerr
stated he is present to speak about Sections 1 through 6 of SB 141.
Senate Bill 141 was introduced at the request of the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT/PF) to give the
department greater flexibility in contracts known as design-build.
A design-build contract is one where the owner, in this case the
state, chooses a contractor that will be building as well as
designing a project. A couple of examples of this from the state
of Alaska are the M/V Kennicott ferry and the Whittier tunnel. A
more typical contract is one where the owner picks a design and the
contractors then begin building according to that design. This
bill allows decisions that are made to be in the best interest of
the state in regard to building projects and will only affect state
contracts.
MR. KERR explained current law specifies that construction
contractors must list the subcontractors they plan on using within
five days of contract award. Because of the nature of design-build
contracts, it is not always possible for the contractor to have
identified the necessary subcontractors. For example, during the
middle of a ferry building project the primary contractor learns
that the propulsion system needs to be different and it is not
something the current subcontractor can perform. Therefore, the
primary contractor needs to hire a different subcontractor. The
primary contractor cannot do this under current statute; under
statute he cannot get rid of the first subcontractor. This
legislation gives DOT/PF the flexibility to allow design-build
contractors to provide subcontractor information past that five-day
notification period. The legislation also contains protections in
that requested subcontractor changes must be in writing. Mr. Kerr
noted Senator Leman has reviewed the new Section 7 of the proposed
committee substitute (CS) and has found no objection. In addition,
they have also spoken to the design and construction communities
regarding Sections 1 through 6 and have found no objection from
them either.
Number 0404
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented there is a proposed CS; he would
entertain a motion to adopt Version H.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to adopt the proposed Version
H House CS for CSSB 141(L&C), labeled 1-LS0827\H, Bannister,
4/27/99. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 0465
DAVID ROGERS, Lobbyist/Attorney for the City of Delta Junction,
came forward in Juneau. Mr. David Rogers indicated he is joined
online in Delta Junction by Mayor Gilbertson of Delta Junction and
the Delta Junction City Council, and by Brian Rogers in Fairbanks,
a key consultant to the Delta prison project. They are all here
today to testify in support of Section 7 [added by Version H, the
proposed House CS]. This amendment basically means that the public
procurement process undertaken by the City of Delta Junction over
the last several months meets the requirements of HB 53 [HB 53,
LEASE-PURCHASE CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, Twentieth Legislature].
This process resulted in an ordinance authorizing a sole source
contract for that purpose. House Bill 53, among other things,
authorized the state to enter into an agreement with Delta Junction
to lease prison facilities as long as the prison is operated by a
private third party vendor selected by the city through a process
similar to the procedures set out in the state procurement code, AS
36.30. Some people have raised concerns about Delta Junction's
process, but the city thinks it has done it correctly and has
arrived at a decision that is best for Delta Junction and its
citizens. This amendment [Section 7] would resolve any ambiguities
about Delta Junction's process and would allow them to begin as
soon as possible. Mr. David Rogers indicated he would like to turn
the testimony over to Mayor Gilbertson and the Delta Junction City
Council for a statement. [Section 7 of the proposed House CS for
CSSB 141(L&C) read:
* Sec. 7. Section 4, ch. 15, SLA 1998, is amended by
adding a new subsection to read:
(d) The adoption by a municipality, when exercising
its powers under AS 29.35.020(a), of an ordinance for
procurement of a facility or operation on a design-build
construction contract basis satisfies the procurement
requirements under (b) of this section.]
Number 0607
ROY GILBERTSON, Mayor, City of Delta Junction, testified next
off-network via teleconference from Delta Junction. He noted city
council members Susan Kemp, Mary Dowling (ph) and Rick Johnson were
present. Mayor Gilbertson thanked the committee for its time and
turned the testimony over to Councilwoman Susan Kemp.
Number 0643
SUSAN KEMP, City Council Member, City of Delta Junction, testified
next off-network via teleconference from Delta Junction. She read
the committee a statement on the Delta Junction City Council's
position:
"This winter, we brought the question of the private
prison project to the Delta Junction voters. They said
we should proceed, and that's what we are trying to do.
"Delta Junction is going to be in a world of hurt when
Fort Greely closes unless the base is reused. Our best
shot for economic reuse of the base is the prison
project. The prison is controversial in our community,
and there is a vocal opposition, but they've been in the
minority both times we've voted.
"Those [the proposed] changes in Section 7 of this bill
are designed to help the City with the goals set out in
House Bill 53 last year, and I quote:
'1. To take advantage of the unique opportunity to use
surplus military facilities on the road system that are
becoming available through the United States Army's
realignment of Fort Greely's mission,
2. To prevent and ameliorate economic hardship in the
Delta region occasioned by that realignment, and
3. To relieve overcrowding of existing facilities within
the state and the extensive use of out-of-state
correctional facilities to house Alaska inmates.'
"The legislature's intent was to provide economic
redevelopment relief to Delta Junction by seizing the
unique opportunity of using the abandoned buildings left
after the realignment of Fort Greely. At the same time,
it applies to a matter of statewide concern because
capitalizing on this unique opportunity will have a
positive impact on the State by returning prisoners to
custody in Alaska.
"The City is under tremendous time pressure to move this
project forward for timely completion, to even have a
chance of aligning the prison project with the closure of
Fort Greely. These pressures include the need to begin
the landfill construction and permitting this summer, to
handle the demolition that will be needed for a major
conversion project. Survey work has to be done to begin
the process of land transfers.
"Most importantly, we have to demonstrate to the Army
that they have a viable plan to proceed. If the Reuse
Plan is not in acceptable form by January 2000, then the
opportunity to seek an economic development transfer for
this project will be gone. If the prison is not ready to
operate by July 2001, the jobs in Delta Junction will be
gone and families will suffer. To meet this schedule,
Delta must select our design-build and initial operations
contractor now.
"This amendment will keep the project on track. For the
state, that means the goals of economic redevelopment and
in-state ... prisoner housing can be met. For Delta
Junction, that means our community can survive the base
closure. Thank you for helping us meet this challenge."
Number 0842
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested that Ms. Kemp fax her written statement
to the committee. He confirmed no one else wished to testify from
Delta Junction. The chairman asked if that concluded Mayor
Gilbertson's presentation.
MAYOR GILBERTSON commented he didn't really have anything to add.
RICK JOHNSON, City Council Member, City of Delta Junction,
commented off-network via teleconference from Delta Junction that
Councilwoman Kemp had done a good job of representing the majority
of the council.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked the committee members if there were any
questions for Ms. Kemp or Mayor Gilbertson.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO noted there was a lawsuit filed over this
issue about adhering to state procurement code. He asked Mayor
Gilbertson if Section 7 would provide the city some relief.
MAYOR GILBERTSON answered he was not too sure on that and deferred
the question to Brian Rogers.
Number 0921
MR. DAVID ROGERS in Juneau offered a response. He noted the Delta
Junction's city attorney is out of town, emphasizing he is not the
city attorney. Mr. Rogers said his sense is that it [Section 7]
will resolve much of the issues presented in the lawsuit; he
doesn't know if it will resolve every one of them, but it will
certainly do a big job of clearing the path for the city to
proceed.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked who the parties to the lawsuit are.
MR. DAVID ROGERS answered that the plaintiffs are: Wayne Mark
Carpenter (ph), Dean Willard Cummings (ph), Dean William Cummings
(ph), William Johnson (ph), Ray Patterson (ph), Russell Bowdry (ph)
and Ray Bowdry (ph) v. the City of Delta Junction, the "Delta
Corrections Group, LLC," and "Cornell Corrections of Alaska, Inc."
Mr. Rogers noted Cornell will be the city's contractor.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned that this was filed on the complaints
about procurement code violations.
MR. DAVID ROGERS answered in the affirmative, indicating that the
plaintiffs were objecting to the city's process.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if that was what generated the need for
this remedial statute.
MR. DAVID ROGERS answered in the affirmative, indicating it is,
however, for the same reason - time delay - that the competitive
RFP [request for proposal] process did not work for them. He said
this would create another potential substantial delay in launching
the project, which could ultimately jeopardize the project and
place the community at risk. It is one of the factors that brings
the city before the committee today.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed Brian Rogers in Fairbanks was available
on teleconference and had been following the testimony. The
chairman asked if he had anything to add to clarify the situation.
Number 1049
BRIAN ROGERS, Chief Financial Officer, Information Insights,
Incorporated, testified next off-network via teleconference from
Fairbanks. Mr. Rogers noted litigation is not his area. He
indicated he thinks the city has pretty well described what the
need is for this amendment. He indicated he could answer technical
questions, commenting he has been working with the city attempting
to bring the project to fruition.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested that Brian Rogers provide the committee
with something on the order of a one-page critical time line of the
timing, rationale, and very brief outline, which could be added to
the bill packet for the House floor. The chairman indicated this
might help the members understand the situation a bit better.
Number 1093
MR. BRIAN ROGERS answered in the affirmative, noting he could
provide a brief verbal walk-through as well. Mr. Rogers commented
the city [Delta Junction] needs a prison that is ready to operate
by July 13, 2001. This is the date Fort Greely is realigned and
all the remaining jobs will be eliminated. Mr. Rogers indicated
their continual focus has been to ensure a seamless transition from
the use of Fort Greely as a military base to use as a private
prison. In order to reach that July 2001 time frame, the city
needs to begin construction during the 2000 construction season.
This requires demolition to be done over the course of this winter
and next spring. Unfortunately, the Delta Junction landfill is
close to capacity and a new landfill is needed to allow the
demolition. The city needs to do the landfill work by September or
October of this year and begin the permitting process well in
advance of that. Over the course of the last nine months Mr. Brian
Rogers has been working on the project, they have worked through
sort of understanding all of the issues and were headed toward
issuance of a competitive RFP. In February the city authorized the
issuance of an RFP and the services of Mr. Richard Crane (ph) were
retained. Mr. Crane (ph) is the national expert in RFPs for
private prison services.
MR. BRIAN ROGERS continued, "He [Mr. Crane (ph)] has written a
number [of RFPS] for a number of states, and he came back with a
time line that said, basically, we could ... be ready to make an
award under a time line beginning in February, that would be the
end of October of this year, and with [the] state's procurement
10-day, et cetera, mid-November before an award can be made." Mr.
Rogers said at that point they realized going forward with an RFP
process would not allow them to make that July 2001 time table.
Because of the time needs, the city attorney examined the issue of
justification for a sole source based on the unique circumstances
of the military base's availability, the fairly complex process of
working with the military, the time table of preparing the landfill
for demolition, for construction. The city attorney concluded this
does meet the state standards for a sole source procurement. Mr.
Rogers noted this assumes the city does not have other extraneous
items like litigation which further delay the process. He
commented this is a difficult process to get completed, but the
city's best shot at ensuring it does not lose the job, and that
families are not left without sources of income, is to proceed by
this sole source. That was the city's decision.
Number 1258
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if the January 2000 date is the point at
which they, in essence, have title from the military to begin
construction.
MR. BRIAN ROGERS replied the January 2000 date is for an effective
reuse plan. The "Delta Coalition" filed a reuse plan with the
military. Basically, reuse of Fort Greely requires some form of
what, in a shopping mall, would be called an "anchor tenant." In
this case the primary tenant would be the prison. If they are not
able to show the military that they have an economic reuse of the
base with an anchor tenant - someone that is committed and makes
the base operate as an economic entity as the prison would - then
the whole process of land transfer cannot start. They may not need
all the transfers by January because the military can execute
leases and furtherance of conveyance, "LIFC (ph)," in the interim
period, but the military needs to know by January of 2000 whether
this is a go or no go.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted, then, they could begin the demolition
under the leases and further conveyance if the military felt
progress was being made on the total reuse issue. The chairman
asked if that was correct.
MR. BRIAN ROGERS agreed. The city will need an inter-governmental
agreement with the state and final contract with the sole source
contractor, in that order. The next step would be the
inter-governmental agreement with the state which sets out all the
terms so the military knows that this is the real deal.
Number 1359
MR. DAVID ROGERS in Juneau said he would like to add one general
comment about the process. This decision did not come easily;
there was a substantial public process undertaken that ultimately
led to the sole source decision as the best shot for the seamless
transition. It was a long, involved process with a lot of
discussion between community members and a vote on an ordinance to
sanctify the decision.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS directed a question to either of the Mr.
Rogers. He asked, regarding the litigation or injunction filed to
stop the progress of this project, if it was their understanding
that this legislation, especially Section 7, would be retroactive
to before this injunction was filed in order to give the city of
"Delta" some relief.
MR. DAVID ROGERS answered the intent is to provide that remedy. He
noted there is some discussion amongst the lawyers about whether or
not a specific retroactive clause is needed in the bill. Mr.
Rogers indicated he is comfortable with the current drafting.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned, on that point, if adopting a
retroactive effective date for Section 7 would be appropriate.
MR. DAVID ROGERS replied it would not hurt. In response to the
chairman's further comment, Mr. Rogers noted the date of the
ordinance is March 30. He indicated a March 29 retroactive date
would make very clear.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG suggested possibly March 15.
MR. DAVID ROGERS indicated it is the committee's choice.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO suggested March 17.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed there were no further questions for
either of the Mr. Rogers and informed the committee there was one
more witness.
Number 1474
MARK O'BRIEN, Chief Contracts Officer, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, came forward.
Mr. O'Brien indicated he thought Mr. Kerr had done an excellent job
describing the department's situation which brought about the
legislation's introduction. He is available to answer any
questions the committee might have regarding Sections 1 through 6.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the unfortunate example of the M/V
Kennicott state ferry had been used earlier. The chairman
questioned whether this legislation could in any way have helped
the specifications and the avoidance of the Y2K [year 2000] problem
for that vessel.
MR. O'BRIEN answered in the negative, indicating he didn't think
the legislation would have done that for the department. Mr.
O'Brien provided another example. If the department is erecting a
simple shed building by design-build and is ready to award to the
firm that has scored the highest number of points, within five days
of that [award] period according to the statute, this firm would be
required to name its construction contractors. However, that
design has not been done, it has not been approved by the state.
Perhaps there was the option of piling or concrete perimeter
foundation. Mr. O'Brien commented, "There's no way to select a
foundations contractor at the point in which you're entering into
the design-build portion of the contract." He noted that would be
an example.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked, "With the exception, is that the primary
thing, the time-frame, or is there other aspects ... you'd like to
bring to the committee's attention ...?" The chairman commented
the five-day selection is ludicrous, noting he has been in the
commercial real estate business for 25 years in Alaska and has been
involved in this type of thing. It just doesn't make sense.
Number 1564
MR. O'BRIEN indicated he had additional comments. He explained the
second provision in the legislation is to allow for the
substitution of a contractor when it is in the best interests of
the state. For example, the department enters into a building
contract not believing there is an asbestos problem, but upon
opening up the structure for a remodel, asbestos is found and an
asbestos abatement subcontractor needs to be hired. Technically
the way the law is currently written, the department could not do
that. Mr. O'Brien indicated this legislation would permit, when
the contractor requests and when the state concurs, a best interest
finding (BIF) to be done that allows the addition of that
subcontractor.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted, then, the department would have to do a
BIF to get change of contract (indisc.). He asked if that is in
the existing code.
MR. O'BRIEN answered no, it is not.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned, then, why the department would have
to do a best interest finding.
MR. O'BRIEN indicated the department felt that in order to address
some of the contractors' concerns, allowing substitutions of
subcontractors for any reason might promote the idea of
bid-shopping down the road. The idea was, then, that there had to
be a compelling reason. Therefore, it ought to be documented to
the file as to why the state is allowing the contractor to either
add or replace a subcontractor.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG mentioned the language that the request must be
in writing, specifically detailing the basis for the request. He
asked who the request is in writing to.
MR. O'BRIEN answered it would be to the file by the contracting
officer.
Number 1635
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI questioned, then, if there would be an
opportunity for appeal of that decision by the contractor who had
been initially selected and who it has been determined it is not in
the state's best interest to continue with.
MR. O'BRIEN answered no, under this provision there would not be.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI questioned the identity of the entity
making the final determination.
MR. O'BRIEN answered it would be DOT/PF if it was one of the
department's projects.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI questioned, then, it would be the
procurement office.
MR. O'BRIEN agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI confirmed that "best interest of the
state" is term of art. She noted it seems somewhat problematic.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG mentioned BIFs, best interest findings. The
chairman indicated the committee members were mainly or completely
from the private sector. He questioned whether Representative
Murkowski is satisfied with the answers she has received,
indicating the point that there is no appeal is valid.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if the legislation has further
committees of referral.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the legislation would proceed directly
to the House floor.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI commented she was sure this would come up
as a question from the very adequately versed lawyers.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. O'Brien if there were other provisions
in the code to replace the contractor, or if there are other
policies or regulations within the department to do so.
Number 1710
MR. O'BRIEN answered in the negative. Technically, under the
example of the asbestos abatement [sub]contractor, if this was not
allowed, the department would probably have to agree to allow the
addition of that subcontractor where none existed before and, the
way it is currently written, technically decide whether to assess
the contractor a penalty. He noted this is ludicrous.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG agreed, stating, "If you had to add the
contractor? So there's no flexibility in it before?"
MR. O'BRIEN noted that is correct.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented that is ludicrous on its face, but he
asked about replacing one, noting that is a different case.
MR. O'BRIEN answered there was only a limited number of reasons why
a subcontractor can be replaced: generally for bankruptcy and
those kinds of issues, not when circumstances arise due to the
contract itself.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said that is not in this bill, though. The
chairman asked if it is in regulations, questioning what those
circumstances are and if they are codified or stipulated anywhere.
MR. O'BRIEN answered in the negative. Up to this point there were
no provisions that allowed for those kinds of substitutions. He
expressed some unsurety.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted, right, the department was providing for
substitution but the department just has to make a best interest
finding. He commented, "In other words, if you are a good creative
writer, you can have a lame excuse - there's no statutory grounds
... or rationale for it here, though. Is that correct?"
MR. O'BRIEN answered that is correct. He indicated the department
has discussed this with the "Associated General Contractors (AGC)"
who had some initial concerns. Mr. O'Brien said this organization
is now satisfied with this and a letter of non-objection is part of
the bill packet. In response to the chairman's lack of enthusiasm,
Mr. O'Brien indicated it was the department's attempt obtain some
consensus on the issue with the contractors.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned if the letter was on that issue.
MR. O'BRIEN answered in the affirmative; the AGC reviewed this
legislation in its very early stages.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned if there were comments from the bill
sponsor regarding this.
Number 1801
ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Assistant to Senator Loren Leman,
Alaska State Legislature, came forward as the bill sponsor's
representative. She stated that they have gone back to AGC several
times and AGC has reviewed the legislation. Additionally, Senator
Leman has been having conversations over the past couple of days
with AGC and the design-build community: they have no objection to
the legislation as written.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if this provision is only in the
design-build section, questioning if there is a general
applicability to the entire operation of DOT/PF.
MR. O'BRIEN responded that the second portion is applicable to all
contracts. There are two issues: 1) To relieve the state from the
five-day notification for design-build. 2) To allow the
replacement or substitution of subcontractors under all DOT/PF
contracts, not only design-build. Mr. O'Brien indicated the
chairman is correct in that this does have universal application.
Referring to the issue raised about whether a subcontractor would
have some avenue to object, Mr. O'Brien noted the contract
controversy provisions under the existing statute would allow a
contractor to bring an action against the department for a contract
issue. There is an avenue under the formal dispute resolution
process, not as a part of this section of the statute. He agreed
with the chairman and Representative Murkowski that the alternative
would be a court action.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated this would be for breach.
Number 1872
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI indicated that is her thought: By
including this, are they not just opening up the door for some
major lawsuits against the state by contractors?
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that is where the BIF comes in - that is
the supporting document, but it is to the file.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI agreed it is to the file. She questioned
where it goes and the process. She expressed some concern,
although the fact that the AGC has signed off on it gives her a bit
more comfort. However, she guesses a non-opposition is not exactly
a wholehearted endorsement. Representative Murkowski reiterated
that she has some concerns. She admitted she had not caught this
during her earlier review; if she had, she would have given it more
thought before this meeting. It seems problematic that there isn't
an appeal process in place. Perhaps the contract controversy is
the avenue one does pursue, if in fact one has been ousted from the
contract; it certainly gives one grounds to contest. However, she
is not familiar with what that process is.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG suggested that Representative Murkowski and staff
look into this; if there is a problem, it can be brought to the
attention of the House Rules Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she is happy to do that.
Number 1959
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved that the committee adopt a conceptual
amendment to the effect of making Section 7 retroactive to March
17, 1999. There being no objection, the conceptual amendment was
adopted.
Number 1989
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS made a motion to move House CS for CSSB
141(L&C) [Version H], as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the attached [zero] fiscal note. There being
no objections, HCS CSSB(L&C) moved out of the House Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee.
Number 2019
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a brief at-ease at 4:01 p.m. The
committee came back to order at 4:02 p.m.
HB 110 - SALE/LABELING OF MEAT/MILK PRODUCTS
Number 2026
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business
is HB 110, "An Act relating to the sale, offer to sell, and
labeling of fluid milk, meat, and meat products."
Number 2031
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS, sponsor of HB 110, noted it is his intention
to move the legislation. He drew the committee's attention to the
proposed Version K committee substitute (CS). The difference
between Version K and most previous CS [Version I] is the addition
of the language, "and may also state "No significant difference has
been shown between milk derived from rBST treated and non-rBST
treated cows."", after "or "farmer certified rBST-free,"", in
Section 2 of the legislation on page 2, lines 2 and 3.
Number 2095
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to adopt the proposed Version
K CS for HB 110, labeled 1-LS0408\K, Bannister, 4/27/99. There
being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 2109
PETE FELLMAN, Researcher for Representative John Harris, Alaska
State Legislature, came forward as the bill sponsor's
representative. In response to the chairman's request for an
explanation of the difference, Mr. Fellman agreed it is as was
stated by Representative Harris. The disclaimer requested by the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) was added to the
legislation; this is also the same wording in the "Interim Federal
Guidelines [Food and Drug Administration (FDA)]" regarding the
labeling of milk for bST and rGBH. In response to the chairman's
question regarding the location of the change, Mr. Fellman directed
the committee's attention again to page 3, lines 2 and 3.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the language is "may also state" and
therefore is not mandatory. The chairman asked Mr. Fellman if that
is correct.
MR. FELLMAN indicated he thinks it is. Mr. Fellman indicated he
asked the bill drafter to take the language word-for-word out of
the FDA guidelines. He noted the use of "may" in a previous
sentence and commented it might be a matter of grammar.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated "may" is not used as a matter of
grammar in legislation; it is a dictum or discretion.
Number 2180
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI indicated she feels this satisfies the
concern she had raised at the previous hearing [April 26, 1999].
If a dairy farmer wishes to sell his/her milk to the [military]
bases or the school lunch program, he/she can use this entire
labeling to meet the FDA requirements. However, if a farmer
chooses not to sell his/her milk to one of these outlets, he/she
would be allowed to omit the language, ""No significant difference
has been shown between milk derived from rBSt treated and non-rBST
treated cows."".
MR. FELLMAN commented that is probably a benefit he did not
recognize when the "may" was included.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted she read the added language and
thought that solved the problem; she looked at "may" as a good
thing.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG informed the committee there was one witness
online who wished to testify.
Number 2244
ART GRISWOLD, Sleepy Hollow Farm, testified via teleconference from
Delta Junction. He commented he raises some milk animals, mainly
goats, and some beef cattle. Mr. Griswold indicated he has been
following the legislation's progress; he thought it was a pretty
good bill to start with. However, Mr. Griswold expressed that he is
very unhappy with the current version because all the power has
been removed from the legislation, the requirements for hormone
reporting on beef have been reduced completely, and more (indisc.)
is just being added to the existing dairy operation in the future
for the creamery. He questioned what the legislation is going to
accomplish really; they have taken all the meat out of the bill and
destroyed it up to now. Mr. Griswold noted he would like to see
the legislation to its original form: including the term limit for
dating [of milk], including the coverage of beef animals, and
including the milk as far as the hormone additive. He stated, "And
that's all I've got to say gentlemen, I think your big money got to
you someplace."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG responded he appreciated Mr. Griswold's testimony
but not his last comments. The chairman asked if there were any
questions for Mr. Griswold.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS noted, as the bill sponsor, that he would
just like to say he doesn't think big money got to them; he thinks
a matter of trying to get this through as legislation which
accomplishes something causes one to work with other people.
Representative Harris hoped the department would come forward as
well; he indicated they have been trying to work with the
department to allow some form of milk labeling which supports
various special interests and other people's concerns regarding
knowledge of what is in some of the food they eat. This is why the
legislation is in its present form.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted he appreciated Representative Harris'
comments and hopes Mr. Griswold takes them to heart. The chairman
stated this a land of reality and that is why it is called
politics. Given the limited resources of this state and what they
can do, they can't ideally accomplish everything they may want to
do, and therefore they try to take small steps to reach the desired
goal. He invited Ms. Adair forward.
Number 2342
JANICE ADAIR, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation, came forward. Ms. Adair
commented the department does not have any objections to the
Version K CS; she would like to thank Representative Harris' office
for working with the department to address its concerns.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG closed the public hearing on HB 110 after
confirming there were no further witnesses.
Number 2374
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to move CSHB 110 [Version K]
out of committee with individual recommendations and the attached
zero fiscal note. Representative Halcro amended his motion to
included the two attached fiscal notes. There being no objection,
CSHB 110(L&C) moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee.
Number 2393
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called an at-ease at 4:11 p.m. The committee
came back to order at 4:14 p.m. [MANUAL TAPE CHANGE DURING AT-EASE]
TAPE 99-48, SIDE B
HB 208 - PROFESSIONAL COUNSELORS
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business
is HB 208, "An Act relating to professional counselors; and
providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI, sponsor of HB 208, thanked the chairman
for hearing the legislation on such expedited notice. She
commented that HB 208 is a housekeeping measure; it is a title
restriction bill, not a practice restriction bill. She requested
that her staff, Anne Gore, present HB 208.
Number 0038
ANNE GORE, Researcher for Representative Lisa Murkowski, Alaska
State Legislature, came forward. Ms. Gore provided the following
testimony based on the sponsor statement:
"Last year the legislature created statutes ... which
established a board and license for professional
counselors in Alaska. The intent of the statutes was
essentially twofold. The first was to create a board
which would oversee activities relating to professional
counselors; and second, was to create requirements of
appropriate, quality education and experience for
professional counselors seeking licensure. However, in
those original statutes there is some key language that
was left out, primarily that which defined the authority
of the board and the language which defined 'appropriate,
quality education and experience.' This bill seeks to
address those omissions and also allows for three other
small housekeeping provisions.
"Specifically, it adds to the list of health
professionals allowed to supervise professional
counselors; it adds professional counselors to the
Centralized Licensing Statutes section regarding the use
of the letters 'LPC' after a licensed professional's
name; and it extends the deadline by six months for
current, eligible professional counselors to be
'grandfathered' in without having to undergo supervisory
and testing requirements that will be required of new
entrants into the profession.
"... This bill strengthens those original statutes laid
out last year for both the public and the profession."
MS. GORE stated she would be happy to answer any questions the
committee might have.
Number 0091
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI requested that Ms. Gore explain why the
additional six month extension is being addressed.
MS. GORE explained that under the current provisions, the time for
current counselors working in Alaska to gather their educational
materials specifying their educational background and work history
would expire December 31, 1999. This information allows current
counselors to become licensed professional counselors without
having to undergo the 3,000 supervised hours and taking the test
which would be required of new entrants to the profession. The
board, established under the previous years statutes, had been slow
in becoming established and gathering the information required to
send out to current, working counselors. Because those materials
may not go out until as late as August, the board was concerned
that without an extension, working counselors within Alaska who
wished to become licensed professional counselors might miss that
deadline.
Number 0150
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the previous legislation establishing
the board had come through the committee the previous year. The
chairman referred to page 3, lines 7-8 and 11-12. He asked if
those were the housekeeping measures to which Ms. Gore had
referred.
MS. GORE replied yes, exactly. She said that it simply seeks to
define both the authority of the board, and the education and
experience for new entrants to the profession.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to Section 4 of HB 208. He commented
that HB 208 is a technical bill.
Number 0208
ANNE HENRY, Chair, Board of Licensed Professional Counselors,
Division of Occupational Licensing, Department of Commerce and
Economic Development, came forward. She informed the committee
that the board was not appointed until December 1998. The original
date to send applications to potential professional counselors was
January 1, 1999. Therefore, the board is backed up by many months
in terms of getting the applications to people. The six-month
extension would assist the board in getting the information out to
those in remote areas and in providing those people enough time to
gather their documentation to send in for the application process.
Ms. Henry indicated she had been very involved in the drafting of
the previous year's legislation, and she acknowledged that there
had been some omissions in that legislation. She thinks HB 208
cleans up a lot of different things that will assist the board in
the writing of regulations and enforcement of the statutes, as
intended by both the drafters and, hopefully, the legislature. Ms.
Henry noted she is basically here for the committee's questions.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG pointed out that on page 2 there are provisions
for adopting a code of ethics by regulation, but not the balance of
the regulations. He asked if that was the omission.
MS. HENRY indicated agreement.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked how many professional counselors
there are in Alaska.
MS. HENRY said that she does not know; they are hoping that
approximately 250 people will apply for this license. Ms. Henry
agreed with Representative Murkowski that the actual number of
professional counselors is unknown because no information has been
sent out. Ms. Henry identified that as another reason for
extending the deadline. More licensees would decrease the amount
of the individual licensing fee.
Number 0320
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Commerce and Economic Development, came forward. She
informed the committee that the division provides the staff support
to the Board of Professional Counselors. Ms. Reardon said that HB
208 is a good bill from the department's perspective. When the
board began fleshing out regulations, the need for the technical
clean-ups were discovered. She commented that HB 208 has a zero
fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI understands one of the reasons for
requesting these technical changes is to allow this six-month
extension. She questioned if the legislature is being unreasonable
with these deadlines when it sets them and if should that be
reviewed in order to ensure that is not the case again.
MS. REARDON pointed out that with a new board, the members must
first be appointed before any actions establishing policies and
regulations can occur. Those policies and regulations then allow
applications to be sent out. Therefore, applications cannot be
sent out until the board is appointed and meets. The appointment
process takes awhile because the bills pass at the same time the
budget and other items come before the Governor. Therefore,
appointments of new board members take lower priority. Ms. Reardon
indicated this situation should be recognized regarding time
deadlines. She also noted that sometimes a bill introduced the
first session might not pass until the first session. Although the
dates could be much closer then, Ms. Reardon indicated that
amending the bill at that point might impede the legislation's
progress. Additionally, she thinks both the department, and
perhaps the legislature, need consider how long it really takes to
write thoughtful regulations and inform the public. Ms. Reardon
emphasized that she did not see much harm in having extended
grandfather clauses.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if anything in HB 208 added to the
nondiscrimination clause of the insurance statute.
MS. REARDON replied no and said that would be a separate issue
probably will be brought to the legislature at some time. She
mentioned that would be somewhat more controversial.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO noted that the bill packet only included an
unnumbered draft bill.
Number 0493
JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman
Rokeberg, Alaska State Legislature, as aide to the House Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee, clarified for the record that the
version before the committee is version 1-LS0828\A, which is the
same as the unnumbered draft bill.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked how the licensing fee had been established
for the board.
MS. REARDON explained that the fiscal note accompanying the
previous year's legislation included a proposed amount based on the
number of people who might get licenses. That amount was publicly
noticed and adopted. She said that three years from now, the fee
would be more accurate.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if another reason for the extension was to
attempt to meet the proposed number of applicants in order to have
enough money to pay for the program.
Number 0537
MS. REARDON stated that there are enough licensees in the division
so that would not be a concern of the division. However, more
licensees result in lower fees.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Ms. Reardon was suggesting that other
licensees fund this license.
MS. REARDON explained that if the program costs more than the fee
brings in revenue, the division would deficit spend on that program
which would mean that technically the money spent may be from
another program. However, the profession would have to pay back
the deficit and the money returns to those from which it came.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if anyone else wished to testify on HB 208.
There being no one, the public hearing on HB 208 was closed. The
chairman asked the will of the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA noted a conflict of interest because she is
a potential applicant for a professional counselor license.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated that Representative Cissna would be
required to vote.
Number 0623
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to move HB 208 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note.
There being no objection, HB 208 moved out of the House Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee.
Number 0633
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called an at-ease at 4:30 p.m. The committee
came back to order at 4:39 p.m.
HB 183 - ALASKA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
[Contains discussion relevant to SB 133.]
Number 0638
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business
is HB 183, "An Act relating to the powers and duties of the chair
of the Alaska Public Utilities Commission; relating to membership
on the Alaska Public Utilities Commission; and relating to the
annual report of the Alaska Public Utilities Commission." The
chairman informed the committee there are some suggested amendments
patterned after provisions of SB 133. It is the intention to try
to mirror some of the provisions placed in SB 133 that the industry
as a whole can agree on that would be a betterment to the
commission. The chairman mentioned amendments I.1 and I.2 [there
is also I.3].
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI questioned if the committee needed to
adopt the committee substitute (CS) [Version I].
There was some discussion among the committee regarding
distribution of the three amendments.
Number 0697
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a brief at-ease at 4:40 p.m. The
committee came back to order at 4:41 p.m. The chairman announced
that before taking up the amendments, the committee would hear
public testimony.
Number 0719
SHARON DANIEL, Copper Basin Sanitation Service Company, testified
via teleconference from Glennallen. Ms. Daniel commented that she
does not have any of the amendments, but she does support the
original Version I work draft. However, if the three amendments
change the legislation much, she may withdraw her support.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed Ms. Daniels was concerned about subject
of refuse regulation. He stated there is nothing in this
legislation and it is not the sponsor's intention to add that to
this legislation.
MS. DANIELS stated her concern is the deregulation of garbage
service. She does not support that; if garbage service is left out
of HB 183, the legislation has her support.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG reiterated that it is not in the legislation nor
is it the chairman's intention.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO informed Ms. Daniels as co-chair of the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee that HB 178,
which he believes Ms. Daniels is referencing, would possibly be
heard by that committee the following Tuesday [May 4].
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG added that he believes Senator Pearce's
legislation, SB 133, does include the garbage or refuse provisions.
He indicated HB 183 and SB 133 are along the same lines, but HB 183
does not have those specific provisions. The chairman indicated he
would suggest that Ms. Daniel should track both HB 178 and SB 133.
He questioned whether Mr. Zobel in Anchorage wished to testify.
Number 0805
RON ZOBEL, Assistant Attorney General, Fair Business Practices
Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, spoke via
teleconference from Anchorage. Mr. Zobel told members he was
available for questions that had arisen at the last hearing [April
26] concerning amendments on arbitration, the 60-day limit on
issuing decisions and the consumer complaint amendment [Amendment
2 to Version H]. Mr. Zobel indicated Mr. Baldwin [Jim Baldwin,
Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs Section, Civil
Division (Juneau), Department of Law] had thought it would be
better to have an attorney who worked day-to-day with the Alaska
Public Utilities Commission (APUC) present for these questions.
Mr. Zobel is one of the two assistant attorney generals assigned to
the commission.
Number 0838
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to adopt the Version I CS for
HB 183, labeled 1-LS0764\I, Cramer, 4/28/99. There was no
objection to the motion.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned if Mr. Zobel and Mr. Lohr [Robert
Lohr, Executive Director, Alaska Public Utilities Commission] had
Version I.
MR. ZOBEL responded that he believed he had that version.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested that Ms. Seitz conceptually explain the
amendments to the committee and then Mr. Yould could discuss the
amendments' substance. The chairman indicated the amendments would
be marked I.1 as Amendment 1, I.2 as Amendment 2, and I.3 as
Amendment 3.
Number 0895
JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman
Rokeberg, Alaska State Legislature, came forward as aide to the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee. Ms. Seitz explained
that Amendment 1 is in the same area as the amendment passed at the
last meeting [April 26] "dealing with the chair of the commission
shall promptly fix a date." The committee adopted 60 days at the
last hearing; this amendment would reinsert the 30-day provision.
Ms. Seitz indicated the last portion of the amendment is new
language regarding timely closure of dockets. Amendment 1, labeled
1-LS0764\I.1, Cramer, 4/28/99, read:
Page 1, line 5, following ";":
Insert "relating to timely action by the Alaska
Public Utilities Commission;"
Page 3, line 26:
Delete "a new subsection"
Insert "new subsections"
Page 3, lines 28 - 30:
Delete ", the chair of the commission shall promptly
fix a date for hearing when a hearing is appropriate.
The hearing shall be without undue delay. The"
Insert "for which a hearing is clearly warranted,
the chair of the commission shall assign a priority
rating to the issue and promptly fix a date for hearing.
The hearing shall be expedited in accordance with the
priority rating. Regardless of the priority rating, a"
Page 4, line 2:
Delete "60"
Insert "30"
Page 4, following line 2:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(c) Unless to do so would violate the due
process rights of a party, the commission shall
ensure that its dockets are closed in a timely
fashion and not delayed due to inaction, complexity
of issues, or another reason. Failure of a
commission member to comply with this subsection
constitutes grounds for removal from the commission
under AS 42.05.035. The chair of the commission
may dismiss a commission employee for failure to
comply with this subsection."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned whether Mr. Zobel had the I.1
amendment.
MR. ZOBEL answered they did not have that in Anchorage.
MS. SEITZ informed the chairman the amendments had been received
just prior to the hearing. The amendments are being faxed to the
Anchorage Legislative Information Office (Anchorage LIO).
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he wished to hear Mr. Zobel's comment
on Amendment 1 after his (Mr. Zobel's) review. The chairman
invited Mr. Yould and Walt Wilcox [aide to the House Special
Committee on Utility Restructuring, sponsor of HB 183] forward.
Chairman Rokeberg questioned Mr. Yould regarding the nature of
Amendment 1.
Number 1013
ERIC YOULD, Executive Director, Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative
Association, Incorporated (ARECA), came forward. He noted ARECA is
a trade association for the electric utility industry. Mr. Yould
commented there had been an amendment before the committee at the
previous hearing which attempted to put some "teeth" into the time
in which it takes to get dockets through APUC. An amendment was
adopted that required, among other things, a certain prioritization
on dockets when they come in. There was also a requirement that
the commission enter its order within 60 days after conclusion [of
a docket]. The timeliness of dockets is the major issue relating
to the APUC that ARECA sees coming before its body, from the
electric utilities' standpoint. There were many comments the other
day that that completed section was still loosely worded and could
be tightened up; ARECA agreed with that. Mr. Yould indicated that
ARECA also privately felt that perhaps there could be even more
teeth put into getting dockets out in a timely fashion.
MR. YOULD commented this is what he has attempted to do. Amendment
1 to Version I ["Version T" misstated on tape] is a derivative of
what he put together; it was reworded by the legislative drafters.
The amendment suggests that the question of how soon decisions
shall be made should be revisited. ARECA suggests 30 days is
better than the 60 days passed previously. ARECA is also saying
that the chairman should examine and prioritize an incoming docket
by importance, place it into a management tracking system, and get
to it as soon as possible. Mr. Yould noted the last portion of the
amendment, subsection (c), tries to ensure that the commission and
its staff understand the importance of getting dockets out in a
timely fashion. If there is a continual history of slowness or
inattention to dockets, this would serve as grounds for dismissal.
ARECA is not looking for dismissal, nor does it believe that would
happen. However, Mr. Yould indicated ARECA would certainly like to
know that dismissal could be had if timeliness of dockets continues
to be an issue.
Number 1165
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO referred to the language, "assign a priority
rating" in paragraph 3 of Amendment 1, relating to page 3, lines 28
through 30 of Version I. He questioned the intent with the
priority rating, wondering if would be as simple as "one through
five."
MR. YOULD answered it could very well be; that is up to the
commission to decide by regulation. He added, "It's just trying to
say one docket is more important than another, and just because you
have a full slate, it doesn't mean that if you don't get an
important one in, it shouldn't get bumped to the top. And,
frankly, there's been some dockets that have come in - at least
with the electric utility industry, having to do with the takeover
of one utility by another - that I wish APUC had taken on and made
a decision on, and we wouldn't be still trying to figure out what's
going on."
Number 1206
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI indicated, however, that if they are to
enact language that says nothing can be done which would cause
undue delay, a prioritization schedule, by nature, would delay some
items in favor of others. A prioritization schedule with "hot"
items relating to electric utility dockets would delay the garbage
dockets, for example, making it difficult to keep to the time
management schedule. Representative Murkowski expressed that she
likes the idea of prioritization and thinks it may need to be
examined, but she questioned this delaying effect on the less
urgent items.
MR. YOULD said he fully agreed with Representative Murkowski's
comments; it is necessary to ensure that some of those less
important dockets ultimately get heard. He proposed using some new
hearing techniques that perhaps the commission has not used enough
of in the past, such as having some dockets heard by a hearing
officer or arbiter, or using other tools the commission has
available to it. He stated, "We want to see a little bit more
action over there, frankly. ... Some of the dockets are very
important, and they should be put on an expedited basis. I'd have
to say that there's been a couple of recent dockets that have cost
... members in utilities a lot of money, because the utilities have
come to APUC and said, 'Give us a decision.' Still, today, no
decision ... is there and hence people are spending money, throwing
grenades back and forth with newspaper ads and that sort of thing,
that in some respects, perhaps, could have been settled through a
timely adjudication by APUC." Mr. Yould continued, "Now, I'm not
even going to pretend to say that there wasn't a due process that
didn't slow it down because I agree with that and I've even tried
to acknowledge the fact that due process does need to take its
place. It absolutely does. But I just think a sense of urgency
and prioritization is very necessary over there. And, yes, some
dockets would get bumped down, but at the same time I think that
good managers will find ways to deal with that."
Number 1339
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Zobel if he had received a copy of
Amendment 1.
MR. ZOBEL replied they had not received it yet.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that Amendment 1 replaces the 60 days in
Version I with 30 days, and puts a lot more "fangs" into it. The
chairman questioned whether Mr. Zobel wished to comment.
MR. ZOBEL asked if Amendment 1 refers to the closing of a docket.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the 30 days or 60 days relates to the
order afterwards, found on page 4, line 2, of Version I.
Number 1383
MR. ZOBEL pointed out that there is an important distinction
between the issuance of an order after a hearing and the closing of
a docket. The closing of a docket is a fairly routine thing when
the entire docket is completed.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that Version I, page 4, lines 1 and 2,
says, "After the conclusion of the hearing, the commission shall
enter its order within 60 days." He asked how Mr. Zobel would
interpret that, and whether he was distinguishing between a docket
hearing and another hearing.
Number 1421
MR. ZOBEL explained that there can be a hearing or a series of
hearings leading to various orders being issued in a particular
docket. The closing of the docket comes later, after virtually
everything has been finished, and is a rather routine, bureaucratic
chore of simply closing the file. He suggested that the problem
they are getting at is that once a matter has been heard in a
hearing and submitted to the APUC for decision, that is when the
time clock would start to run. He pointed out, however, that what
is reasonable varies with the complexity or nature of the docket,
and 30 days is a very short time for many items. Mr. Zobel said
he doesn't think that there is necessarily a legal problem with
directing the commission to do this, but, obviously, they want the
right number of days to be in there so that it is a practical
provision. He noted that the bill he was looking at didn't specify
a remedy for a violation of that directive.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG suggested the legislature could cut the funding.
MR. ZOBEL said that it is always an option. He noted that a
directory statement like that is a standard against which the APUC
can be measured. He paused to look at Amendment 1, which had just
been handed to him.
Number 1560
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked whether Mr. Zobel would counsel the
committee to leave the time as 60 days.
MR. ZOBEL said he believes 60 days is a much more reasonable period
of time for many dockets.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Yould to respond.
Number 1613
MR. YOULD replied, "Everything's subjective. If I have an attorney
that works for me, and I say that I want something tomorrow, I'm
going to pay for it, and I'm going to get it tomorrow. And it
would seem to me that if something is important enough and it needs
to be done, it can be done. And I think that APUC has the
resources, either through the attorney general's office or, as
amended, through outside legal resources, that they should be able
to get the job done. I certainly wouldn't want to see them
expending undue funds on trying to get dockets out that are of a
relatively low priority, but it would seem to me that you should
have the resources within this commission to act in a timely
fashion."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG responded that it depends on the scope of the
work, which he believes is Mr. Zobel's point.
Number 1667
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether there has been testimony
from the other utilities involved in APUC hearings, in terms of
what they might consider reasonable.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said no.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI added that it may be easier for electric
utility cases, as opposed to pipeline rate cases, for example,
where even 60 days might be unreasonable.
MR. YOULD answered that everybody has learned to expect something
longer rather than shorter, which he believes is unfortunate.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG proposed going back to 30 days, with extensions
requiring justification, as discussed in the previous meeting.
MR. YOULD said he has no problem with that.
Number 1729
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if the expectation of delays isn't
simply because there hasn't been any time line in force.
MR. YOULD said that is a good point, adding that perhaps some other
management techniques put in place would obviate the need for this
sort of thing.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG suggested that could be a compromise. He asked
Mr. Zobel and Mr. Lohr if they had heard the discussions, and if
they believe it is more reasonable to revert to 30 days, with
extensions for good cause.
Number 1776
MR. ZOBEL answered that certainly some latitude would be more
reasonable. He cautioned against distracting the commission from
the issue at hand, however, by the process of getting extensions
and findings of good cause. There are going to be a large number
of cases where good cause would be necessary to get some extra
time, he said. To him, having 30 days and then another extension
adds a procedure to jump through, which could be a little
cumbersome, although it would keep everybody on track. He proposed
that the chairman should always have a system to determine what
remains in a particular matter at any given time, because sometimes
it isn't readily apparent what is still out there to be decided.
Mr. Zobel believes that would be the best thing to help in meeting
deadlines.
Number 1910
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, and to amend
it by deleting lines 12 through 14 [of the printed amendment,
relating to page 4, line 2, of Version I]. This would leave the 60
days in, with no extension. He asked if there was any objection to
the amendment to Amendment 1. The language to be deleted from
Amendment 1 by the amendment to the amendment read:
Page 4, line 2:
Delete "60"
Insert "30"
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO objected for purposes of discussion. He
asked if the reason is fear of the 30 days.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to testimony and expressed concern that
30 days isn't enough time to write a report. "We can tune this up
later," he added. The chairman said he accepts Mr. Zobel's counsel
that adding another "cause" issue creates paperwork, which he
himself doesn't want.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there was any objection to the amendment
to Amendment 1. There being none, the amendment to the amendment
was adopted. The chairman asked if there was any objection to
Amendment 1 [as amended].
Number 2000
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to the last section of the
amendment and the language, "... the commission shall ensure that
its dockets are closed in a timely fashion and not delayed due to
inaction,". She indicated this language is acceptable to her, but
she noted the following language, "complexity of issues". She
specifically referred to line 19 of the printed amendment which
read, "delayed due to inaction, complexity of issues, or another
reason. Failure of a" Representative Murkowski believes
"complexity of issues" is a valid reason to take 45 days instead of
30 days, for example. Therefore, she expressed discomfort with
inclusion of that language. Although it could be used as an excuse
for delay, she believes there is a need to allow the APUC to wade
through incredibly complex issues. She suggested urging the
commission to deal with it in a timely manner, however.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO noted that if they are retaining the 60 days
because of the worry that 30 days is not enough time to respond
because of complex dockets, then on line 19, "delayed due to
inaction, complexity of issues, or another reason. ...", they are
punishing for something which has already been addressed in lines
12 through 14. Representative Halcro commented they have said
there are complex issues out there; 30 days is not enough, 60 will
be provided, but then again on line 19, they say that that is not
a reason to delay. He said this is his concern.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied that he had not thought of complexity of
issues as a reason to extend the 60 days, indicating his thought
had been toward bureaucratic inertia and failure to get things
done.
Number 2154
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA also referred to line 19 of Amendment 1,
"delayed due to inaction, complexity of issues, or another reason.
..." She asked whether "or another reason" doesn't essentially say
that there is no reason to do it.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI agreed.
Number 2208
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any objections to Amendment
1 [as amended].
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI and REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO objected.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI suggested it might be all right if that
first sentence was deleted.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested that Representative Murkowski fix the
amendment and bring it back on Friday [April 30]. The chairman
requested that Ms. Seitz to comment on Amendment 3.
Number 2259
MS. SEITZ noted that Amendment 3, labeled 1-LS0764\I.3, Cramer,
4/28/99, read:
Page 4, line 29, following ".":
Insert "A decision of an arbiter is not final until
approved by the commission."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG reminded members that arbitration had been added
to the commission's tools, but it is necessary to ensure that the
commission approves the arbitration decision. The chairman asked
if there was any objection to Amendment 3. There being none,
Amendment 3 was adopted.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted Amendment 2 is a bit more complex.
Amendment 2, labeled 1-LS0764\I.2, Cramer, 4/28/99, read:
Page 1, line 8, following "Commission;":
Insert "relating to regulatory cost charges;"
Page 5, following line 13:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 12. AS 42.05.254(a) is amended to read:
(a) A regulated public utility operating in
the state shall pay to the commission an annual
regulatory cost charge in an amount not to exceed
the maximum percentage of adjusted gross revenue
that applies to the utility sector of which the
utility is a part. The total regulatory cost
charges that the commission expects to collect from
all regulated public utilities and regulated
pipeline carriers may not exceed .8 percent of the
total adjusted gross revenue of all regulated
public utilities and the total gross revenue of all
regulated pipeline carriers [DERIVED FROM
OPERATIONS IN THE STATE, AS MODIFIED UNDER (c) OF
THIS SECTION IF APPROPRIATE]. An exempt utility
shall pay the actual cost of services provided to
it by the commission.
* Sec. 13. AS 42.05.254(b) is amended to read:
(b) The commission shall by regulation
establish a method to determine annually the amount
of the regulatory cost charge for a public utility.
If the amount the commission expects to collect
under (a) of this section and under AS 42.06.286(a)
exceeds the authorized budget of the commission,
the commission shall, by order, reduce the
percentages determined under (i) [SET OUT IN (a)]
of this section so that the total amount of the
fees collected approximately equals the authorized
budget of the commission for the fiscal year.
* Sec. 14. AS 42.05.254(h) is amended by adding a
new paragraph to read:
(5) "adjusted gross revenue" means the gross
revenue of a utility as modified under (c) of this
section, if appropriate.
* Sec. 15. AS 42.05.254 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(i) The commission shall by regulation
establish a method to determine annually the
maximum percentage of adjusted gross revenue that
will apply to each regulated public utility sector
and the maximum percentage of gross revenue that
will apply to each regulated pipeline carrier
sector. The method established shall allocate the
commission's costs, other than the cost of services
provided to exempt utilities, among the regulated
public utility sectors and the regulated pipeline
carrier sector based on the relative amount of the
commission's annual costs that is attributable to
regulating each sector.
* Sec. 16. AS 42.06.286(a) is amended to read:
(a) A pipeline carrier operating in the state
shall pay to the commission an annual regulatory
cost charge in an amount not to exceed the maximum
percentage of gross revenue that applies to
regulated pipeline carriers. The total regulatory
cost charges that the commission expects to collect
from all regulated pipeline carriers and regulated
public utilities may not exceed .8 percent of the
total gross revenue of all regulated pipeline
carriers and the total gross revenue of all
regulated public utilities [DERIVED FROM OPERATIONS
IN THE STATE]. A regulatory cost charge may not be
assessed on pipeline carrier operations unless the
operations are within the jurisdiction of the
commission.
* Sec. 17. AS 42.06.286(b) is amended to read:
(b) The commission shall by regulation
establish a method to determine annually the amount
of the regulatory cost charge. If the amount the
commission expects to collect under (a) of this
section and under AS 42.05.254(a) exceeds the
authorized budget of the commission, the commission
shall, by order, reduce the percentage determined
under (1) [SET OUT IN (a)] of this section so that
the total amount of the fees collected
approximately equals the authorized budget of the
commission for the fiscal year.
* Sec. 18. AS 42.06.286 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(f) The commission shall by regulation
establish a method to determine annually the
maximum percentage of gross revenue that will apply
to each regulated pipeline carrier sector and the
maximum percentage of gross revenue that will apply
to the regulated public utility sector in
accordance with AS 42.05.254(i)."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
[Note: amendment copy quality very poor - unable to determine
subsection specified in Section 17.]
MS. SEITZ noted that Amendment 2 addresses concerns raised about
disparity between what telephone companies and electric utilities
pay, based on the amount of work done for them. She deferred to
Mr. Yould.
Number 2331
MR. YOULD explained, "Presently, the commission computes the RCC
[regulatory cost charge] by equally apportioning the RCC to be
collected, by dividing the total commission budget to be collected
from the utilities by the total gross utility receipts. And it
basically puts a cap on how much ... of those gross receipts ...
could go toward the commission; and I think the percentage is .8
percent of gross receipts. What that means is that [regardless] of
the service, and the number of issues that you have before the
commission, you're going to be paying a flat amount - no matter
what - by your industry sector. And as a 'for instance,' under the
present formula, last year the commission needed to recover ...
$4,122,000 from the regulated utilities, of which ... a little over
a million was to be recovered from the electric utility industries.
That's roughly 25 percent."
MR. YOULD continued, "However, if you look at the level of effort
that is put in by the commission on electric utility dockets, you
will probably find that we are not getting 25 percent of their
effort. For instance, ... in 1996, there were 110 new dockets
filed with the commission; that was a year before deregulation of
the telecommunications industry took place. That's probably a
period of time when we would say that we probably got equal
representation within APUC. In 1997, however..." [TESTIMONY
INTERRUPTED BY TAPE CHANGE]
TAPE 99-49, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. YOULD continued, "I can tell you ... that the preponderance of
the increase in dockets was not a result of the electric utility
industry, but simply because of the increased re-regulation
associated with the deregulation of the telecommunications
industry. We believe that we are probably getting significantly
less than the 25 percent that we are paying into the commission
through the RCC. What we are recommending is an amendment, which
is some three pages long, which basically changes the formula so
that each individual industry will be allocated its charge based on
the anticipated level of effort needed for that industry within the
commission. And that's what this amendment does."
Number 0090
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG requested that Mr. Lohr comment on this
allocation-to-workload concept.
Number 0104
ROBERT LOHR, Executive Director, Alaska Public Utilities
Commission, testified next via teleconference from Anchorage. He
told members that the regulatory cost charge was established in
1992, based on recommendations of the legislative auditor and
others who felt that it would be a more equitable way than using
unrestricted general funds to finance the APUC's operations. Since
that date, the APUC has operated on a RCC and the APUC fund is a
separate fund in state accounting. Mr. Lohr stated, "The approach
of the commission, following the statutes, has been to try to keep
the program simple, to keep the allocation to all utilities - all
regulated utilities - the same, to the extent possible. That's
been a very successful approach. It's kept the program simple. It
has avoided creating a kind of 'Internal Revenue Service of the
North,' if you will, to have exclusions, deductions, exemptions and
so forth, or special treatment."
MR. LOHR continued, "The legislature, in 1995, the last sunset
review, did authorize a reduction in the electric regulatory cost
charge to exclude the cost of power from the calculation. That had
the effect of reducing regulatory costs allocated to the electric
industry by 43 percent. ... It's true, as Mr. Yould has indicated,
that the number of dockets has increased substantially ... in
recent years, and that the primary increase has been in the area of
telecommunications. However, the choice of formal dockets as the
measure of a commission activity misses some significant activity
by the commission. For example, the electric restructuring
contract with CH2M Hill and the work that the commission has done
with the legislature in that area is not reflected in the expenses
of any docket. It's a regulatory docket; so, it would not show as
one that is allocated to electricity."
MR. LOHR commented, "And yet, I think the primary benefit of that
contract is clearly to the electric industry. Other things, such
as the number of tariff filings handled, reflect a much more
general balance, with electricity having a far higher percentage
than the 10 percent indicated in the formal docket. At this point,
the RCC has worked extremely well. ... In the last two full fiscal
years we have received more formal dockets than in the previous
four fiscal years. We'd like to focus on speeding things up,
responding to the increased volume of activity, and not having to
do more detailed allocations of costs by industry, and having to
balance at the sub-level."
Number 0329
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Yould if he has consulted with the main
long-distance carriers in Alaska and the ATA [Alaska Telephone
Association] about Amendment 2.
MR. YOULD replied that although he would not speak for them, he had
talked to ATA and would characterize its feeling as positive. He
suggested the need to ask ATA that question directly.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG agreed that the ATA should be asked before taking
up Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO referred to Mr. Yould's earlier testimony
about the percentage of the workload of APUC compared to the
percentage that ARECA contributes. He asked Mr. Yould to restate
those figures.
MR. YOULD replied that he didn't have the numbers before him, and
those he had provided were probably more hypothetical than not. He
said one reason, as Mr. Lohr had noted, is that the APUC doesn't
have a time accounting system, despite the fact that two "sunset
commissions" have told them that they should have one. Hence, he
doesn't believe the APUC can provide those numbers either.
Number 0419
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG suggested that is another problem they should
look at. With that, he announced his intention to hold the
legislation over and take it up again on Friday [April 30]. Noting
that only Amendment 3 had been adopted that day, Chairman Rokeberg
requested that Mr. Lohr bring Version I to Chairman Cotten's [Sam
Cotten, APUC Chairman] attention and then provide comments. [HB 183
WAS HELD]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0491
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG adjourned the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting at 5:17 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|