Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 17
05/02/2007 03:00 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB172 | |
| SB84 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 172 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 84 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
May 2, 2007
3:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kurt Olson, Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Jay Ramras
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 172
"An Act exempting certain commercial refuse services from
regulation under the Public Utilities Regulatory Act and
providing for termination of that exemption."
- MOVED HB 172 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 84(JUD)
"An Act relating to the testing and packaging of cigarettes to
be sold, offered for sale, or possessed in this state; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 84(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 172
SHORT TITLE: PUBLIC UTILITY EXEMPTION: REFUSE
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE
03/05/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/05/07 (H) L&C, JUD
05/02/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: SB 84
SHORT TITLE: TESTING & PACKAGING OF CIGARETTES
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) OLSON
02/14/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/14/07 (S) L&C, JUD, FIN
02/27/07 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/27/07 (S) Heard & Held
02/27/07 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/06/07 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/06/07 (S) Moved CSSB 84(L&C) Out of Committee
03/06/07 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/07/07 (S) L&C RPT CS 3DP 1NR 1AM NEW TITLE
03/07/07 (S) DP: ELLIS, DAVIS, STEVENS
03/07/07 (S) NR: HOFFMAN
03/07/07 (S) AM: BUNDE
03/21/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/21/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/21/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/26/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/26/07 (S) Moved CSSB 84(JUD) Out of Committee
03/26/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/28/07 (S) JUD RPT CS 1DP 4NR NEW TITLE
03/28/07 (S) DP: MCGUIRE
03/28/07 (S) NR: FRENCH, THERRIAULT, WIELECHOWSKI,
HUGGINS
04/23/07 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/23/07 (S) Moved CSSB 84(JUD) Out of Committee
04/23/07 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/23/07 (S) FIN RPT CS(JUD) 7DP
04/23/07 (S) DP: HOFFMAN, STEDMAN, ELTON, THOMAS,
DYSON, HUGGINS, OLSON
04/25/07 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/25/07 (S) VERSION: CSSB 84(JUD)
04/26/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/26/07 (H) L&C, JUD, FIN
05/02/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
ELEANOR WOLFE, Staff
to Representative Kurt Olson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 172 on behalf of the sponsor,
the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee, which is
chaired by Representative Olson.
RICHARD GAZAWAY, Hearing Examiner
Common Carrier
Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA)
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
HB 172.
WILLIAM R. SNELL, Member
Management Committee
Alaska Waste
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 172.
SENATOR DONNY OLSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 84.
DENISE LICCIOLI, Staff
to Senator Donny Olson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 84 on behalf of the sponsor,
Senator Olson.
JOHANNA BALES, Excise Audit Manager
Anchorage Office
Tax Division
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
SB 84.
RAYMOND B. BIZAL, Regional Manager
Western Region
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
Long Beach, California
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 84.
STEVEN "RUSTY" BELANGER, Assistant State Fire Marshal
Division of Fire Prevention
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 84.
WARREN B. CUMMINGS, President
Alaska Fire Chiefs Association (AFCA)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 84.
MARIE DARLIN, Coordinator
AARP Capital City Task Force
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 84.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR KURT OLSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:10:43 PM. Representatives Buch,
Neuman, Gardner, and Olson were present at the call to order.
Representatives LeDoux and Gatto arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 172 - PUBLIC UTILITY EXEMPTION: REFUSE
CHAIR OLSON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 172, "An Act exempting certain commercial refuse
services from regulation under the Public Utilities Regulatory
Act and providing for termination of that exemption."
3:11:17 PM
ELEANOR WOLFE, Staff to Representative Kurt Olson, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 172 on behalf of the sponsor, the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee, which is chaired by
Representative Olson. She began by reading from the sponsor
statement [original punctuation provided]:
HB 172 will exempt commercial refuse service, the
collection and disposal of refuse materials using
dumpsters and wheel containers with a capacity of one
cubic yard or more, from rate regulation by the
Regulator Commission of Alaska (RCA).
Removing rate regulation from commercial refuse
service will allow flexibility in setting rates which
will promote innovation as to rates and services and
will reduce costs for commercial customers.
Flexibility in setting rates should also assist
commercial refuse utilities and commercial customers
in developing integrated waste stream recycling,
diversion and disposal systems.
Removing rate regulation should reduce the cost and
administrative burden associated with the generation,
review and maintenance of tariffs. This in turn
should encourage more entrants into the commercial
refuse market, benefiting commercial customers
overall.
Removal of commercial refuse rate regulation will
promote the public good by allowing the RCA to utilize
the resources now devoted to commercial rate
regulation to more pressing consumer issues. Rate
deregulation will not prevent the RCA from continuing
to police the commercial refuse market. The RCA will
retain the right to modify, suspend or revoke a
commercial refuse utility Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity for good cause shown. The
Commission will also retain jurisdiction to address
and resolve customer disputes and claims that a
particular company is acting improperly.
Alaska has a vibrant, knowledgeable commercial
community capable of evaluating the services and rates
offered by commercial refuse utilities. Rate
deregulation will allow market forces to set rates and
drive service innovation.
MS. WOLFE then stated that the HL&C has introduced HB 172 at the
request of "commercial refuse haulers."
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether there are any communities
in Alaska where deregulation of refuse collection will result in
no competition.
MS. WOLFE said that the deregulation provided for in HB 172
won't apply to areas where there is no competition because
without competition, rates would not have been set and thus
there would be no need for deregulation.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that a letter in members' packets
from Alaskans for Litter Prevention and Recycling (ALPAR) states
that deregulation of commercial rates will encourage and promote
recycling. She said she doesn't see the connection between the
two.
3:15:21 PM
RICHARD GAZAWAY, Hearing Examiner, Common Carrier, Regulatory
Commission of Alaska (RCA), Department of Commerce, Community, &
Economic Development (DCCED), replied that commercial refuse
utilities have the power, under AS 42.05.431(g), to "do a tiered
rate structure" that would address recycling efforts.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN noted that a letter in members' packets
from the Alaska Center for the Environment (ACE) states that an
integrated waste and recycling program will require major refuse
utilities to have flexibility, creativity, and the ability to
structure incentives to make a community-wide recycling effort
successful. However, if only one regulated company has control
over recycling, then where is the advantage of expanding that
company's operation to deal with all the different types of
recyclable products, he questioned.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she still doesn't understand how
regulation either impedes or promotes recycling.
3:18:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked for an explanation of the fiscal
note provided by the RCA.
MS. WOLFE surmised that the bill would reduce revenue for the
RCA because all of its revenue comes through rate regulation
fees, and since those fees would no longer be charged to refuse
utilities providers, customers wouldn't have to pay those fees
either.
WILLIAM R. SNELL, Member, Management Committee, Alaska Waste,
relayed that Alaska Waste supports HB 172 because it believes
the bill will make the company's markets more efficient while
ensuring that the regulatory environment provides for public
visibility and protection against any type of discriminatory
action on pricing and also while eliminating a significant
regulatory burden. Alaska Waste also believes that HB 172 will
allow the industry greater flexibility in meeting customers'
demands, bundling services, and being innovative in a more
timely fashion.
CHAIR OLSON, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 172.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether deregulation would only
apply when there is more than one refuse service in a community.
MS. WOLFE said that is her understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN moved to report HB 172 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER objected to ask where in the bill it says
deregulation only applies when there is more than one utility
offering service in a community.
MS. WOLFE acknowledged that the bill doesn't state that
specifically; rather, she surmised, that condition is a function
of RCA regulations.
MR. GAZAWAY countered that according to his understanding, the
RCA doesn't have regulations that would limit the application of
a statute to a situation where there is competition.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER questioned whether passage of the bill
would result in deregulation even in communities where there is
only one refuse utility providing service, thus effectively
stifling competition.
MR. GAZAWAY said that is his understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether members would be amenable
to an amendment that would allow deregulation to occur only when
there is more than one refuse utility providing service in a
community.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN shared his understanding that deregulation
would promote competition in the marketplace.
3:24:09 PM
MR. GAZAWAY relayed that existing AS 42.05.711 has a subsection
that exempts refuse utilities that annually gross $300,000 or
less; thus smaller competitors are currently exempt under that
existing provision.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER indicated that that response satisfies
her concern.
CHAIR OLSON surmised that when a community is large enough to
generate more than $300,000 of income for refuse service, there
will be more than one company providing that service.
MR. GAZAWAY, in response to a question, explained that
typically, refuse utilities have a two-tier rate structure
wherein the size of the receptacle distinguishes whether the
service being provided is a commercial service or a residential
service. Therefore, if a customer remodeling his/her home
arranged for the use of a dumpster for a month, for example,
he/she would probably qualify as a commercial customer for that
time period. In response to another question, he said that one
aspect of deregulation as proposed by the bill is that utilities
would be exempt from the requirement that they not discriminate
in rates or services. One of the classic regulatory protections
afforded by rate regulation is that all similarly situated
customers are treated equally, but that protection would no
longer exist if HB 172 were adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO expressed concern with that point, that
under the bill, utilities would be allowed to discriminate.
MR. GAZAWAY replied that discrimination per se is already
allowed and current statute merely prohibits unreasonable
discrimination; in other words, a refuse utility is allowed to
distinguish between customer classes as long as all within a
customer class are treated alike. Passage of HB 172 would
exempt refuse utilities from all provisions of AS 42.05 except
AS 42.05.221 - 42.05.281. Under the bill, refuse utilities
would no longer be subject to AS 42.05.391 - which addresses
discrimination in rates - and AS 42.05.301 - which addresses
discrimination in service. In response to another question, he
said that [under the bill], one circumstance a refuse utility
would probably find desirable would be that when securing
contracts with larger commercial customers, it would not have to
make a particular rate available to all of its commercial
customers; instead, the refuse utility would be able to
negotiate a deal with a commercial customer without first going
through the RCA as is currently required. He then detailed the
current process a refuse utility must go through when it wants
to offer a commercial customer a special contract.
3:30:49 PM
CHAIR OLSON asked whether passage of HB 172 will result in rates
going down.
MR. GAZAWAY declined to speculate on that point.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked whether passage of HB 172 will result
in a significant loss of revenue for the RCA.
MR. GAZAWAY replied that the RCA, based on the previous year's
collections, would lose essentially $205,000 towards its overall
operating budget because commercial refuse providers would no
longer be paying an annual regulatory cost charge (RCC).
CHAIR OLSON surmised that some of the RCA's expenses would also
be off-set.
MR. GAZAWAY acknowledged that there could be a reduced workload
for the RCA with regard to reviewing tariffs.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH questioned whether the reduction in revenue
would be completely offset by a reduction in the expenses the
RCA currently incurs in regulating the refuse utility industry.
MR. GAZAWAY said he couldn't answer that question at this time
but would be willing to research the issue further. He added
that RCA staff members allocate their time based on industry
needs, and that figure is kept in a spreadsheet that determines
the ultimate charge that industry is assessed through RCCs. For
example, if the RCA is regulating two industries and one
industry takes up 75 percent of the RCA's time, then that
industry contributes 75 percent of the RCA's total RCCs. He
reiterated that he is not able to verify that the estimated loss
of revenue will be offset by a reduction in costs.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked whether the RCA, as a state agency,
is required to be revenue neutral.
MR. GAZAWAY said it is.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN surmised, then, that the estimated
reduction in revenue would be offset by a like reduction in
expenses.
MR. GAZAWAY concurred, but pointed out that the RCC amount is
based on historical factors, and from year to year a different
amount of time is spent on refuse issues. He reiterated that
the RCA is supposed to be revenue neutral.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN again moved to report HB 172 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER said she doesn't understand what effect
the bill will have on consumers, and so will be conducting
further research.
CHAIR OLSON, after determining that there were no objections to
the motion, announced that HB 172 was reported from the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 3:36 p.m. to 3:38 p.m.
SB 84 - TESTING & PACKAGING OF CIGARETTES
CHAIR OLSON announced that the final order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 84(JUD), "An Act relating to the testing
and packaging of cigarettes to be sold, offered for sale, or
possessed in this state; and providing for an effective date."
3:38:54 PM
SENATOR DONNY OLSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, relayed
that as a doctor in rural Alaska, he has seen the devastation
that fires can cause, and offered an example wherein one of the
victims, a young boy, had burns on his feet and suffered from
smoke inhalation. He mentioned that his staff would be
presenting SB 84.
3:40:18 PM
DENISE LICCIOLI, Staff to Senator Donny Olson, Alaska State
Legislature, sponsor, explained that SB 84 mandates that only
self-extinguishing cigarettes can be sold in Alaska, and
establishes the testing and certification requirements to ensure
that only self-extinguishing cigarettes are sold in Alaska.
Although no cigarette can ever be called safe, so-called self-
extinguishing or "fire safe" cigarettes are "reduced ignition
propensity cigarettes." Referring to a picture in members'
packets of a self-extinguishing cigarette, she pointed out the
embedded bands, called "speed-bumps," in the cigarette paper
that will cause the cigarette to extinguish if it is not
actively being smoked. These cigarettes are designed to be less
likely than conventional cigarettes to ignite soft furnishings
such as a couch or mattress.
MS. LICCIOLI relayed that SB 84 also provides for the marking of
cigarette packaging, in an approved and easily identifiable
manner, to indicate that they are fire-safe. Cigarettes are the
leading cause of home fire fatalities, both in Alaska and in the
United States, and the most common material that is ignited
first in a home fire is the material found in mattresses,
bedding, upholstered furniture, and floor coverings. A typical
scenario for a home fire is when a cigarette is lit and
forgotten or dropped by the smoker, and the cigarette can
smolder for hours before it flares up into a full blaze. She
noted that a recent fire in Juneau, about which a newspaper
article is included in members' packets, fit that scenario.
One-fourth of all victims of smoking-material fire fatalities
are not the smoker whose cigarette started the fire, and over
one-third of those victims are children.
MS. LICCIOLI said that the risk of dying in a residential
structure fire caused by smoking rises with age: 38 percent of
fatal smoking-material fire victims are age 65 or older. The
most common technology used by cigarette manufactures for
reduced cigarette ignition propensity (RCIP) cigarettes is to
make the paper thicker in places to slow down the burn. If such
a cigarette is left unattended, when the burn reaches one of the
thicker places, or speed bumps, the cigarette self extinguishes.
Self-extinguishing cigarettes meet established fire safety
performance standards. Legislation similar to SB 84 has been
enacted in nine states: New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, New
Hampshire, California, Illinois, Utah, Kentucky, and Oregon. A
fire safe cigarette mandate has also been approved for all of
Canada.
MS. LICCIOLI relayed that SB 84 is supported by the Alaska Fire
Chiefs Association (AFCA), the Alaska State Firefighters
Association (ASFA), and the Department of Public Safety (DPS),
Division of Fire Prevention. Senate Bill 84 is an important
piece of legislation that will save lives as well as reduce
injuries and damage to property in Alaska, she concluded.
3:44:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN questioned whether self-extinguishing
cigarettes are currently being produced by the tobacco industry
and are therefore readily available.
MS. LICCIOLI said yes. In response to a question, she said that
there is a transition provision in the bill that allows
wholesalers and retailers to continue selling their old
cigarette stock for a period of time after which they would need
to restock with self-extinguishing cigarettes because those
would be the only kind of cigarettes that could be sold in
Alaska. In response to another question, she offered her
understanding that the price of cigarettes would remain the same
because the cost of producing self-extinguishing cigarettes is
negligible.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked whether the thicker bands of paper
would be more hazardous to smoke.
SENATOR OLSON relayed his understanding that they would not be.
In response to comments and a question, he acknowledged that
past attempts to make cigarettes self extinguish by altering the
make up of the tobacco used proved unsuccessful because those
cigarettes were unpalatable, and one such attempt even resulted
in an increase in a particular lung disease.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked how the provisions of the bill will be
enforced, and what the date for "mandatory sale" is.
MS. LICCIOLI replied that enforcement would fall under the
purview of the Department of Revenue (DOR), which regulates the
sale of cigarettes in Alaska.
SENATOR OLSON mentioned that the DOR's fiscal note reflects the
enforcement provisions of the bill. In response to comments and
a question, he offered his understanding that there isn't any
opposition to the bill, and that even the tobacco industry is in
favor of it.
REPRESENTATIVE LeDOUX questioned why the tobacco industry
doesn't just produce self-extinguishing cigarettes without the
law having to require it, particularly given that some states
can sell nothing else.
MS. LICCIOLI surmised that like other behaviors addressed by
various laws, most people simply won't do something until it's
required.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN referred to proposed AS 18.74.160, which
addresses penalties for violations, and asked whether people
will still be able to purchase non self-extinguishing cigarettes
on the Internet.
MS. LICCIOLI suggested that a representative of the DOR could
better address that question.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN questioned whether a resident of Alaska
would be considered a criminal if he/she purchased cigarettes
for personal use from a state which does not require that only
self-extinguishing cigarettes be sold.
3:53:09 PM
JOHANNA BALES, Excise Audit Manager, Anchorage Office, Tax
Division, Department of Revenue (DOR), replied that according to
her interpretation of SB 84, an Alaskan citizen purchasing non
self-extinguishing cigarettes for personal use from outside the
state would not be subject to the [civil] penalties provided in
the bill, though under existing law pertaining to the taxation
of cigarettes, criminal tax penalties would apply to any
unlicensed individual who brings any kind of [tobacco product]
into the state [for the purpose of reselling it].
SENATOR OLSON characterized SB 84 as a very important bill that
will save lives and property.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH said he appreciates that the bill provides
for a transitional period and doesn't penalize people for
purchasing cigarettes for personal use from outside Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, in response to Representative LeDoux's
question, suggested that perhaps many smokers don't like having
their cigarettes go out.
REPRESENTATIVE LeDOUX remarked that the title of bill does not
seem consistent with the body of the bill; specifically, the
title indicates that the bill is in part about cigarettes
"possessed in this state", and yet the DOR has indicated that
merely possessing non self-extinguishing cigarettes for personal
use would not subject a person to the penalties provided in the
bill.
MS. LICCIOLI shared her understanding that the phrase,
"possessed in this state" is meant to account for non self-
extinguishing cigarettes that wholesalers and retailers possess
during the transition period.
REPRESENTATIVE LeDOUX said she is still concerned about this
apparent discrepancy and is not completely certain that that
language needs to be in the title.
SENATOR OLSON shared his understanding that to be in violation
of the bill, one must possess the cigarettes with the intent to
sell.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN surmised that a prohibition against mere
possession couldn't be enforced.
3:59:41 PM
RAYMOND B. BIZAL, Regional Manager, Western Region, National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA), relayed that he would be
speaking in support of SB 84. Referring to the fact that nine
states have adopted similar legislation, he calculated that this
means that over one-fourth of the U.S. population is now
protected by this type of law. Four other states have similar
legislation waiting to be signed by their governors - Iowa,
Maryland, Montana, and New Jersey. However, because most of the
aforementioned laws have only now become effective, statistics
for the most part are not yet available. In New York, though,
with its law having been in place since 2004, statistics
pertaining to the first six months that that law has been in
place indicate that there has been no reduction in cigarette tax
revenue, but that there has been a one-third reduction in
cigarette-related fire fatalities and an even higher reduction
in the number of cigarette-related fires.
MR. BIZAL remarked that Alaska is not alone in considering
legislation pertaining to self-extinguishing cigarettes: this
year, 22 state legislators introduced bills similar to SB 84.
Consideration of this issue is widespread because it will make a
difference, he opined, adding that nearly 1,000 people
needlessly die each year in the U.S. because of fires started by
cigarettes; such fires injure many more people and cause
millions of dollars in property damage. Cigarettes that comply
with the fire safety standard mandated by SB 84 actually reduce
the likelihood of fire. Passing SB 84 will save lives in
Alaska, reduce injuries, and reduce property damage, he
concluded.
4:02:20 PM
STEVEN "RUSTY" BELANGER, Assistant State Fire Marshal, Division
of Fire Prevention, Department of Public Safety (DPS), relayed
that the division gives its full support to SB 84. This bill
embodies the focus of the division's mission statement which is
to prevent the loss of life and property from fire and
explosion, and recognizes the significant losses of life and
property due to cigarettes. Between 1996 and 2005, Alaska lost
upwards of $8 million in property to fires wherein cigarettes
were the ignition source, and, as of today, this number
continues to increase. In the same time period, cigarette-
related fires caused 31 percent of the deaths due to fire - this
is the leading cause of fire fatalities in Alaska.
MR. BELANGER relayed that it is the division's belief that SB 84
will significantly reduce the number of fire fatalities in
Alaska related to cigarettes because manufactures will have to
meet the new requirements for cigarettes that meet fire safety
standards. This reduction will occur at minimal cost to the
state. This bill is a tool that the state can provide to the
citizens of Alaska without [negatively] impacting them. He
concluded by saying: "It is our duty as a state to help those
that live within our borders; we urge your support on this bill,
and I thank you for your time."
4:03:54 PM
WARREN B. CUMMINGS, President, Alaska Fire Chiefs Association
(AFCA), after noting that he is also the fire chief for the City
of Fairbanks, relayed that the AFCA is very supportive of SB 84.
The main goal of the [AFCA] is to reduce the number of fire-
related deaths in Alaska. Cigarettes are the leading cause of
home fire fatalities in the U.S., killing 700-900 people -
smokers and non-smokers alike - per year. In Alaska, there have
been approximately four such deaths per year; in fact, during
the last 10 years, there have been 37 [cigarette-related] fire
fatalities . In 2003, [cigarette-related] structure fires
killed 760 people and injured 1,520 others in the U.S., and
there were 5 such fatalities in Alaska. One-quarter of
[cigarette-related] fire fatalities were not the smokers whose
cigarettes started the fires: 34 percent of those fatalities
were the children of those smokers, 24 percent were the
neighbors and friends of those smokers, 14 percent were the
spouses/partners of those smokers, and 13 percent were the
parents of those smokers.
MR. CUMMINGS relayed that research conducted in the mid-80s by
the NFPA predicted that fire safe cigarettes would eliminate
three out of four cigarette-related fire deaths. If cigarette
manufactures had begun producing only fire safe cigarettes at
that time, an estimated 15,000 lives would have been saved in
the U.S., and, during the last 10 years, 27 of the
aforementioned 37 fatalities would still be alive. In
conclusion he said that the AFCA encourages the committee to
move SB 84 forward and support it on the House floor.
4:06:09 PM
MARIE DARLIN, Coordinator, AARP Capital City Task Force, relayed
that the AARP supports SB 84 and is looking at trying to prevent
the deaths that are caused by cigarette-related fires. She
remarked on the dangers that firefighters are subject to because
of cigarette-related fires, and noted that one of the other
people who came to testify but couldn't because of a time
constraint had served as a firefighter for many years and would
have been able to give a detailed description of what
firefighters find at such fires. After referring to the
aforementioned recent fire in Juneau, she opined that if there
is something that can be done to address this problem, it should
be done.
4:07:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to report CSSB 84(JUD) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSB 84(JUD) was
reported from 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
4:08 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|