04/13/2007 03:00 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB205 | |
| HB209|| HB110|| SB16 | |
| HB205 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 110 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 209 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 205 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 13, 2007
3:17 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kurt Olson, Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Jay Ramras
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Carl Gatto
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 205
"An Act relating to real estate broker and real estate
salesperson licensing; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 205(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 209
"An Act relating to the chair of and the membership of and
qualifications of members of the Regulatory Commission of
Alaska; adding positions to the partially exempt service;
creating an administrative law division and natural gas and oil
pipeline division within the commission; amending the timeline
requirements for a final order of the commission; relating to
the commission's regulatory cost charges; and adding to the
duties of the Alaska Judicial Council as they relate to the
presentation of nominees for consideration for appointment to
the commission."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 110
"An Act extending the termination date for the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 205
SHORT TITLE: REAL ESTATE BROKERS/SALESPERSONS
SPONSOR(s): LABOR & COMMERCE BY REQUEST
03/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/16/07 (H) L&C, FIN
04/13/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 209
SHORT TITLE: REGULATORY COMMISSION OF ALASKA
SPONSOR(s): LABOR & COMMERCE
03/19/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/19/07 (H) L&C, JUD, FIN
04/13/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 110
SHORT TITLE: EXTEND REGULATORY COMMISSION OF ALASKA
SPONSOR(s): LABOR & COMMERCE
01/30/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/30/07 (H) L&C, FIN
03/16/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/16/07 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/13/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
DAVE FEEKEN, Chair
Industry Issues Working Group
Alaska Association of Realtors (AAR)
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 205.
RUTH BLACKWELL, Chair
Professional Development Working Group
Alaska Association of Realtors (AAR)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 205.
RICK URION, Director
Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions and offered comments
during hearing on HB 205.
KATE GIARD, Commissioner, Chair
Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA)
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions and offered comments
during hearing on HB 209 and HB 110.
MARK JOHNSON, Commissioner
Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA)
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions and offered comments
during hearing on HB 209 and HB 110.
JAN WILSON, Commissioner
Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA)
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions and offered comments
during hearing on HB 209 and HB 110.
DAVE HARBOUR, Commissioner
Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA)
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions and offered comments
during hearing on HB 209 and HB 110.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR KURT OLSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:17:40 PM. Representatives
LeDoux, Ramras, Gardner, Neuman, and Olson were present at the
call to order. Representative Buch arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
HB 205-REAL ESTATE BROKERS/SALESPERSONS
3:17:55 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 205, "An Act relating to real estate broker and
real estate salesperson licensing; and providing for an
effective date."
3:18:02 PM
DAVE FEEKEN, Chair, Industry Issues Working Group, Alaska
Association of Realtors (AAR), referring to a committee
substitute for HB 205, said that this is a modernization of
existing statutes relating to real estate brokerage, and
addresses the education of real estate licensees and the
supervisory relationship between brokers and licensees. He
stated that the real estate industry is "dramatically changing,"
and the current pre-licensing education requirements are
outdated. He explained that nearly 80 percent of current buyers
use the internet to search for property. There are also
hundreds of loan programs available from around the country. He
detailed additional concerns, such as wetland maps, disclosure
of property condition, and predatory lending issues. The Real
Estate Commission continues to increase the required course
material for pre-licensing education, but the hourly requirement
has remained the same. He said that HB 205 increases the hourly
requirement from 20 hours to 40 hours. He pointed out that even
with the hourly increase, Alaska will continue to have the
lowest hourly requirements in the country.
MR. FEEKEN then stated that the post-licensing education would
be increased from 20 to 30 hours. This is necessary to
adequately teach the required materials. The AAR supports these
increases, in order to meet the public need for competent real
estate practitioners. He said that HB 205 clarifies that an
individual convicted of a felony must wait seven years after
completion of the sentence, prior to obtaining licensure. This
gives the Real Estate Commission the ability to protect the
public. He then referred to Section 4, and said that this
section states that a real estate office must employ an
associate broker to directly supervise all licensees. He noted
that there have been difficulties between Legislative Legal and
Research Services and the Department of Law (DOL) regarding the
language in this section. He said that if a single broker owns,
operates, or is employed by multiple corporations, HB 205 would
require that all of the business organizations share a single
physical address. He explained that many brokerage firms are
multiple companies for insurance or other reasons.
MR. FEEKEN then discussed Section 9. He explained that
according to a Supreme Court ruling, the broker is not
responsible for conduct that he or she had no knowledge of. He
said that HB 205 requires the broker to have a written policy
and procedures manual that addresses supervisory issues. The
licensee is required to inform the broker of issues regarding
the licensee's compliance with state law, and conduct with
clients. He said that this would allow complaints to be handled
in a more cost-effective manner. The AAR is requesting an
implementation date of February 1, 2008, in order to comply with
the additional education requirements.
3:24:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN made a motion to adopt CSHB 205(L&C),
Version 25-LS0684\M, Bullard, 4/12/07 as the working document.
There being no objection, Version M was before the committee.
3:24:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER shared her understanding that this would
place the responsibility for "good behavior" on the licensee,
and inquired as to whether this is a shift of responsibility.
MR. FEEKEN replied that the broker has always been responsible
for supervising the licensee. He reiterated that following a US
Supreme Court ruling in the 1980s, the broker was required to
know of the misconduct. This clarifies that a policy manual is
required.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if, in the event of a lawsuit, the
broker would be protected, on the basis that the licensee has
failed to inform him or her of the misconduct.
MR. FEEKEN replied yes. He explained that currently, brokers
are not aware of a lawsuit until served with the paperwork. In
response to additional questions, he stated that the AAR is in
support of the legislation. The AAR is a trade organization,
and its membership includes all licensees, whether brokers or
sales associates. He said that around 25 percent of members are
brokers, and 75 percent are licensees.
3:27:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN referring to Section 2, asked why the
education requirement was changed to 40 hours. He noted that
the original bill contained a 30 hour requirement, while the
existing statute contains a 20 hour requirement.
MR. FEEKEN explained that there are two types of education.
Pre-licensing education has been changed from 20 hours to 40
hours. Post licensing education has been changed from 20 hours
to 30 hours. In response to additional questions, he explained
that the cost for pre-licensing education in Anchorage is around
$275. He said that it is most likely higher outside of
Anchorage, although in Kenai, it is the same. He shared his
belief that this cost would not double. He has not heard any
quotes from instructors as to what the price would be changed
to. He stated that the AAR does not recommend prices, as it is
a free market.
3:29:07 PM
RUTH BLACKWELL, Chair, Professional Development Working Group,
Alaska Association of Realtors, said that she is an associate
broker and a certified instructor. She stated that she spent
two terms on the Real Estate Commission. During her first term,
the current education requirements were implemented. She said
that when this occurred, the loan process was not nearly as
complicated as it is now. She said that 20 hours is not enough
time to get someone started. She urged members to support the
increase in both pre-licensing and post-licensing education
requirements.
3:30:56 PM
RICK URION, Director, Division of Corporations, Business and
Professional Licensing, Department of Commerce, Community, &
Economic Development (DCCED), said that he agrees with the
previous testimony. However, the Department of Law (DOL) feels
is concerned with Section 7(e), as it implies that there is a
residency requirement in the real estate law, which is
incorrect. He explained that the Constitution of the United
States does not allow this. The requirements must be the same
for both in-state and out-of-state brokers. This section should
be deleted, or modified to include both.
3:33:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN shared his understanding that this section
should be changed to include the words "in-state", or "may
reside out-of-state", or simply be removed completely.
MR. URION agreed that this is correct.
3:34:00 PM
CHAIR OLSON closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN offered Amendment 1, which would delete
Section 7.
CHAIR OLSON stated his intention to hold the bill over in order
to allow specific concerns to be discussed with Legislative
Legal and Research Services.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN withdrew Amendment 1.
[HB 205 was brought up again later during the hearing]
HB 209-REGULATORY COMMISSION OF ALASKA
HB 110-EXTEND REGULATORY COMMISSION OF ALASKA
[Contains brief discussion of SB 16]
3:34:50 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 209, "An Act relating to the chair of and the
membership of and qualifications of members of the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska; adding positions to the partially exempt
service; creating an administrative law division and natural gas
and oil pipeline division within the commission; amending the
timeline requirements for a final order of the commission;
relating to the commission's regulatory cost charges; and adding
to the duties of the Alaska Judicial Council as they relate to
the presentation of nominees for consideration for appointment
to the commission."; and HOUSE BILL NO. 110, "An Act extending
the termination date for the Regulatory Commission of Alaska;
and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR OLSON stated that a committee substitute (CS) has been
drafted for HB 209. He suggested that the committee take an at-
ease to allow members of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska
(RCA) to consider the changes made by the CS.
The committee took an at-ease from 3:36 PM to 3:56 PM.
CHAIR OLSON turned the discussion to HB 209.
3:56:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN made a motion to adopt CSHB 209, Version
25-LS0717\M, Kane, 4/12/07, as the working document. There
being no objection, Version M was before the committee.
CHAIR OLSON informed the committee that the discussion would be
limited to members of the RCA. He indicated that HB 209 would
be held for further consideration.
3:57:53 PM
KATE GIARD, Commissioner, Chair, Regulatory Commission of Alaska
(RCA), Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED), noted that the sunset for the RCA expires on June 30,
2007. She explained that the RCA's legislative mandate is to
set just and reasonable rates for public utilities and pipeline
services. Over the past four years, the RCA has had the
opportunity to create a more transparent and accountable
commission that is easier for regulated entities to work with.
She said that the RCA has been able to involve the regulated
entities in regulatory and planning activities. She added that
members of the public were also included in considering the
statutory changes that the RCA should pursue during the current
legislative session. This was done previously, as well. As a
result, the commission has approximately $2.2 million to develop
electronic filing systems for all pipeline carriers and public
utilities in the state. This cooperative effort gave the RCA
the opportunity to learn, and empowered the utilities and
pipeline carriers to have more control.
MS. GIARD went on to say that 2007 is a reauthorization year,
and therefore the RCA has a "very aggressive legislative agenda"
for statutory change. The RCA knew that by restructuring the
agency and meeting with the regulated entities, it could make
substantial changes. However, the RCA works from a legislative
mandate which requires that statutory changes are made. She
explained that the RCA went through a public process and
informal docket R-06-10, and sought comment regarding changes
and improvements, as well as how to come up with the statutory
language that can provide this change. This process was
completed on February 22, 2007, and the RCA voted on statutory
changes. She explained that the members studied the proposals
and created a packet that was sent to the governor. The
governor's intention was to support a bill that would enact many
of the changes requested by the RCA. The governor was later
unable to pursue the legislation, and requested that the RCA
work with the legislature. She said that she has met with the
legislature to discuss the opportunity for change in Alaska.
While she has not had a significant amount of time to look at
Version M, it does not appear to contain many of the changes
included in docket R-06-10. However, it does address the
statutory timelines. The RCA is happy to see the timeline
changes moving forward, and believes this is good for Alaska.
4:03:03 PM
CHAIR OLSON stated that SB 16 included information that did not
appear to be addressed by the full commission. He asked whether
there is additional information that he has not seen.
MS. GIARD explained that SB 16 is a reauthorization of the RCA,
and provides a six-year reauthorization period. Additionally,
she sought a provision which would require biannual audits.
Certain timeline and benchmark information that is included in
the RCA's annual report would be examined by the legislative
auditor, who would then create a report to tell the legislature
how the RCA is doing with regard to meeting the aforementioned
timelines and benchmarks. She stated that the Senate Community
and Regional Affairs Standing Committee included this in its CS,
as a result of positive public testimony. This would provide
feedback that was missing previously, and would allow the
legislature to address concerns brought up by the audit. She
agreed that this was not included in docket R-06-10.
CHAIR OLSON pointed out that the final paragraph in the
transmittal letter dealt with salary increases.
MS. GIARD replied that the CS for SB 16 has 3 sections, which
deal with the aforementioned audit provisions.
4:06:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER requested that the documents in question
be distributed to the committee prior to discussing them.
CHAIR OLSON said that this would be discussed at a later time.
4:07:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked how often the RCA is audited. He
shared his understanding that yearly audits are performed. He
inquired as to what requested statutory changes are new for the
2007 legislative agenda.
MS. GIARD replied that the Division of Legislative Audit
performs a sunset audit each time the RCA reaches the end of its
sunset date. This results in an audit every four years. The
RCA believes it is appropriate to have additional reporting, and
therefore requested the aforementioned biannual audit. The
statutory changes include timeline changes, changes to the
attorney general that provides legal council to the RCA, and
increased fines, among others. She stated that the RCA is
"quasi-judicial" in nature, and has attempted to treat the
agency as a "quasi-judicial" body.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN commented that timeline discussions are
repetitive. He questioned whether the RCA is improving.
MS. GIARD stated that the commissioners have made an effort to
respond to criticisms that occurred during the 2003 sunset. The
RCA was not timely or viewed as responsive to the utilities.
She explained that the RCA has been on a plan of improvement for
the last three years, which involved public utilities, pipeline
carriers, and outreach efforts. The results of this are
reflected in the annual audit. She pointed out that in 2004,
there were 163 dockets pending. At the end of June, 2006, there
were 101. Both the work volume and productivity have increased.
4:12:06 PM
MARK JOHNSON, Commissioner, Regulatory Commissioner of Alaska,
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED), pointed out that the commission must strike a balance
between disposing of the dockets as expeditiously as possible,
and the quality of the decisions made. He shared his belief
that all members of the RCA are aware of this, and make an
effort to balance both factors. He stated that he is actively
engaged in the case management portion of the work being done,
and meets weekly with staff to examine each docket and assess
its status. He stated that in the past, the principal complaint
has been that the decisions are not rendered in a timely manner.
The RCA has tried to be responsive to this.
4:13:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN commented that with all the changes, 56
percent of utilities questioned said that the RCA was doing a
"somewhat good job," and pointed out that this leaves 54 percent
that feel "the other way."
CHAIR OLSON asked whether the timelines in Version M are
reasonable.
MS. GIARD, referring to Section 4, explained that this applies
to public utility timelines, and does not include any
substantive changes. This section simply allows the computer
system to calculate 180 days.
4:15:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired as to whether 180 working days or
180 consecutive days.
MS. GIARD replied that this is consecutive days, adding that it
would read "business days" if it only counted Monday through
Friday. Moving on to Sections 5, 6, 7, and 8, she stated that
these sections do not include any substantive changes. She
stated that the first substantive change is included in Section
9, adding that she is not comfortable with this section. She
explained that currently, the RCA makes a discretionary
determination of "good cause" and can extend a timeline once.
She shared her understanding that this section attempts to
define when the RCA can extend the timeline. She stated that
this calls into question what is an "unusually complex and
novel" question of law. She expressed fear that the litigant
could appeal the extension decision, and say that an issue is
not "unusually complex and novel." She explained that the law
states that if the commission does not render a decision by the
statutory timeline, the matter goes into effect by force of law.
She said that this is troubling, was not heavily advocated
during the open public process, and was not added by the RCA.
4:18:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX shared her understanding that an
individual could appeal to the superior court, stating that it
is not an "unusually complex and novel" question of law, and
asked for clarification regarding what may result.
MS. GIARD explained that if the RCA did not properly extend the
timeline, the matter would go into effect by force of law. She
reiterated that this is a troubling provision.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX said that the extension is needed because
the RCA has not reached a decision, and questioned how the
decision could be implemented.
MR. JOHNSON said that this further restricts the RCA's ability
to act. He does not see this leading to better decisions. He
shared his belief that this would lead to decisions made under
time pressure, which creates a greater risk that the RCA will
make decisions that are unwise.
4:21:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX replied that this may be correct. She
opined that in reality, it would take the court 90 days to reach
a decision regarding whether or not the extension was "unusually
complex and novel." She opined that there would not be many
appeals.
MS. GIARD explained that if the statutory timeline is
miscalculated and extended erroneously, the matter would go into
effect by force of law. Additionally, any matter that is not
addressed within the statutory timeline, would go into effect by
force of law. The RCA currently has the discretion to look at
the workload and when the hearing was held, and may extend the
timeline one time, for 90 days. This section specifically
states under what conditions the timeline can be extended, which
she believes is not necessary. In response to an additional
question, she explained that the issue might be a rate filing,
or a tariff filing, or a contract, which would be considered
approved, and go into effect immediately.
CHAIR OLSON requested written comments regarding Section 9.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if "good cause" is closely defined.
4:24:58 PM
JAN WILSON, Commissioner, Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA),
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED), stated that any extension done for good cause can be
challenged. However, the term "good cause" has had a lot of use
over the years, which allows more comfort with this term. She
surmised that the commission could become comfortable with the
new language, although she has not seen it used before. She
said that if there is precedent or case law that interprets
this, the RCA would like to see this. She stated that when the
RCA is coming down to the wire of a statutory deadline, this
might be a distraction, as debate may be necessary to determine
whether or not the items being debated are "novel or complex."
4:26:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how often a finding of good cause
has been appealed over the last five years.
MR. JOHNSON replied that the RCA is unaware of any time this has
occurred.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to the RCA's definition of
"good cause."
MS. WILSON replied that there is no definition in statute or in
RCA regulations. She said that the RCA does not take "for good
cause" lightly, and always states the cause. The parties are
able to look at the explanation of what the cause is, and
determine whether or not they believe this is good cause.
Petitions for reconsideration can be filed.
MS. GIARD, in response to a question from Representative LeDoux,
said that in 2006, the timelines were extended 6 times out of
approximately 200 cases. In 2005, the timelines were extended 3
times, and in 2004 they were extended 4 times. She pointed out
that the parties can extend as often as is desired, and need
only be in agreement. She explained that good cause can mean
that staff resources are limited, or that a number of deadlines
are pending. She said "It's really the trust that you have in
us to make good but infrequent use of the extension."
4:31:11 PM
DAVE HARBOUR, Commissioner, Regulatory Commission of Alaska
(RCA), Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED), said that statute requires that all decisions made by
the RCA be supported by reasons, which are subject to the courts
review. He opined that the very best barometer as to how well
the RCA is doing would be reflected in the decisions of the
courts. He pointed out that the decisions of the courts have
been very supportive of the commission, having upheld the
majority of appealed decisions. With regard to the term "good
cause," he said that this is required in virtually all the
decisions made by the RCA. He gave an example of a stipulation,
and said that the due process required of the RCA is more
extensive than is required in the legislative process. He
explained that the RCA must find the stipulation to be in the
public interest. He said "You can't really ... tear [apart an
agreement] and analyze one part, and determine that that's good,
and throw the other one out because it was a bargain."
MR. HARBOUR then discussed Section 9(c). He opined that it is
not in the public interest to say that the RCA may not use its
work schedule as "good cause" for an extension. He explained
that the workload ebbs and flows, and the commission might have
several complex and time consuming dockets at once. He stated
that this may result in complaints regarding due process. He
said that if the commission is required to work under restricted
timeframes, additional employees would be needed, resulting in a
more expensive process. If this was a concern, he would
recommend that the legislature consider this, however, he does
not think this is a "huge problem."
CHAIR OLSON stated that the utilities feel that "oftentimes, the
timeline is too lengthy," which is the crux of the issue.
4:38:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS, with regard to a pending appeal involving
a utility in Fairbanks, stated that it has been difficult to
find an advocate for his concerns, as the utilities are more
concerned with time and money issues. He said that he
previously thought that the RCA was a "great adjudicator." He
stated that the RCA attempts to use a "one-size fits all"
approach, which does not work for all adjudicated matters.
MR. HARBOUR said that every citizen has a right to his or her
day in court. When a utility applies for a rate increase,
others have the opportunity to protest. The RCA is the forum
for this. He explained that legislatures across the country
have determined that regulating monopoly interest is not easily
done by a legislative body that does not maintain a year-round
expertise and the time to do so, and therefore this is delegated
to a regulatory agency. He said that the monopoly must be given
an opportunity to present its case, and the rate payers and the
other affected parties must be given the opportunity to comment.
If the RCA did not provide this opportunity, the court system
would be "batting back" the decisions, and the legislative
auditor would be reporting that the RCA's decisions "lack legal
perfection on a regular basis." He shared his hope that the
RCA's regulatory process will be seen as a solid process.
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS said that according to the utilities, it
costs $1 million each time it must go before the RCA. He
reiterated that his concerns were not addressed, because of the
utilities concern with cost concerns. He said that it is not
appropriate to stereotype people or organizations. However,
stereotypes often grow out of behavioral patterns, and may
indicate a pattern of behavior that is not working well. He
explained that every time an issue is raised, the utility can
not afford the $1 million cost. He expressed concern that the
"size of the process" is the same for the producers as it is for
the small, private utilities. He said that this is the
impression of the broader community.
4:49:36 PM
MS. GIARD said that the 15 month timeline is too long. When the
legislature established this timeline, it used a one-size fits
all methodology. She stated that when the RCA makes an effort
to move forward in the legislative arena to discuss
methodologies, the effort becomes "hijacked," which is
detrimental to the RCA. The improvements and efforts of four
years are incremental. She said "You are not going to change an
institution, or create a pipeline, overnight." She stated that
the RCA has been "rolling the ball uphill" for four years. The
commission is doing a better job, which has been independently
verified. She stated that the RCA is 65 percent of the way to
meeting its potential. She shared her belief that the RCA can
fulfill the legislature's vision, but to do this requires help
from the legislature. She said "Working with us means helping
us, and looking at the statutory provisions that we're asking
you for. And addressing them in one legislative session. Not
two, not three, or not four. Help us, because we can not make
it better without you."
4:51:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked how the dockets are organized. He
commented that Section 1 allows the governor to choose the chair
of the commission, adding that the governor will also be
selecting a gas pipeline coordinator. He noted that the RCA
regulates intrastate commerce, and opined that this gives a lot
of power to the governor. He suggested that the committee
consider this.
MR. JOHNSON pointed out that the discussion began with
timelines, at Chair Olson's request, thereby passing over
Section 1. With regard to the timelines, he reiterated that he
meets with staff to review the status of each docket. He stated
that issues of complexity are always kept in mind. However,
some of the smallest in scope create some of the most difficult
issues. There are cases involving small utilities that pose
danger to the customers. He assured the committee that the RCA
is continually weighing which dockets can be addressed quickly.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN reiterated that the committee should
consider Section 1.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned whether the high cost affects
the timelines.
MS. GIARD said that the number of parties protesting a utility's
rates significantly contributes to the cost of a case. If many
customers participate, this increases the cost substantially.
If the rate case is processed through a hearing and approved,
this is a low cost.
4:57:41 PM
CHAIR OLSON stated his intention to hold the bill over in order
to allow further consideration of Version M. He noted that
items related to staff, personnel, and salaries are not included
in the bill. While he believes the salaries should be adjusted,
he is not the person to do so. He shared his understanding that
a resolution would be introduced to establish a working group
that will review these issues. Referring to HB 110, he noted
that the timeline is two years. He stated his intention to
further discuss this bill at a future hearing.
4:59:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN made a motion to adopt the CS for HB 110,
Version 25-LS0449\M as the working document. There being no
objection, Version M was before the committee.
CHAIR OLSON stated that when the aforementioned working group
has completed its task, an audit would be completed. Following
this audit, the RCA would return to the normal extension cycle.
MR. JOHNSON shared his understanding that the governor supports
a 6 year extension.
MS. GIARD shared her understanding that the audit recommended an
eight-year extension, and the Senate proposed a six-year
extension.
CHAIR OLSON stated that the governor's office and the Senate
have been notified of changes that have been made.
MS. GIARD expressed appreciation for the opportunity to come
before the committee.
CHAIR OLSON requested written comments on HB 209.
The committee took an at-ease from 5:01 PM to 5:03 PM.
[HB 209 and HB 110 were held over.]
5:03:43 PM
HB 205-REAL ESTATE BROKERS/SALESPERSONS
5:03:54 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that as the final order of business, the
committee would return to HOUSE BILL NO. 205, "An Act relating
to real estate broker and real estate salesperson licensing; and
providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN offered Conceptual Amendment 1, which
would remove Section 7. There being no objection, Conceptual
Amendment 1 was adopted.
5:04:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN moved to report HB 205, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 205(L&C) was
reported from the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
5:04:50 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:05 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|