02/28/2001 03:20 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
February 28, 2001
3:20 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lisa Murkowski, Chair
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Pete Kott
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Occupational Safety and Health Review Board
Cliff Davidson - Kodiak
- CONFIRMATION (ADVANCED 2/27/01) NOW BEING HELD BECAUSE
OF QUESTION RELATING TO EXPIRATION DATE OF TERM
Board of Dental Examiners
Rena Anderson - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION HELD BECAUSE OF QUESTION RELATING TO
EXPIRATION DATE OF TERM
Michael P. Moriarty - Seward
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Board of Dispensing Opticians
Ann M. Bezona - Kodiak
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Larry E. Harper - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Board of Marital & Family Therapy
Ann W. Swift - Fairbanks
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
State Medical Board
Martha Tillion Cotton - Eagle River
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Constance E. Livsey - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Board of Examiners in Optometry
William D. Faulkner - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Pharmacy Board
Mark D. Bohrer - Eagle River
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Cindy Bueler - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
State Physical Therapy & Occupational Therapy Board
JoAnne Bell-Graves - Juneau
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Board of Psychologist & Psychological Associate Examiners
Cathy W. Biggerstaff - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Board of Social Work Examiners
Diane M. DiSanto - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Board of Professional Counselors
David F. Leonard - Fairbanks
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 113
"An Act relating to health care insurance payments for hospital
or medical services; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 113(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 81
"An Act extending the termination date of the Board of Dental
Examiners."
- MOVED CSHB 81(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1
Relating to establishing a Task Force on a Statewide
Comprehensive Energy Plan.
- MOVED CSHCR 1(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 58
"An Act relating to the calculation and payment of unemployment
compensation benefits; and providing for an effective date."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED to 3/9/01
HOUSE BILL NO. 11
"An Act relating to required notice of eviction to the dwellers,
tenants, and owners of mobile homes in mobile home parks before
redevelopment of the park."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 113
SHORT TITLE:HEALTH CARE INSURANCE PAYMENTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)GREEN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/05/01 0241 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/05/01 0241 (H) L&C, HES
02/26/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/26/01 (H) Heard & Held
02/26/01 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/28/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 81
SHORT TITLE:DENTISTS/DENTAL HYGIENISTS & ASSISTANTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)FATE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/19/01 0130 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/19/01 0130 (H) L&C, FIN
01/29/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
01/29/01 (H) Heard and Held
01/29/01 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/14/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/14/01 (H) <Bill Postponed>
02/26/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/26/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/28/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HCR 1
SHORT TITLE:STATEWIDE COMP ENERGY PLAN TASK FORCE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)BERKOWITZ
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/12/01 0066 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/12/01 0066 (H) CRA, L&C
01/17/01 0117 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KAPSNER
01/19/01 0134 (H) COSPONSOR(S): LANCASTER
02/19/01 0375 (H) COSPONSOR(S): HALCRO
02/20/01 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
02/20/01 (H) Moved CSHCR 1(CRA) Out of
Committee
02/20/01 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/21/01 0382 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) 4DP 1NR
02/21/01 0382 (H) DP: HALCRO, SCALZI, GUESS,
MORGAN;
02/21/01 0382 (H) NR: MEYER
02/21/01 0382 (H) FN1: ZERO(H.CRA)
02/26/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/26/01 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/28/01 0472 (H) COSPONSOR(S): MURKOWSKI
02/28/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
KEVIN JARDELL, Staff
to Representative Joe Green
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 403
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke on behalf of the sponsor of HB 113.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 403
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 113.
BOB LOHR, Director
Division of Insurance
Department of Commerce & Economic Development
3601 C Street, Suite 1324
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5948
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 113.
KATIE CAMPBELL, Actuary of Life and Health
Division of Insurance
Department of Community & Economic Development
P.O. Box 110805
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0805
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 113.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGH FATE
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 416
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of HB 81.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Commerce & Economic Development
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed the board's position on CSHB 81,
Version O.
GEORGE SHAFFER, DMD
Licensed Dentist
306 Main Street, Suite 202
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered an amendment to CSHB 81 for the
committee's consideration.
DR. TOM HIPSHER, President
Alaska Dental Society
9170 Jewel Lake Road, Suite 203
Anchorage, AK 99502-5381
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSHB 81 as amended
[by Dr. Shaffer's offered amendment].
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 404
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of HCR 1.
STEPHEN CONN, Executive Director
Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AkPIRG)
P.O. Box 101093
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 1; offered resources,
networks, or expertise, should AkPIRG be chosen to participate
on the task force.
MEERA KOHLER, President and CEO
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC)
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HCR 1; expressed
gratitude for the inclusion of AVEC in Version J; offered AVEC's
expertise, regardless of whether it is included.
SUE SCHRADER, Conservation Advocate
Alaska Conservation Voters and Alaska Conservation Alliance
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, Alaska 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCR 1; expressed appreciation
for the Alaska Conservation Alliance's inclusion in Version J;
discussed the importance of having different views at the table
from the beginning.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-26, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR LISA MURKOWSKI 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 Murkowski,
Halcro, Meyer, Crawford, and Hayes. Representative Rokeberg
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Number 0108
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the committee would take up the
balance of the individuals presented for confirmation who were
not covered yesterday in the joint meeting with the Senate Labor
and Commerce Committee. [She first addressed confirmations
advanced at that hearing that would be put on hold temporarily.]
Occupational Safety and Health Review Board
CHAIR MURKOWSKI directed the committee's attention to the name
of Cliff Davidson from Kodiak, who was signed off on yesterday
by the committee for a seat on the Occupational Safety and
Health Review Board. Chair Murkowski explained that it came to
[the committee's] attention that with the expiration of the term
being matched to the March 1 deadline, Mr. Davidson's term was
due to expire March 1, 2001. By the time the full bodies get
around to confirmation, his term would have already expired.
Therefore, the recommendation regarding Mr. Davidson had been
pulled; his name would be reconsidered after the expiration date
was figured out.
Board of Dental Examiners
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that also pulled after the previous
day's hearing was the recommendation regarding Ms. Rena Anderson
of Anchorage to the Board of Dental Examiners. [However, the
Board of Dental Examiners weren't addressed at the previous
day's hearing.] Her term expired on January 31, 2001, and she
hasn't been reappointed yet; it is in "limbo." [The committee]
will take up her name again when the expiration [date] has been
figured out.
[The nomination of Michael P. Moriarty was also before the
committee, and his confirmation was advanced as part of the
group listed below.]
Board of Dental Examiners; Board of Dispensing Opticians; Board
of Marital & Family Therapy; State Medical Board; Board of
Examiners in Optometry; Pharmacy Board; State Physical Therapy &
Occupational Therapy Board; Board of Psychologist &
Psychological Associate Examiners; Board of Social Work
Examiners; Board of Professional Counselors
CHAIR MURKOWSKI referred to the committee packet. She noted
that several other individuals were before the committee for
confirmation. [They were: Michael P. Moriarty, Board of Dental
Examiners; Ann M. Bezona, Board of Dispensing Opticians; Larry
E. Harper, Board of Dispensing Opticians; William D. Faulkner,
Board of Examiners in Optometry; Mark D. Bohrer, Pharmacy Board;
Cindy Bueler, Pharmacy Board; Ann W. Swift, Board of Marital and
Family Therapy; Martha Tillion Cotton, State Medical Board;
Constance E. Livsey, State Medical Board; JoAnne Bell-Graves,
State Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board; David F.
Leonard, Board of Professional Counselors (see discussion
below); Cathy W. Biggerstaff, Board of Psychologist and
Psychological Associate Examiners; and Diane M. DiSanto, Board
of Social Work Examiners.]
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if there were any questions regarding the
confirmations to the various boards; none were offered.
Number 0242
CHAIR MURKOWSKI directed the committee's attention to the resume
of David F. Leonard, who was seeking reappointment to the Board
of Professional Counselors. She said the statute requires that
this person not be employed in or live with an individual who is
employed in a related health field. Judging from his resume, it
is impossible to tell whether Mr. Leonard has any connection to
a related health field. "We" have asked for clarification and
have been told that the governor's office does the checking once
a name is submitted. She had spoken to Ms. Reardon, Department
of Community and Economic Development (DCED), and will get
confirmation on the status of this individual [soon]. [Mr.
Leonard's confirmation was advanced.]
Number 0347
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to move appointees' names
forward for consideration by the full House of Representatives
[in a joint hearing with the full Senate].
CHAIR MURKOWSKI clarified that the committee is moving the names
forward as a recommendation of the committee, and is not signing
off on the confirmations at this point in time; however, a sheet
would go around that members could sign off on. She noted that
the termination dates have been corrected to reflect a
termination [date] of March 1 of any respective year.
[The confirmations were advanced to the full House of
Representatives for consideration in a joint hearing with the
full Senate.]
HB 113-HEALTH CARE INSURANCE PAYMENTS
Number 0453
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the first bill to be heard today
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 113, "An Act relating to health care
insurance payments for hospital or medical services; and
providing for an effective date."
CHAIR MURKOWSKI mentioned that the committee should have
received a proposed CS for HB 113, an amendment offered by
Representative Green, testimony of Nicole Bagby from Aetna US
Healthcare, and a letter from Doug Bruce from Providence Health
Systems in Alaska.
Number 0553
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to adopt the proposed CS as
the work draft, 22-LS0418\F. There being no objection, Version
F was adopted as the working document.
KEVIN JARDELL, Staff to Representative Joe Green, Alaska State
Legislature, speaking on behalf of the sponsor, said there has
been one change from the last version of HB 113. In Section 1,
subsection (a) the segregation between paper claims and
electronic claims has been removed, as well as referring to
working days. It now reads that a paper or an electronic clean
claim must be paid within 30 calendar days.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked why it had gone to 30 calendar
days versus 20 working days.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor
stated that it was at the request of the insurance companies,
which preferred to use calendar days because states may have
different holidays and so forth.
Number 0632
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it could make a difference because
if there were a holiday, it would extend it out [if one was
using working days] beyond 30 days, in his opinion.
MR. JARDELL said they went with working days because that was
what the state has used in the past; however, most states use
calendar days, and with computer programs for keeping up with
billing, it is easier to incorporate calendar rather than
working days.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked about a handout regarding the
physician survey results regarding timeliness of claims payment
submitted by the Alaska State Medical Association. He said it
compares Medicare, Medicaid, and private health insurance. He
referred to information on the handout, the average, high, low,
and medium. He asked for clarification of what this meant.
Number 0728
MR. JARDELL responded that the person who drafted it [was not
present] and didn't want to speak definitively on this. He said
he could get that information for the committee. He said the
average, high, low, and medium referred to payments made by the
three carriers.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said he assumes that this represents the
average length of a claim, the average time of payout. He asked
if there was rhyme or reason to this.
MR. JARDELL said the person drafting this sent out a survey.
The Alaska State Medical Association sent out this survey to the
doctors, and he believed there was someone online at the
Legislative Information Office (LIO) that could speak to this.
He said he didn't have the actual definition of the terms.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said he assumes that the "high" are those
claims that are appealed or are more questionable in nature.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said these claims go back and forth and on
and on.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said even for claims of the most
contentious nature, private industry still responds 40 days
faster than government; it takes 56 days for Medicaid
[payments].
MR. JARDELL deferred the questions to the drafters and the
people who submitted this.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO verified that the legislation only applies
to private companies, private carriers, and so forth.
MR. JARDELL responded that it doesn't apply to Employee
Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA) policies.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said "we" are holding those in the private
sector to a higher standard than we do government.
MR. JARDELL said not necessarily. Government has its own
regulations and rules. For example, the state policy with Aetna
has a 15-day incentive turnaround. It is a shorter time period
than 30 days for their turnaround. He clarified that these
rules don't apply to them.
MR. JARDELL, in further response to Representative Halcro,
related his understanding that currently Medicare has 30 days
and 15 days for a non-clean claim in order to obtain additional
information on top of that. However, he offered to review that
because Representative Green was only addressing the 30 working
days and attempting to shorten that time and not deal with the
ERISA claims.
Number 0999
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if this bill would cause a
marginal health underwriter in the state to leave or would be a
barrier to the entry into the state of a health insurance
underwriter. He inquired as to whether that was given
consideration.
MR. JARDELL answered that some consideration on that was given,
with the understanding that the potential population for a
market in Alaska is somewhat smaller than in some states. There
can be a level at which it would not be marketable to come here.
However, this doesn't seem to be an additional requirement
beyond what is required in other states. Furthermore, [the
bill] will potentially decrease costs in Alaska and thus make it
more marketable and efficient to do business in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that the proposed CS does
not distinguish between claim types.
MR. JARDELL agreed.
Number 1097
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO remarked that many physicians' offices do
not bill an individual's insurance company, and payment is due
at the time the service is rendered. The individual has to
submit the claim. Representative Halcro asked if this applied
to the [insurance company's] response to the individual's
submission.
MR. JARDELL clarified that the intent of the bill is to apply it
to any claimant. He agreed with Representative Halcro that when
an individual submits a claim, the insurance company would need
to respond to the individual. Mr. Jardell explained that the
rights are assigned to the hospital or doctor and thus the
rights are actually part of the contract with the insurer.
Number 1162
MR. JARDELL turned to the committee's previous discussion
regarding the deletion of the language on page 2, beginning with
line 21. The language being referred to is as follows: "The
policy may not contain a provision requiring that services be
provided by a particular hospital or person, except as
applicable to a health maintenance organization under AS 21.86."
He noted that he had drafted an amendment that would amend the
provision. However, after speaking with Representative Green,
Mr. Jardell understood that Representative Green didn't want to
offer the amendment. After speaking with the Division of
Insurance, Mr. Jardell related his understanding that there is
no conflict with the current statute and the so-called patient's
bill of rights that was passed or with managed care plans. The
division interprets the provision as preventing any insurance
company from mandating a client or an insured to go to a
specific physician. He explained that under managed care plans,
although a client may be persuaded to go to a certain provider
under the plan, those statutes specifically precluded those
plans from exclusive contracts. Therefore, an individual under
a managed care plan can always go outside that plan, although
that individual may not receive the same benefits. So, removing
the provision entirely could be interpreted as saying that
insurers can draft a policy requiring the insured see a specific
physician and thus remove the choice of physician from the
insured.
Number 1306
CHAIR MURKOWSKI recalled that there was some concern that
keeping the language would somehow be contradictory to last
year's patient's bill of rights. Chair Murkowski requested that
Mr. Lohr enlighten the committee as to why the language on page
2, lines 19-21, was included.
Number 1349
BOB LOHR, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of
Commerce & Economic Development, testified via teleconference.
Mr. Lohr informed the committee that the provision in question
is currently found in AS 21.54.020(a). The division interprets
that provision as preventing a policy from requiring a
particular provider and preventing the customer the choice of
going to a different provider. Although there may be a
financial incentive to obtain services from a provider that is
part of the plan, the customer cannot be prohibited access to an
alternative provider. Therefore, if that provision was repealed
or deleted, then Mr. Lohr believes that there would be no
prohibition and thus plans could discriminate against other
providers by providing no reimbursement for those services.
MR. LOHR turned to last year's patient's bill of rights, HB 211,
and noted that he didn't see any conflict because of the
exception provided in the provision. The provision includes the
following language: "except as applicable to a health
maintenance organization under AS 21.86." That language
resolves any conflict that might exist in terms of reading the
two consistently.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if that was the case even though Alaska
doesn't have health maintenance organizations (HMOs).
MR. LOHR replied yes and pointed out that HMOs are provided for
and fully authorized. However, none have elected to come to
Alaska yet.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG acknowledged that there is case law that
says one can "step out," which is why there is the service
option mandated in the underwriting. He asked if that is why
this is acceptable.
MR. LOHR deferred to Katie Campbell.
Number 1511
KATIE CAMPBELL, Actuary of Life and Health, Division of
Insurance, Department of Community & Economic Development,
echoed earlier testimony that the provision is included in order
to ensure that individuals have a choice. Therefore, an
insurance provider can't have an exclusive provider arrangement
that restricts the physicians that can be seen [unless it is an
HMO]. She pointed out that the language was never part of the
"prompt pay" part of the statute. Regulations on fair claim
practices specify the timeframes for payment of a claim. That
provision was included in order to address direct payment to a
provider.
MS. CAMPBELL, in response to Representative Rokeberg, explained
that a preferred provider option allows an individual to see
anyone, but there is an incentive in the contract.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG interjected that there could be a closed
panel.
MS. CAMPBELL said, "Not in Alaska."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if that was because of last year's
HB 211, which includes a point-of-service option that will take
effect in July.
MS. CAMPBELL remarked, "That's an HMO; this is referring to an
indemnity fee for a service plan, which all of the plans in
Alaska are."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG acknowledged that, but related his
understanding that the new law in July will be such "that you
can have a closed panel, but it's a point-of-service option
where you can step out of it and you can underwrite it
separately."
MS. CAMPBELL pointed out, "That point-of-service option is
applicable only within the HMO."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "No, it's not." He expressed
concern because that was the entire intention of [HB 211], which
does impact preferred provider organizations (PPOs) because they
are underwritten in Alaska by indemnity companies and a point-
of-service option must be provided due to case law. However,
that would not exclude the ability to have a closed panel if a
different premium is paid. Representative Rokeberg clarified
that a closed panel premium at a lower rate can be paid, but the
[individual] must have the ability to step out of it.
MS. CAMPBELL said she would have to review the specific
provision to which Representative Rokeberg is referring. She
didn't recall that provision being included in the bill [HB
211]. However, she did recall that there was a provider
contracting provision, the majority of which dealt with external
review.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG maintained that it was in the bill [HB
211] and was a major part of the bill. He said, "That's the
patient's right; they get to choose their own doctor, but the
underwriter gets to underwrite for it. But it didn't
necessarily restrict having a closed panel of physicians or
providers. ... You can pay for it, though."
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if that would suffice because "then it is
not an exclusive provider -- you've got to pay for it."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG clarified that one could pay for a
cheaper one and have an exclusive provider. He pointed out that
last week Blue Cross said that they had the cheap economy model
of their plan with a closed panel.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI pointed out that the language in part read as
follows: "The policy may not contain a provision requiring that
services be provided". Chair Murkowski related her
understanding that the bill doesn't say that an individual is
required to go to a person. Although there is an option to go
outside, there is no requirement that says one may not do this.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that there would be if there is the
economy plan [under HB 211].
Number 1699
MR. LOHR suggested that the committee request an opinion from
the Attorney General regarding whether there is a conflict
between the provisions in question and the patient's bill of
rights.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI indicated the need for the sponsor to obtain an
opinion from the Attorney General. She also indicated that
public testimony on CSHB 113 would be closed.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested that the bill could be moved out
and if there is a conflict, that language could be removed in
the House Health, Education and Social Services Standing
Committee.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI remarked that she would have no problem with
deleting the sentence. However, after hearing Ms. Campbell's
remarks, Chair Murkowski said that she could understand why it
makes sense to maintain the language. Still, if the language is
contradictory, she expressed the need to [delete the language].
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that it is a confusing issue.
Representative Rokeberg said that he would not object to moving
the bill if the sponsor agrees to let the committee know what is
going on.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that if [the bill were moved]
and he, as the sponsor, didn't keep his word, then the committee
could request that the bill be returned to the House Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI indicated the need to hear from other committee
members. She pointed out that HB 113 deals with the prompt pay
issue, with the exception of this one sentence under discussion.
She mentioned that she didn't have any objection to moving it
out either.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that the committee could
remove the language and the sponsor could argue in the next
committee of referral as to why the language should be included.
Number 1973
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved that the committee adopt a
conceptual amendment on page 2, lines 19-21, to delete the
following language: "The policy may not contain a provision
requiring that services be provided by a particular hospital or
person, except as applicable to a health maintenance
organization under AS 21.86."
MR. JARDELL pointed out that without that language it could be
interpreted to allow insurers to write policies that require
exclusivity with a provider.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed the need for the [Division of
Insurance] and the Attorney General to ensure that the new law
taking effect in July covers it or that "we" know what is going
on.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that he didn't object to the
conceptual amendment.
Number 2047
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO recalled that Ms. Campbell's testimony
expressed the importance of having that language.
MR. JARDELL echoed his earlier statement regarding what would
occur with the removal of the language.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that he didn't disagree with Mr.
Jardell's interpretation. However, he added that the new
statute [per HB 211] is such that there must be a point-of-
service option menu provision to the policyholder. Therefore,
it would be the [insured's] choice.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN remarked, "If this hinges on that, we can
leave it out because what Representative Rokeberg says, 'It's
covered in a different part of law.'" If this isn't covered in
a different part of law, then the language could be reinserted
in House Health, Education and Social Services Standing
Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO commented that perhaps the committee
should err on the side of caution and leave the language in.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he agreed with Representative
Halcro.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI surmised that the committee is not in a position
to make a recommendation on this without the assistance of the
Attorney General's review. She didn't believe it necessary to
hold the bill and wait for the Attorney General's review. She
did point out that if the committee wishes to move out the bill,
it should be done with the caveat that the Attorney General be
requested to review whether there is a conflict; and if there is
a conflict, the language should be adjusted.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his conceptual amendment.
Number 2214
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved to report CSHB 113, Version 22-
LS0418\F, Ford, 2/27/01, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note(s), with the
caveat that the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee has
requested that the Attorney General provide an opinion regarding
whether there the language on page 2, lines 19-21, is in
conflict with the law passed last year. There being no
objection, CSHB 113(L&C) and the aforementioned caveat were
reported from the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HB 81-EXTENDING BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 81, "An Act extending the termination date of
the Board of Dental Examiners."
Number 2307
REPRESENTATIVE HUGH FATE, Alaska State Legislature, testified as
the sponsor of HB 81. Representative Fate offered a proposed
committee substitute (CS) for the committee's consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to adopt CSHB 81, Version 22-
LS0375\O, Lauterbach, 2/26/01, as the working document before
the committee. There being no objection, Version O was before
the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE informed the committee of the changes
encompassed in Version O. It extends the termination date for
the Board of Dental Examiners to the year 2005. On page 2,
lines 1 and 11, it removes the word "prophylactic" and keeps the
word "preventive" since both words have the same meaning. In
Section 4, language will be added that says, "The governor, when
making appointments, will consider licensed dentists nominated
by the Alaska Dental Society and licensed dental hygienists
nominated by the Dental Hygienists' Association." He clarified
that this is not mandatory, but conveys the need for the
governor to review the list supplied by the respective
associations.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if that has been a problem in the
past.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE answered, "It seems to have been a problem
in the past. How large a problem, I can't say." He informed
the committee that these were recommendations by the Board of
Dental Examiners or the Alaska State Dental Society. He noted
that when he was on the Board [of Dental Examiners], they
discussed this. He didn't believe it was a problem of great
magnitude, although it did exist from time to time. Therefore,
there were appointments to the Board of Dental Examiners that
didn't carry the respect of the full Dental Society or the
present board.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked if this language is merely intent
language since the governor can choose whomever he wants.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE noted that this had been reviewed with
Catherine Reardon, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Commerce & Economic Development, and no conflict
was seen because the language only asks the governor to look at
the list.
Number 2473
REPRESENTATIVE FATE continued reviewing the changes encompassed
in Version O. He referred to page 2, line 22, which requires
the president of the Board of Dental Examiners to be a licensed
dentist. He explained that this [requirement was deemed
necessary] because being president of the Board of Dental
Examiners involves more than administrative duties. Under
Section 6, it refers to radiology [equipment] and the placement
of the seal.
TAPE 01-26, SIDE B
REPRESENTATIVE FATE explained that currently, upon completion of
the examination [of the dental radiological equipment], the
examiner would take the fee directly from the dentist. Then the
examiner is required to send a report to central licensing,
which would issue the seal to the dentist. This language
attempts to simplify the process. This was also discussed with
the Division of Occupational Licensing. He explained the [new
process] as follows. After the dentist gives the examiner the
required fee, the [examiner] may give the dentist, who has
passed the inspection, the seal that specifies a date for the
next inspection. This is not really a state seal. Then the
examiner would send one copy to the Division of Occupational
Licensing and the other to the dentist. Therefore, there is
accountability from the dentist who has received the seal and
the examination because the licensing agency knows that it has
been performed and [the equipment] has passed or failed. If
[the equipment] fails, there is another date automatically set
by the inspector, because the equipment can't be operated if it
hasn't passed inspection.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE pointed out that Section 7 of the Version O,
as discussed in the sectional analysis, "makes a passing score
on a clinical exam given by the Central Regional Dental Testing
Service, Inc. an acceptable alternative to the Western Regional
Examining Board examination." He clarified that the standard
won't be reduced with this because the Western Regional
Examining Board and the Central Regional Dental Testing Service
have the same sort of standards. He noted that the language
"provided the examination was taken on or after January 1, 1987"
is deleted because the new examining board makes that provision
moot. On page 3, line 31, the language "has been" has been
replaced with "is", and on page 4, line 1, "a" is replaced with
the word "that". Both of those changes merely clean up the
language. On page 4, line 2, the language "in which the dentist
is licensed" has been inserted so that a dentist can be licensed
in Alaska through credentialing.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE pointed out that the bill increases the
civil fine [for dentists] and specifies that the fine be $25,000
for each violation. This is an increase from $5,000. Finally,
Version O includes new language regarding the definition of the
practice of dentistry. He referred to page 6, line 26, through
page 7, line 2. The definition of the practice of dentistry has
been expanded to include new concepts of treatment and learning.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if this would allow dentists to
perform plastic surgery.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE replied no.
Number 2270
CHAIR MURKOWSKI pointed out that the original bill was merely an
extension of the sunset date. Therefore, she asked if any of
the expansions of the bill would result in an increase to the
fiscal note, which was a zero fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE answered that the fiscal note will remain
zero.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if "we" don't like dentists from
the East Coast.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said that he sat on the Board of Dental
Examiners when perhaps that was true. However, now everything
is done with regional examinations. Many of these regional
examinations have reciprocity between examining boards. He
said, "Standards have come up to where ... the boards of
examiners who go over those standards basically, now, are very
close to the same." Therefore, the basic training is very
standardized throughout the U.S.
Number 2177
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Commerce & Economic Development, informed the
committee that the division provides the staff support to the
Board of Dental Examiners. In regard to the fiscal note, Ms.
Reardon agreed that the proposed CS will not impact the fiscal
note. However, she pointed out that the [House and Senate]
Finance Committees as well as the presiding officers have
requested that the administration change the way fiscal notes
for board sunset extensions are presented. In the past such
fiscal notes were presented as zero fiscal notes with a note
regarding the prior year's costs that were anticipated in the
governor's budget. Now, such fiscal notes will be positive
fiscal notes that show the costs, with a comment that the money
is already in the budget.
Number 2055
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the desire was to show the
fiscal note as positive because the money is in hand.
MS. REARDON related her understanding "that the request has been
made that we prepare the fiscal notes keeping in mind the fact
that if the board was not extended, there would be a reduction
in state expenditures." Therefore, the fiscal note should
indicate that there is a cost to passing this legislation.
Thus, costs are being shown for years 2003-2007, not for 2002 or
2008, because the latter are wind-down years.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to where that would leave
[proposed CS] 418.
MS. REARDON responded that she didn't feel that would have any
impact on the final result, but rather it is a [difference] in
how the same reality is shown. She explained that the money is
still receipt-supported services and no increments are being
requested. She highlighted that this change in fiscal notes
will not impact how "our" expenditures are reflected in the
state budget.
MS. REARDON thanked Representative Fate for discussing the ideas
with her and taking into account her comments. She said that
the division and the board would like for the Board of Dental
Examiners to be extended to 2005. She expressed the need to be
clear regarding which items the Board of Dental Examiners has
taken a position on because sometimes people refer to the Board
of the Dental Society as the Board [of Dental Examiners].
Number 1970
MS. REARDON informed the committee that the Board of Dental
Examiners supports the removal of the word "prophylactic" in
Section 3, which would clarify that dental assistants are not to
do "prophies" that relate to cleaning. Instead, dental
assistants are permitted to do the preparation for pit and
fissure sealants. This is not a change in policy but rather is
an attempt to offer clarity. In regard to Section 4, Ms.
Reardon noted that she had communicated with the governor's
office regarding the need to consider licensed dentists
nominated by the two groups. She related her understanding that
this language in Section 4 is acceptable and doesn't seem to
present any constitutional concerns because the requirement is
that they merely be considered. She mentioned that the
governor's office feels that it has always considered the names
brought forward by the Dental Hygienists and the Dental Society
and welcomes anyone's suggestion.
MR. REARDON turned to Section 5, with which the administration
has concerns. The Dental Board has not taken a board position
on Section 5 or Section 4. She noted that her staff had faxed
the most recent version of the proposed CS to the members of the
Dental Board. Although the board has not had a public meeting
at which it could vote, individual members have commented.
Several board members say that they like the bill as it is,
while several took issue with Section 5, as does the
administration because there could be a situation in which the
hygienist member or public member would be the best person to be
chair. She said, "It's unclear why that option should be
foreclosed." She informed the committee that at one point the
Medical Board had the public member, an attorney, as the chair.
She also pointed out that the current public member of the
Dental Board, although not interested in serving as chair, has
chaired the Board of Providence Health System for the past five
years. That position included the responsibility for
credentialing physicians for each medical facility. Therefore,
perhaps a public member could be qualified to serve in the
capacity of the chair.
Number 1813
MS. REARDON referred to the language change in Section 6, which
seems fine to her. She noted that the program was administered
per the existing statute. Although the Dental Board has not
taken a position on Section 6, she didn't anticipate there being
a problem. In regard to Section 7, the Dental Board has taken a
position in support of accepting the [passing score] of an exam
given by the Central Regional Dental Testing Service. These
regional exams are, in lay terms, a practical exam. As
mentioned earlier, the Central and Western regions agree that
their tests are comparable, and there is statistical information
to support that claim. Ms. Reardon said, "I think this is a
good move because I believe it benefits Alaska when it is easier
for dentists from other states to relocate here." She explained
that the dentists in Alaska are becoming older and thus the
state may soon face a difficulty with having an adequate number
of dentists. Ms. Reardon noted her support of Section 8 because
it removes one of the possible stumbling blocks to dentists who
are coming in from other states.
MS. REARDON pointed out that the Dental Board strongly supports
the civil fine authority increase, which parallels an increase
that is included in separate legislation for the Medical Board.
The Dental Board did recommend adopting the American Dental
Association (ADA) definition of dentistry, which appears to be
what is included in HB 81. Therefore, the board would be on
record as supporting that. In conclusion, Ms. Reardon
reiterated that the Dental Board and the division would support
this legislation with some concerns regarding the presidency
issue.
Number 1656
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO surmised that Section 5 is more of a
territorial disagreement than a practical one. He asked,
"Wouldn't it be safe to assume that the president of the board
should be a licensed dentist?"
MS. REARDON remarked, "I guess that that's the issue that maybe-
-no, perhaps it's not safe to assume it should be." She pointed
out that there are three people on the board who are not
dentists: the two hygienists and the public member. She
acknowledged that since the majority of the board are dentists,
they could, if they united, have a majority vote for the
president. However, it doesn't seem necessary to thwart a
future situation in which the board would feel that its
hygienist member or public member would best serve as chair.
She informed the committee that with occupational licensing
boards, all the members vote unless there is a conflict of
interest. Therefore, any one of the board members could be
perceived as the tie-breaking vote and thus the chair doesn't
have any special power in that regard. Ms. Reardon expected
that in cases of participating in things such as the Western
Regional Examining Board, a dentist member of the Dental Board
would be requested to participate.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO inquired as to Representative Fate's
contention that the president of the Dental Board will interact
with other presidents of other boards and professional
organizations and thus should have a background as a licensed
dentist in order "to talk the talk."
MS. REARDON indicated that if the chair was not a dentist, that
person could note that he or she is not a dentist. She pointed
out that since she has been director, the chair hasn't always
been the person participating in national meetings. For the
past several years it was common for a member who is a past
president of the board to be involved with the Western Region
Examining Board interactions for the board.
Number 1475
GEORGE SHAFFER, DMD, Licensed Dentist in Ketchikan, informed the
committee that he is a past member and past president of the
licensing board. He said that he agrees with most of the
comments that he has heard regarding the changes. He stated
that he would like this bill to pass as presented [Version O]
with one amendment. He explained that the board has the
following three purposes: to issue a license, to discipline the
licensee after issuance of the license if there are problems
with the practitioner, and to establish the minimum standards of
competency that would allow people to practice in Alaska.
MR. SHAFFER related his belief that the minimum standard of
competency is the crux of the problem in regard to who sits as
the chair of the board. Sometimes it is difficult to
communicate without using technical dental language between
boards. He pointed out that the inclusion of another regional
exam would result in more communication between the licensing
boards. Dr. Shaffer informed the committee that when he was on
the board, a licensed Alaskan dentist was present at every
examination given by the Western Regional Examining Board,
although he understands that is not the current practice.
Therefore, adding the Central Regional Testing Service will
include more exams and create difficulty in finding licensed
personnel from Alaska who would be willing to travel to the
location of [these exams] when they are given. So, he surmised
that there would be more communication necessary between
Alaska's Dental Board president and the licensing entities.
DR. SHAFFER specified that his amendment would be on page 3,
line 16, after "or by the Central Regional Dental Testing
Service, Inc.", to insert "taken after January 1, 2001,". He
explained that he wanted this language because Section 7 of
Version O deletes the language "taken on or after January 1,
1987", which defined the moment in time when the Western
Regional [exam] was accepted as meeting Alaska's standards. If
this is left without a starting date, he said there would be
potential problems for the legal system to define at what point
the exams, the Western Regional and the Central Regional, were
comparable. In July 2000 the Western Regional [Board] and the
Central Regional [Board] agreed that both exams were comparable.
Therefore, he was uncomfortable with accepting a regional exam
without a starting date.
Number 1228
DR. TOM HIPSHER, President, Alaska Dental Society, informed the
committee that the Alaska Dental Society recently held its
executive council meeting, during which this bill was reviewed.
Basically, the [executive council of the Alaska Dental Society]
unanimously passed this bill as written, as amended by Dr.
Shaffer.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE offered Dr. Shaffer's amendment for the
committee's consideration.
MS. REARDON mentioned that she hasn't spoken with the Dental
Board on this amendment. Speaking on behalf of herself, she
related her belief that even with the amendment this bill would
be a good step toward making Alaska available as a place for
dentists to practice. However, inserting that specific date
will remove part of that gain because those who passed the
[Central Regional Testing Service] exam earlier would be faced
with the need to take the [Western Regional Examining Board]
exam, even if the individual had been practicing for a number of
years in another state without disciplinary action. Therefore,
Ms. Reardon was concerned with the "difficulty and cost of
coming in for a 'licensed by credentials' into Alaska." She
pointed out that an individual who didn't take the [Western
Regional Examining Board] exam would have to have practiced for
the past five years and then would be faced with taking a test
that is not easy to do after being out of school for a while.
Furthermore, it has its own substantial costs. Therefore, she
said, "We'll be putting off the date at which we can accept ...
people just on the face of that passage of the test, but it's
still better than not accepting those people at all."
Number 1018
CHAIR MURKOWSKI clarified that the amendment would read as
follows:
Page 3, line 13, after "Inc."
Insert "taken after January 1, 2001"
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if this amendment would preclude
anyone who has taken the Western Regional exam after a certain
date or if the amendment is specific to the date the Central
Regional Testing Service exam was given parity of standards with
the Western Regional [Examining Board] exam.
DR. SHAFFER answered, "We would not want to restrict the use of
the Western Regional Board, but we would like to put a clean
start date for the acceptance of the Central Regional Board.
And if it takes more [work on the language] to make that clear,
then I would be in favor of that as well."
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said, "Basically, what you're saying is that
nobody has taken the ... Central Testing ... dental exam to even
become licensed in the state and they can now, but ... the clock
will begin to tick January 1, 2001. Is that correct?"
DR. SHAFFER answered in the affirmative.
Number 0862
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if there was a motion from the committee
members to adopt the aforementioned amendment. [There was no
audible motion from any committee member.] Chair Murkowski
announced that there were no objections and thus the amendment
was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES moved to report CSHB 81, Version O [22-
LS0375\O, Lauterbach, 2/26/01], as amended out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, CSHB 81(L&C) was reported from
the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HCR 1 - STATEWIDE COMP ENERGY PLAN TASK FORCE
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced the next order of business, HOUSE
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1, Relating to establishing a Task
Force on a Statewide Comprehensive Energy Plan. [Officially
before the committee was CSHCR 1(CRA), but packets contained a
proposed committee substitute (CS), version 22-LS0307\J, Cramer,
2/27/01, which was addressed in the sponsor statement.]
Number 0792
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ, Alaska State Legislature,
sponsor of HCR 1, explained that Alaska does not have a
statewide energy plan. At the national level, there is a
conversation about an energy plan, which members of the
[congressional] delegation are involved in. He believes it is
an opportune time to put [an energy plan] together in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed the intent of melding
together components from existing proposals. He noted that
AIDEA [Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority] and
the Denali Commission have been working with a three-year - or
longer - program to come up with various components. There is
an opportunity now to accelerate the process, he told members,
and perhaps to have an impact with what happens with a gas
pipeline, before anything is actually built.
Number 0684
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked that the committee adopt the
proposed CS, Version J.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt Version J [22-
LS0307\J, Cramer, 2/27/01] as a work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER specified that he wanted to speak to the
version approved by the House Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee [CSHCR 1(CRA)].
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that Version J begins with
the incorporation of a technical amendment proposed by
Representative Meyer. Version J has 12 people on the task
force. It removes one Senator and one Representative from the
task force, and deletes any reference to caucus affiliation; it
removes someone from the Regulatory Commission of Alaska and
adds someone from the Alaska Public Interest Research Group
(AkPIRG); it replaces the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN)
member with someone from the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
(AVEC); it also deletes [the members appointed by the Alaska
Truckers Association and the president of the University of
Alaska], adding instead [a member appointed by] the Alaska
Conservation Alliance.
Number 0546
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER objected to adopting Version J as a work
draft. He noted that Representatives Halcro and Berkowitz are
members of the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing
Committee [which Representative Meyer co-chairs]; in that
committee, members spent quite a bit of time going over the task
force members. He commented:
We thought that raising it from 13 to 15, and adding
one from AIDEA and one from Denali [Commission] was
important, to keep the sense of synergy and of all the
different studies that were going on.
But what's happened here is that we're removing the
trucking association, which I think the committee felt
it was important to keep a business perspective on
there. The reason why I think we wanted two appointed
from the Senate and two from the House was so that you
would have both ... a "D" and an "R" representation on
this task force.
And we're removing one from the Alaska Federation of
Natives and replacing it with the Alaska Village
Electric Cooperative; ... frankly, I don't know if
that's good or not. I would like to hear from ...
Representative Morgan, who was co-chair of the [House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing] Committee, or
at least somebody from rural Alaska, as to whether
that's acceptable or not.
Number 0454
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO suggested that whenever the number of
politicians involved can be reduced, the more productive [a task
force] will be.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER agreed. He said, however, that if the
makeup of the [task force] is going to be changed this much -
reducing the number from 15 to 12, then adding the Alaska
Conservation Alliance by taking off the Alaska [Trucking]
Association - it warrants more discussion.
Number 0382
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he himself has substantial
objections to the makeup of the [task force] but is willing to
adopt the proposed CS and talk about it.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER removed his objection.
Number 0355
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that with the objection removed, the
proposed CS [Version J] was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ told members he isn't a big fan of task
forces or resolutions. However, there aren't many other tools
in putting together a long-range plan. He suggested it is
healthy to make this as unwieldy as possible and to bring in as
disparate a group of people as possible.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ spoke to Representative Meyer's
concerns. He pointed out that in all likelihood, the person
"sacrificed" from the House minority would be himself. He
restated that smaller is better, generally. As for replacing
the AFN representative with one from AVEC, the intent is to have
a person with direct experience with some of the needs of rural
Alaska; to his knowledge, there is little disagreement between
AVEC and AFN on this particular issue. In addition, he wants a
level of technical expertise, and some people at AVEC have been
involved with policy formulation regarding energy for some time.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that AVEC, ARECA [Alaska
Rural Electric Cooperative Association], and AOGA [Alaska Oil
and Gas Association] are business-related. Furthermore, ASTF
[Alaska Science and Technology Foundation], the Denali
Commission, and AIDEA could appoint a businessperson. Thus
there is plenty of opportunity for the business community to
weigh in.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ emphasized that at any point, anybody
from around the state can participate in this task force. He
doesn't intend for it to be exclusive or an academic exercise.
However, having these "entry ports" for different interest
groups around the state will cause more people to weigh in and
to cooperate in [the policy formulation].
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that AkPIRG, which has
expressed an interest in participating, is the only direct
consumer representative that he knows of in the state. As for
the Alaska Conservation Alliance, the model that has been
followed with most successful industrial development is to bring
in, at the policy formation stage, people "who might start
shooting at the plan later," in order to minimize discord later.
In addition, bringing different groups of people together early
sometimes results in a better idea.
Number 0096
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commended Representative Berkowitz for
the "light version," with a zero fiscal note and fewer
legislative members in order to invite more public
participation. He offered his opinion, however, that the ratio
of public representatives to private representatives is nine to
one, because ARECA mainly represents electrical cooperatives and
AVEC is a cooperative.
TAPE 01-27, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said there are no major consumers such
as LNG [liquefied natural gas] distributors or representatives
from the mining or transportation sectors. Although he believes
AkPIRG would be a good member, he said, it misrepresents a
legislative function to say that legislators don't represent the
consumers. The makeup should be looked at further,
Representative Rokeberg asserted, since he believes it is
overweighted to public-sector people; to him, every
representative except the AOGA person has a public orientation,
including the legislators, who most often come from the public
sector.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ emphasized the difficulty of being
effective with even 12 people.
Number 0130
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he understands that, but doesn't
see what the Alaska Municipal League, for example, has to do
with energy, other than as a consumer. An energy plan could
include anything from "green" power - such as wind, solar, or
hydroelectric energy - to coal, oil, gas, or shallow-gas
methane; those all require engineering elements. He emphasized
his belief that there is an imbalance.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded that some of the most
impressive wind-power efforts are in Kotzebue, and Kotzebue
Electric is a member of ARECA and AVEC. Therefore, there is
access to that kind of engineering skill. He indicated he would
welcome suggestions from Representative Rokeberg, however,
regarding other task force members.
Number 0239
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied that he would replace the Alaska
Municipal League, the ASTF, and the Denali Commission with
private-sector-oriented representatives who could provide
expertise regarding where the energy comes from and how it will
be distributed.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that the Denali Commission
is working on a rural energy plan; they have engineers working
for them, and a likely candidate would be Charlie Walls (ph).
In addition, the hope is that ASTF could supply a member with
technical expertise, which could be specified. Furthermore, the
Alaska Municipal League can reach a great number of people
fairly quickly.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he was open to suggestions
regarding transportation, for example, but emphasized that the
federal commission has just a handful of people. It is critical
to start this process and put a plan down, even if it is later
modified. If a [task force] is too big, nothing will come of
it.
Number 0397
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he doesn't disagree with that, and
that Representative Berkowitz's comments regarding the Alaska
Conservation Alliance are appropriate. He added, however, "I
don't think these people represent the vast majority of the
people in the state or the expertise that you could bring to the
issue."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whom Representative Rokeberg
would suggest as a representative with business experience.
[Representative Rokeberg didn't respond, and Chair Murkowski
called on other members.]
Number 0473
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER offered that the president of the
University of Alaska would probably designate somebody who had
expertise in energy. Furthermore, members of the Alaska
Truckers Association obviously use a lot of fuel. He asked why
Representative Berkowitz had chosen to remove those two and add
someone from the Alaska Conservation Alliance.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ answered that he had wanted to make the
[task force] smaller, and felt in some ways those needs
overlapped. He had removed the university because he hadn't
heard "an overwhelming response from them," although he had
hoped the university might designate someone from ISER
[Institute of Social and Economic Research]. Furthermore, he
had removed the [Alaska Truckers Association] because in the
House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee there
was little enthusiasm and a lot of questioning about why it was
included. On reflection, he said, Representative Rokeberg's
point about the transportation industry as a whole is well
taken; if Representative Rokeberg could come up with a good
member, 13 would be a great number.
Number 0630
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER recommended that if the Alaska Truckers
Association is removed, then the Alaska Conservation Alliance,
which could be controversial, should be removed as well, leaving
an odd number [of task force members], 11.
Number 0670
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO responded that he believes the member from
the Alaska Conservation Alliance should remain, to provide
another viewpoint regarding sources of energy. Any statewide
energy plan, as Representative Rokeberg had pointed out, would
entail some kind of "green" power. Furthermore, there should be
a divergence of opinion at the table. He noted that he was one
of the members of the previous committee who had questioned why
the Alaska Truckers Association was included, and said he has no
problem with removal of that organization; he pointed out that
it was not a slight. He suggested that other members could be
swapped.
Number 0743
CHAIR MURKOWSKI noted that she had spoken with [Representative
Berkowitz's] staff and had suggested that having fewer members
is better than more. She emphasized the weighty issue to be
undertaken - a comprehensive statewide energy plan - with no
money to do it. She proposed that even though the truckers
aren't included, for example, the AFL-CIO will represent that
interest. She cautioned, however, that any member may be
expendable if another member is proposed. She said she doesn't
believe it should be a straight-across exchange.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ indicated he didn't intend it as a
straight-across exchange; it came about as people expressed
interest. He pointed out that legislators have access to people
who can provide hard data. The Denali Commission could also do
that. There are plenty of ways to do research.
Number 0887
CHAIR MURKOWSKI referred to two letters in packets, one from the
Alaska Conservation Voters [and the Alaska Conservation
Alliance] and the other from AkPIRG. She asked Representative
Berkowitz whether he had sought out groups or had been contacted
by groups seeking to be on [the task force].
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ answered that the one group that
contacted him in the last week was the Coal Association. In
addition, he'd had contact with most of these people, including
AIDEA; the Denali Commission; the ASTF; ARECA; the Alaska
Municipal League, which indicated that coming up with an energy
plan for Alaska is one of its priorities; and Senate and House
members.
Number 0950
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG recommended that two members be from the
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, one representing
transportation and the other representing the natural gas
industry, unless the committee could come up with something
else. He would delete the Alaska Municipal League and the ASTF,
and the Denali Commission was "in his cross-hairs."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ emphasized that [the Denali Commission]
has part of a plan; he wants to be able to bring in the work
they've done. He characterized it as a rural plan.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG interjected, saying that was why he was
reluctant, but that he believes the task force needs someone
from the mining or coal groups involved. He said he thinks
Representative Berkowitz has done a pretty good job in terms of
public members, but it is overweighted that way. He again
stated the desire for people with more technical knowledge on
the task force. He commented that otherwise, it looks like
something that came out of the New Deal in 1934.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that the New Deal worked
for 60 years.
Number 1104
STEPHEN CONN, Executive Director, Alaska Public Interest
Research Group (AkPIRG), testified via teleconference. He noted
that AkPIRG has held itself out [for membership on the task
force], as it had many times in the past when energy and utility
matters were concerned, to be part of the discussion and to
offer its own network of local and national expertise. He
informed the committee that AkPIRG representatives attend a
great number of national meetings relating to electric utilities
and other matters.
MR. CONN explained that in being part of attempts to construct
plans geared to the future, quite often what emerges are
questions, almost checklists of areas that need to be addressed,
so that when dealing with a discrete issue - whether a gas
pipeline or an intertie, for example - the plan guides the
discussion towards consideration of issues that otherwise might
have been left out. Should the legislature go forth with the
task force, Mr. Conn concluded, and should AkPIRG be chosen to
be included, AkPIRG members would be very glad to offer any
resources, networks, or expertise.
Number 1233
MEERA KOHLER, President and CEO, Alaska Village Electric
Cooperative (AVEC), testified via teleconference. She told the
committee she was gratified that Version J named AVEC as a
member of the group. Her initial review of the resolution is
that it is much needed in Alaska, she said, and she is anxious
to see it come to fruition. Ms. Kohler noted that she had been
concerned about the preponderance of non-industry
representatives on the task force, but with the amendments
proposed, she could see that the ensuing balance would lead to a
hardworking and productive task force.
MS. KOHLER pointed out that ARECA represents not just rural
electric cooperatives, but also most of the utilities serving
urban Alaska. Chugach Electric, ML&P [Anchorage's Municipal
Light and Power], Golden Valley Electric and Homer Electric are
full members of ARECA. Ms. Kohler said she is sure that one of
the urban utilities would be represented on the task force.
MS. KOHLER told the committee that the statewide rural energy
plan, currently being worked on by the Denali Commission and
AIDEA, is something AIDEA is spearheading; she urged that they
be fully involved in development of this statewide plan,
"because their input is going to be absolutely invaluable." She
expressed support for the resolution and concluded, "I would be
very, very happy to have AVEC participate in this in any way
that we possibly can. If we're not actually named to the task
force, we will certainly be available to provide whatever
expertise we can."
Number 1344
SUE SCHRADER, Conservation Advocate, Alaska Conservation Voters
and Alaska Conservation Alliance, came forward to testify,
noting that committee members had a copy of her memorandum
[dated February 26, 2001], which she wouldn't repeat. She
expressed appreciation to the committee for hearing this, and to
Representative Berkowitz for considering the request to him and
his staff that the Alaska Conservation Alliance possibly be
included on the task force.
MS. SCHRADER pointed out that many of her organizations' members
have participated on other task forces, on a variety of issues
including mining, university lands, and water permitting. There
is a lot of wisdom to getting everything out on the table, she
said, right from the start. Any of the energy plans will have
environmental impacts, she pointed out, adding that she believes
her organizations can bring some resources and expertise to help
look at those impacts from the beginning, to help work out
details ahead of time.
Number 1420
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said he supports representation from Ms.
Schrader's group on this [task force], but wishes she could have
come before the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing
Committee in order to have more discussion relating to the
tradeoffs. "You should be part of this task force," he added.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI closed public testimony.
Number 1464
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER expressed support for the resolution and
the concept. He said there are all sorts of plans and ideas; it
will be good to have a task force like this to bring them all
together with a unified focus. As to whether this is the right
makeup, he added, he doesn't know.
Number 1491
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG concurred, then said he'd be more
comfortable with a "three-member swap" along the lines he had
previously suggested. Representative Rokeberg said he would
accede to [Representative Berkowitz's] wisdom about the Denali
Commission. He then questioned what expertise the AFL-CIO would
provide; he noted that this relates to an energy policy, not the
labor workforce per se.
Number 1574
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD remarked that he supports the idea of
having this task force, but the debate on who has more expertise
could be debated indefinitely; he believes the people who
construct powerhouses and wind towers, for example, should have
a voice at the table, and that member is essential. Although
there should be someone from the coal [industry], how many
members are too many to wield? He said he'd like to have
somebody from the AFL-CIO to voice the concerns of the
construction industry on anything that gets built that's has to
do with [Alaska's] energy policies.
Number 1677
CHAIR MURKOWSKI emphasized that this isn't to the point of
talking about building anything yet. She surmised that the
focus of a comprehensive plan will be on what options exist and
are realistic, rather than "getting to the commitment stage."
After the task force made a recommendation, the legislature or
administration would take it from there; at that point, the
labor organizations would have to be involved in the
conversations.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI reported that in going through her list, she had
singled out eight that she believes to be imperative; she
returned to Representative Meyer's comment that the committee
could talk about it all day without reaching consensus. She
mentioned the need to incorporate some of Representative
Rokeberg's suggestions.
Number 1777
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES commented that a member from AOGA could
easily be a member of the State Chamber [of Commerce]. He said
people wear many different hats.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asserted that there is one private-
sector person [listed in Version J].
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES said, "I think you can get to where you
want to go with what you have here."
Number 1815
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded that he would imagine that
whatever task force is put forward would have an incredible
outreach, which he believes is essential. He stated:
I think it's very clear: there needs to be a lot of
deliberations with various aspects of the business
community involved, and [there needs] to be outreach
to academia, to power-generation facilities. ...
There's no way we could put everyone on here. We know
how hard it is to do things with 40 people [in the
House]. To cover the expertise in minute detail on a
task force would require at least that many folks. ...
I would encourage the task force, to the extent I can
do it from here, to reach out as far and as wide as it
can, because that's going to yield the best product.
[Maybe] they can have a subcommittee. I'm not going
to tell them how to do their job.
Number 1881
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 1, subsection (3)
[Version J, lines 15-16, which read: "(3) to recommend
financing options, including federal, state, or municipal
grants, bonds, or other means"]. He suggested that the whole
private sector - banks - had been skipped.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that is the "other means."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 1, line [10], which
read in part: "the roles of the federal, state, municipal, and
tribal governments". He said the governor had adopted "that
stance" and asked whether [the statutes] have language to that
effect.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said the federal government has adopted
it, but he doesn't know whether it is in the state statutes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested there may be another way to
"finesse that somewhere along the line."
Number 1959
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt an amendment to
remove the [Alaska] Municipal League member on page 2, line 8;
and to remove the Alaska Science and Technology [Foundation]
member on page 2, line 13. In their place, the [Alaska] State
Chamber [of Commerce] would appoint two members chosen from the
following three industries: transportation, natural gas, or
coal mining. [This was later amended and split into Amendments
1 and 2.] Representative Rokeberg explained that it broadens
the representation without broadening the membership.
Number 2064
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD referred to [page 2] line 12, which
listed "one member appointed by the Alaska Oil and Gas
Association". He asked whether natural gas isn't already
covered.
Number 2095
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked: Why not specify that there will be
one member appointed by the Alaska Miners Association? He
pointed out that some members of that association might not be
members of the [Alaska State] Chamber [of Commerce].
Number 2110
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER suggested that if Representative Rokeberg's
intent is to have two members from the private sector, perhaps
it could just say that the [Alaska] State Chamber [of Commerce]
is to appoint two members from the private sector; that wouldn't
narrow it so much.
Number 2161
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he thinks it is particularly
important to [include] someone who is concerned with
transportation.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested perhaps the Alaska State
Chamber of Commerce member could be used for the transportation
member, and then there could be someone from the Alaska Miners
Association.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ proposed that along with having an
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce member with expertise in
transportation, someone from the RDC [Resource Development
Council] could call on somebody from the coal or [mining]
industry, for example.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG concurred.
Number 2199
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked Representative Berkowitz about the
deletion of the Alaska Municipal League and ASTF members.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed confidence that the
assistance of the Alaska Municipal League or the ASTF could
always be obtained, if needed. "This is a good public policy
step," he added. "They're going to want to be there."
Number 2232
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG split his amendment into two amendments.
Conceptual Amendment 1, on [page 2] line 8, subsection (3),
would replace the [Alaska] Municipal League member with a member
from the transportation industry appointed by the [Alaska] State
Chamber [of Commerce]. Conceptual Amendment 2 would delete
[page 2] lines 13-14 ["(7) one member appointed by the executive
director of the Alaska Science and Technology Foundation;"].
That member would be replaced by a member [appointed by] the
RDC.
Number 2328
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked whether there was any objection to either
amendment. [No objection was stated; therefore, Conceptual
Amendments 1 and 2 were treated as adopted.]
CHAIR MURKOWSKI mentioned the member appointed by the AFL-CIO.
She asked Representative Berkowitz whether he feels it is
necessary to have a labor representative at this point.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied that when talking about
planning, he believes it is important "to have people who know
how to do," such as people who have picked up a shovel or
wielded a hammer. Engineers are great for a design, he said,
but someone has to put it together; practical expertise is
significant. A good plan is shaped by the limitations of a
workforce regarding what is feasible.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said she doesn't know that she agrees, but she
doesn't have anybody whom she wants to put in there.
Number 2413
CHAIR MURKOWSKI referred to the termination date. She asked
whether the committee really anticipates that full appointment
of the membership could take until June 15. In that case, she
suggested, the task force may not get much done. She asked
whether there is some "magic" in that.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said no.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI proposed, then, that work begin immediately upon
appointment of the full membership.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied that if someone drags his or
her heels, however, there could be a problem [without the June
15 date].
Number 2448
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked why there is a House member and a
Senate member, and how important it is [to the sponsor]. The
privatization [commission], he noted, didn't go much further
than filing a report.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied that [the inclusion of the
House and Senate members] is out of necessity.
TAPE 01-27, SIDE B
Number 2471
[The remainder of Representative Berkowitz's reply is inaudible
because of a temporary problem with tape speed.]
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved to report CSHCR 1 [version 22-
LS0307\J, Cramer, 2/27/01] as amended out of committee with
individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note.
There being no objection, CSHCR 1(L&C) was moved out of the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|