02/01/2001 01:07 PM House TRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
February 1, 2001
1:07 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Vic Kohring, Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Drew Scalzi
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Albert Kookesh
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 39
"An Act relating to registration of motor vehicles, to operating
a motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft while intoxicated, and
to driving with a cancelled, suspended, or revoked driver's
license; relating to duties of the division of alcoholism and
drug abuse regarding driving-while-intoxicated offenses; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 79
"An Act designating a portion of the Eagle River Loop Road as
the Eagle River Veterans' Memorial Highway."
- MOVED HB 79 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 55
"An Act regarding oil discharge prevention and cleanup involving
self-propelled nontank vessels exceeding 400 gross registered
tonnage and railroad tank cars and related facilities and
operations and requiring preparation and implementation of oil
discharge contingency plans for those nontank vessels and
railroad tank cars; amending the definition of 'response action'
that relates to releases or threatened releases of oil and
thereby amending the duties and liabilities of response action
contractors; authorizing compliance verification for nontank
vessels and for trains and related facilities and operations;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 39
SHORT TITLE:VEHICLE REGISTRATION/DWI/FORFEITURE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/10/01 0044 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/10/01 0045 (H) TRA, JUD, FIN
01/10/01 0045 (H) REFERRED TO TRANSPORTATION
02/01/01 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 79
SHORT TITLE:EAGLE RIVER VETERANS' MEMORIAL HIGHWAY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/19/01 0129 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/19/01 0129 (H) TRA
01/19/01 0129 (H) REFERRED TO TRANSPORTATION
02/01/01 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 55
SHORT TITLE:OIL DISCH PREVENTION: NONTANK VESSELS/RR
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/12/01 0070 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/12/01 0071 (H) TRA, RES, FIN
01/12/01 0071 (H) REFERRED TO TRANSPORTATION
01/23/01 (H) TRA AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 17
01/23/01 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTES(TRA)
01/25/01 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
01/25/01 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTES(TRA)
02/01/01 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 204
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 39 and HB 79.
CHRISTINE ROWINSKI
2358 Pruitt Lane
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 39.
AL NEAR
PO Box 80847
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 39.
DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Department of Law
PO Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position on HB 39 and
answered questions.
MARY MARSHBURN, Director
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration
3300B Fairbanks Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions concerning HB 39.
PAM WATTS, Director
Advisory Board of Alcoholism & Drug Abuse
PO Box 110608
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions relating to HB 39.
CINDY CASHEN, Member
MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving)
211 4th Street Suite 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of MADD and herself in
support of HB 39.
DENNIS POSHARD, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801-7898
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position on HB 79 and
answered questions.
LARRY DIETRICK, Director
Division of Spill Prevention and Response
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1795
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of DEC in support of HB
55 and answered questions.
CHARLOTTE MACCAY, Senior Administrator
Environmental and Regulatory Affairs
Cominco Alaska Incorporated
1133 West 15th Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 55 regarding why private
industry would embrace more regulations.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-9, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR VIC KOHRING called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Kohring, Ogan, Scalzi,
Wilson, Masek, Kapsner, and Kookesh.
HB 39 - Vehicle Registration/DWI/Forfeiture
CHAIR KOHRING announced the first order of business, HOUSE BILL
39, "An Act relating to registration of motor vehicles, to
operating a motor vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft while
intoxicated, and to driving with a cancelled, suspended, or
revoked driver's license; relating to duties of the division of
alcoholism and drug abuse regarding driving-while-intoxicated
offenses; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0138
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
the bill, explained that HB 39 addresses what he believes is
part of the DWI [Driving While Intoxicated] problem in
Anchorage. He stated that there has been an increase of DWI
incidents in the past two years, especially this past summer.
Mayor Wuerch of Anchorage created a task force to address these
DWI issues. The forum, which included one of Representative
Kott's staff members, met this past summer. The task force,
along with public input from around the state (primarily the
Anchorage area), resulted in several recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said it was decided to include several of
these recommendations in a piece of legislation, which became HB
39. Since then, the bill has been reexamined in different areas
- in particular, the fiscal ramifications. The committee
substitute that has been provided to committee members is the
result of this examination.
Number 0320
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON made a motion to adopt the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 39, version 22-LS0201\C, Ford,
2/1/01, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version C
was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT explained he would take the committee
through the appropriate sections of Version C that have a
substantial impact on reducing the fiscal notes of the original
bill. He indicated there was probably justification as to why
the bill was pared down. There were three areas in the original
bill that were problematic. He stated that he did not want to
underestimate the DWI problems. However, he said it was going
to be a costly endeavor to accomplish the objectives in the
original bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT listed the first problem as dealing with
registration requirements. The original bill required that the
Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) would have access to criminal
records. It was discovered that currently, the DMV cannot
access these records. New software would have to be created to
"intertwine both of the databases." Another issue with
registration requirements is that there are third-party vendors
in this state that are authorized to register vehicles. It
would be "turning back the clock," if "we are trying to go to a
more privatized system of doing business." There would be no
way of requiring the private sector to develop or become part of
a new software package in order to access vehicle and criminal
records. Therefore, this section of the bill was removed.
Number 0416
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said the second part of the bill that was
removed was the piece dealing with confiscation of vehicles. It
was recognized that this would be overly burdensome, would be
extremely expensive, and could not be implemented on a statewide
basis due to logistics (rural versus urban areas). He
mentioned that there would be inequities even in urban areas.
For example if someone, "was driving a $25,000 Cadillac and had
it confiscated, it would be a little different than if someone
were driving a $200 junker and had that confiscated."
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT specified the third area that was removed
was the "look back" provision. Currently in the state statute,
it is considered a felony when someone receives a third DWI in a
five-year period. The "look back" provision would have changed
this sentencing part of the DWI law. It would have stated that
if someone received a third DWI, it would be considered a felony
regardless of the time period. If this provision was kept in
the bill, "numbers from the department showed that we would need
another 800 beds immediately and another 800 prosecutions."
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated that Version C is what remains after
the three areas were taken out of the bill. He said that even
though this is: "not entirely where we want to go [in dealing
with DWI problems], ... I think there will be some additional
inclusions as we move through the process and marry it up with
other pieces of legislation."
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT pointed out that requiring proof of
insurance before registering a vehicle, which is left in the
bill, is "number one." Currently, all one does is say, "Yes,
I've got proof of insurance." This change would be more
proactive. One would have to provide either his or her
insurance card or a copy of the insurance policy before the
vehicle was registered.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT commented that a victim in a DWI accident
suffers from pain and its consequences. If the perpetrator does
not have insurance, the victim's problems become extremely
compounded. This portion of the bill [proof of insurance to
register a vehicle] may be able to resolve this part of the
problem. He pointed out "someone could get insurance one day
and get their vehicle registered the next day and turn around
and have it removed." However, he said, [Alaska is] headed in a
positive direction in dealing with DWI.
Number 0663
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if this bill required someone to have
his or her proof of insurance in hand when registering a
vehicle.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT confirmed Representative Ogan's statement.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if it has been considered a
requirement to carry proof of insurance on demand of an officer.
Number 0702
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT responded that he believed state law
required that one carry his or her insurance card in one's
vehicle.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the Department of Public Safety
could testify on this issue. He suggested that the committee
consider the requirement of drivers having to show a police
officer a driver's license, registration, and proof of
insurance, if pulled over. He stated that there are many people
who drive without insurance, which is tremendous exposure to
other people.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT concurred that this was a problem. He said
that police officers in Anchorage have told him that if someone
is stopped for a traffic violation and issued a ticket,
oftentimes the ticket states that the person will have to
provide proof of insurance when paying his or her ticket. He
commented that having to carry an insurance card might not be a
good idea. Oftentimes, the insurance card is misplaced.
Ideally, the insurance card would be attached to one's
registration, but some people misplace it and put it somewhere
else.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented that when registering a car, the
person signs a sworn statement, under the felony of perjury,
that he or she has insurance, and will maintain it the entire
time the vehicle is registered. It can be possible for someone
to get away without registering his or her car, especially if
the car is not used often.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT concurred with Representative Ogan's
comments. It has been suggested that 20 percent of drivers do
not have insurance. These drivers either did not have
insurance, signed the statement falsely or had their insurance
dropped (due to request or other reasons).
Number 0980
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked about showing proof of insurance
during online renewals of vehicle registrations.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated that he did not know if this [online
vehicle registration] was available. If it was, there would be
a statement stating that proof of insurance is required to
register a vehicle. At some point, online registration would
include something like the Permanent Fund Dividend
[application], where one can apply online and receive something
in the mail to sign and send back. He suggested that when the
department generates regulations, it [department] could
implement a section that may require one to fax or mail a copy
of the insurance policy or card.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT suggested leaving it up to the department to
decide how to implement online vehicle registration and deal
with receiving a signature. He has given the department
latitude, which would be reflected in any regulations that were
published for public comment.
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING noted that the committee is working off a
committee substitute that was adopted [Version C]. Its intent
was to lower the fiscal note, which is now zero.
Number 1000
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH asked if there was a definition of the
word "vehicle" in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT confirmed that there was a definition.
Number 1051
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked if Section 3, subparagraphs (C),
(D), and (F), from the original bill have been taken out of
Version C.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT confirmed that those sections were removed.
He said, "We are back to status quo as it currently exists in
state statute."
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING asked if liability was the primary focus
in this legislation.
Number 1091
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated that Section 2 in Version C, which
deals with the third offense felony provision, says "Treatment
required under this subsection shall occur, as much as possible,
while the person is incarcerated." He said that it would be
left up to the individual's location as to whether or not those
services are available in his or her communities. Therefore,
there is some discretion in "what has to be done and how much
has to be done." To conclude, Section 3: "pulls this unit
together, something similar to the Mayor's Task Force, and
they're responsible for periodically looking over the DWI
statutes, trying to come up with a better 'mousetrap.'"
REPRESENTATIVE KOHRING reiterated that part of the bill's intent
was to get the cost to virtually zero. He stated that the
committee did not receive a fiscal note for Version C.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT explained that during the re-examination of
the bill, he essentially removed sections that had a significant
fiscal impact on Alaska. Therefore, he does not think there are
any costs associated with Version C. If there were any costs,
they would be so minimal that the fiscal note could be zero. He
deferred to the department to comment on the fiscal note as
well.
Number 1208
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON referred to Section 2, asking about
funding of the treatment.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said the costs would stay the same.
Currently, he believes that the state funds the incarceration
and treatment of offenders. He commented that some states,
which have "wellness courts", have been using prescription drugs
as treatment. Someone might lose his or her desire for alcohol
from using this drug, which costs ninety-nine dollars for a
month's supply.
Number 1266
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER asked for a definition of a motor
vehicle. She asked if a motor vehicle means a registered motor
vehicle or includes a four-wheeler and snow machine. She went
on to say that the bill included aircraft and watercraft. She
said that she could not "think of a time on the ... Yukon where
somebody has been in a skiff and had a DWI for being under the
influence," while driving a watercraft.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT commented that someone could be convicted of
a DWI if riding a skiff under the influence of alcohol. He said
that the only area dealing with watercraft that is not contained
in state statute is jet skis. This is an area that is being
looked into to change.
Number 1374
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked Representative Kott to expand on the
phrase "the public" that is in Section 3, line 8, of Version C.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT explained that "the public" was included in
the legislation because the majority of membership in the task
force (formed by Mayor Wuerch of Anchorage) was from the public.
They came from a "variety of circles." This included people
from the beverage industry, MADD [Mothers Against Drunk
Driving], and individuals that had an interest in trying to curb
drinking and driving. He said it was imperative to "keep this
candle lit." The public has made a sizeable impression in the
Anchorage area, and it is important to keep the group going and
not blow out the "flame."
Number 1374
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked, if "the public" is not included,
whether it is possible that the municipalities/boroughs could
form their own organizations in putting a task force together to
work with agencies of the state. She asked if it is "really
necessary" to include the public in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT declared that it is necessary to include the
public in the bill, since right now any borough or
community/municipality has the ability to create a task force on
areas such as public safety and transportation. Putting the
public in the bill means that these task forces would have to
include the public. This is appropriate since the public is,
"crying out for a solution and I think they ought to be part of
the solution. The public's input is essential; that's how we
test the waters."
CHRISTINE ROWINSKI, representing herself, testified that she is
disappointed that there is not a better bill. However, she
said, "We need to support what's left of this bill, but we need
improvement in a lot of other places."
AL NEAR, representing himself, gave the following testimony:
I'm here to speak to several of the parts of the bill
that are no longer in existence. I was feeling very
positive about HB 39 when I read it over, especially
after looking at a report from this task force group
in Anchorage. I felt there was great promise here for
doing something to actually have a positive effect on
reducing the fatalities on our highways by drunk
driving.
I think (indisc.--coughing) when looked at the paper
and noticed what happens in cases in drunk driving,
you can come to the same conclusion as I have, that
almost all of the highway fatalities are caused by
repeat offenders. What we have to do is find a way of
controlling the situation.
One of the ways that has always appeared to me to be
viable was to take away their weapons, and now in HB
39 we have that promise, we might be able to that. It
doesn't look like it's going to be the case. It
appears that all we have left now is some possibility
of guaranteed insurance when someone registers their
car. But so far I haven't found a policy yet that
will actually bring people back to life. So I don't
think what we're doing here is really serving the
purposes that were set forth by the task force
committee at all. Thank you.
Number 1596
DEAN GUANELI, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Criminal
Division, Department of Law, referred to Representative Kott's
comments by saying "there is a lot of interest in drunk driving
and the tragedy that it creates on our highways." There have
been many bills introduced, including a few sponsored by
Representative Kott. The administration has attempted to take a
coordinated approach to the problem of drinking and driving.
The administration had been working closely with "the speaker"
[Representative Porter] and the House Judiciary Standing
Committee chairman to try to put together a "package, something
that would comprehensively address the problem." He stated that
he wanted to describe what the administration's approach [on
drunk driving] is and then speak on HB 39.
MR. GUANELI stated that one component is prevention. This would
include "fixing the problem of minor consuming." The Alaska
Supreme Court has ended the "use it, lose it" program, in which
minors would lose their driver's licenses if they drink. The
administration thinks there needs to be changes with the minor
consuming law. He stated there also needs to be changes
regarding the bootlegging laws, to make it easier to address
bootlegging in rural Alaska. He said this is an important part
of a preventative effort.
Number 1702
MR. GUANELI specified another aspect of the administration's
approach as intervention in drunk driving. He stated that this
includes having .08 BAC (blood alcohol concentration) as the
triggering level for drunk driving prosecution.
MR. GUANELI said that "we are going to be forced into doing it
by the federal level or we are going to lose a lot of money."
Testimony in the House Judiciary Standing Committee explained
that right now there is about $850,000 a year in federal
incentives available if the BAC is lowered to .08. In a couple
of years, if the BAC is not lowered to .08, Alaska will have to
pay more than $850,000 in penalties a year.
MR. GUANELI said that another aspect of intervention is
treatment of third-time offenders. Currently, the "look-back"
provision to determine if offenders have had three drunk driving
convictions is five years. There have been a lot of proposals
to extend this "look back" period. He said this is an area that
needs to be looked at in a coordinated approach.
MR. GUANELI named treatment as the next part of the
administration's approach. He stated that there is a provision
for treatment in HB 39. The administration believes what is
required is a formal assessment of the needs of any drunk
driving offenders, clinically appropriate treatment on that
assessment of needs, and perhaps treatment in lieu of going to
jail to reduce the fiscal impact on the Department of
Corrections. He said there need to be some "technical fixes" to
make it easier for everyone to get access to past treatment
records. This would make it easier to determine what someone's
treatment needs are.
MR. GUANELI said another part of treatment is wellness courts or
therapeutic courts. He mentioned that Representative Kott was
very interested in this issue and had asked the Department of
Law to help draft a bill in that regard.
MR. GUANELI said his message is that the administration is
trying to take a coordinated approach to look at all of the
bills globally for prevention, intervention, and treatment
purposes. He stated that the administration is trying to do
this in a way that the cost to the Department of Corrections
will not be increased greatly. He said that in order to improve
treatment there is going to be some cost for health and social
services.
MR. GUANELI mentioned that another aspect of a coordinated
approach was increasing revenues, possibly increasing alcohol
taxes. He said that Representative Kott has asked the
administration to work with the House Judiciary Standing
Committee chairman to try to deal with these issues.
MR. GUANELI commented that although items have been taken out of
the original bill, he believes that all of those items are in
another bill. He said that he thought all of these issues would
be discussed at the appropriate time.
MR. GUANELI remarked that he hoped that Mary Marshburn from the
Division of Motor Vehicles [DMV] would be available to answer
questions regarding insurance and registration aspects of HB 39.
He said that the DMV may have some concerns regarding how to
logistically carry out this part of the bill.
Number 1847
MR. GUANELI stated that Candy Brower from the Department of
Corrections was available to answer any specific questions about
the section of HB 39 that deals with the Department of
Corrections. He said that the Department of Corrections feels
it has very limited funds available for treatment in its
facilities. In order to do an adequate job of treating alcohol
offenders, there needs to be more in the way of treatment.
MR. GUANELI said that this is a question of what is an
appropriate time frame to receive treatment. He said that for
many drunk-driving sentences, three days is a standard for a
first offense, and twenty days for a second offense. He stated
that it is "really questionable" whether someone can get
effective treatment in that length of time. Therefore, it is
necessary to do something afterwards as a condition of
probation. He suggested that for longer sentences, it might be
appropriate to begin treatment in the facility and follow up
afterwards. He said there needs to be coordination by the
Department of Corrections and the Department of Health and
Social Services in looking at the entire area of treatment of
these DWI offenders.
MR. GUANELI referred to the last portion of the bill,
(coordinating with the public and collecting statistics) by
stating that the Department of Public Safety along with other
departments can speak on this. He said that he wanted to give
the committee a sense of the "big picture." He said that the
administration is actively working with Representative Kott and
the House Judiciary Standing Committee chair. He stated that
they are very hopeful that there will be meaningful progress
[with DWI legislation] this session.
Number 1916
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if the forfeiture [of a motor vehicle]
in the original bill was after the first DWI offense.
MR. GUANELI replied that the forfeiture was after the second
offense.
Number 1983
MARY MARSHBURN, Director, Division of Motor Vehicles, Department
of Administration, responded to Representative Kapsner's comment
concerning DWI and watercraft. She said that licenses have been
revoked due to DWI on a watercraft.
MS. MARSHBURN responded to the question of the definition of a
motor vehicle. She said the definition of a motor vehicle does
not include a watercraft; a watercraft has a separate
definition. In terms of insurance, she said that the analysis
section of the original fiscal note that the DMV submitted
states, "The insurance requirement would have no fiscal impact
because the current program of self-certification could
continue." She said the DMV's interpretation of HB 39 was that
it would allow the division to continue the self-certification
provision, which goes back to AS 28.10.021 (a)(2) of the
statute. This would require the division to include self-
certification and to have a "checkbox" for people to complete
that in turn would allow the division to use faster, more
convenient, registration venues such as the Internet and IVR
[Interactive Voice Response].
MS. MARSHBURN said that in regard to requiring something other
than self-certification such as an insurance card or copy of an
insurance policy, this would impact the division. It would
require a fiscal note.
MS. MARSHBURN explained that registration for vehicles lasts for
two years, and car insurance normally runs for six months to a
year. Therefore, the two do not match. Second, proof of
insurance is only good for as long as the individual does not
cancel the insurance. She stated:
For example, I can call my insurance company today,
order insurance, and cancel it three days or a month
from now, and the fact that I have a card is not truly
proof of that insurance.
MS. MARSHBURN explained that other states have found that it
[proof of insurance for vehicle registration] is an additional
paperwork burden. This does not go a great distance towards
assuring mandatory insurance. The International Institute of
Insurance Association states that two most reliable ways to
ensure that people carry insurance are third-party electronic
verification (an expensive program) and self-certification.
Self-certification is Alaska's program. She quoted the national
average for uninsured motorists as 14 percent in a state.
Alaska's rate for 2000 was also 14 percent.
Number 2202
CHAIR KOHRING reiterated that the fiscal note before the
committee is reflective of the original legislation, not Version
C. Therefore, the new fiscal note might be zero or a small,
positive amount.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked how vehicle renewal online would work
in regard to proof of insurance.
MARY MARSHBURN stated that vehicle renewal online would require
that paperwork be sent in. She reiterated that vehicle
registration is for two years at a time, and insurance coverage
is generally for six months at a time, one year at the most.
Therefore, this problem would need to be dealt with. Second,
"on the DMV end of things, it would require human intervention
to 'marry that up' with the online or telephone registration."
Currently, this is a completely automated process; there is no
human intervention.
CHAIR KOHRING recommended holding HB 39 over to Tuesday. He
stated that the committee can address any additional fiscal
notes and analysis and can move the bill out if that is the will
of committee.
Number 2300
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked about the rate of success for
someone who is forced into treatment versus the rate of success
for someone who goes into treatment willingly.
Number 2365
PAM WATTS, Director Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse,
stated that she believed virtually the entire treatment field
would support the understanding that the recovery rate is almost
the same for people who are forced into treatment as people who
go voluntarily. Almost no one goes into treatment voluntarily.
Most people go into treatment under duress through the legal
system, their families, or some other external, environmental
reason. She said:
Granted, a lot of people say if you don't want to go
into treatment that you can't really recover, but the
point is that most people don't want to enter
treatment. At some point they do have to make a
decision to pursue recovery, but it's not necessary at
the time they enter treatment.
Number 2396
CINDY CASHEN, Member, MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), read
the following testimony:
My name is Cindy Cashen and I am a member of Mother's
Against Drunk Driving, otherwise known as MADD. For
the record, I went in to rehab [rehabilitation]
against my will, and it's working for me, and it's
been almost five years. So it does work even when you
don't want it to.
I have some photos I wish to show you. I have these
photos before you to show how drunk driving can kill
anyone, and how this could be anyone's car, or
anyone's truck, or anyone's water bottle, or anyone's
blood. These photos were taken at a scene, at a
drunk-driving crash scene on April 19 on the Kenai
Highway. It took the life of my father, Ladd
Macaulay, the life of his boss, Martin Richards, and
severely injured Steve McGee, who was sitting next to
Martin. This is my dad and this is Martin.
What I'm trying to show is that these pictures look
like anyone's car or anyone's truck, anyone's water
bottle or anyone's blood. It can happen to anyone. I
thought because I was sober maybe my family was saved
- maybe it wouldn't happen to us. I never really
thought it out loud but in my mind, subconsciously, I
did, because that was one of my first reactions when I
found out that my father was killed by a drunk driver.
I want to thank you for letting me have this
opportunity to speak about House Bill 39. I sincerely
appreciate the time you are taking to listen to
someone such as I struggle to put into words the
enormous effect this bill could have if it were to
pass. I need to inform you that some days are harder
than others, some hours are more difficult than
others, and unfortunately today is one of them. A
victim does not get to pick when he or she feels the
pain of loss at its greatest. I hope you will have
patience with me if at times I have difficulty
speaking.
The bill I'm going to talk about is the original bill.
I was caught unprepared for the amended bill. But I
feel that what I have to say on behalf of MADD and on
behalf of victims throughout Alaska is important
enough for me to continue saying this as it's
informative and its educational.
MADD supports House Bill 39 because MADD advocates
confiscating (or impounding) vehicles or plates from
the vehicles of habitually impaired drivers or those
who drive while under driver's license suspension or
revocation, where the suspension or revocation was the
result of driving under the influence or any other
alcohol related-driving offense.
Yesterday I brought over to your aides more than 50
pages of studies and statistics from MADD, which I
hope will help you.
There are two studies regarding vehicle impoundment -
one from California and one in New York. When the
vehicle impoundment law was passed in California, DWI
fatalities were reduced between 1995 and 1996 by 44
percent. In 1995 there were 1,484 deaths due to drunk
driving. In 1996 that had gone down to 837. In El
Monte, California, in 1997 the fatality/injury
collisions were reduced by 35 percent.
Both first-time and repeat offenders whose vehicles
were impounded had fewer crashes. There was a 25
percent reduction for first-time offenders and a 38
percent reduction for repeat offenders in California
once this law was passed.
I've also included a study by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration about the impact the
impoundment law had on motorists caught driving
without a valid license. In California, people are
almost four times more likely to be in a fatal crash
if driving around without a license or valid license
than those who do have one. First-time offenders,
when this law went into effect, had a 25 percent
reduction and repeat offenders a 38 percent reduction.
Obviously, this law has had a serious impact on not
only first-time offenders but the chronic drunk
drivers, the high-risk drivers who traditionally have
been resistant to change. Those are the drivers we
have a major problem with in Alaska.
In 1999 in New York there was a 14.3 percent decrease
in total drunk driving arrests when this law came into
effect. The DWI-related accidents between February 22
to April 12,1998 and then February 22 to April 12,
1999, a six-week study, showed over a 29 percent
decrease immediately. The law went into effect
February 21, so they did a quick six-week study, and
already it went down 29 percent. Twenty-nine percent
fewer people were injured because this law was put
into effect. This statute has been upheld by both the
New York State Court of Appeals and federal appellate
courts.
In 1998, as part of the TEA-21 Restoration Act
[Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century], a
new federal program was established to encourage
states to address the problem of the repeat
intoxicated driver. To comply with Section 164, the
state's law must require that certain sanctions must
be imposed on persons convicted more than once within
a five-year period of driving while intoxicated or
driving under the influence of alcohol (DWI/DUI).
One of the sanctions that must be imposed is that all
motor vehicle[s] of repeat intoxicated drivers be
impounded or immobilized for some period of time
during the driver's license suspension period, or that
an ignition interlock system be installed on all motor
vehicles of such drivers for some period of time after
the end of the suspension period.
States that do not meet the Section 164 requirements
will have a portion of federal highway construction
funds redirected into other state safety activities,
beginning in fiscal year 2001, this year.
In addition, TEA-21 modified the Section 410 grant
program. Under the program, as modified by TEA-21,
states that qualify for a basic grant may also qualify
for supplemental grant funds by meeting one or more of
the six criteria. One of the six criteria is a
program to reduce driving with a suspended driver's
license.
In order to qualify for a supplemental grant under
this criteria, a state must impose one of the
following sanctions on individuals convicted of
driving after their license has been suspended for an
alcohol-related offense: suspension of the offender's
vehicle registration and return of license plates,
impoundment, immobilization, forfeiture or
confiscation of the offender's motor vehicles, or use
of distinctive plates on the offender's motor vehicle.
TAPE 01-9, SIDE B
Number 2264
As far as the cost to make this bill possible, MADD is
strongly endorsing an alcohol excise tax. As well,
Fairbanks currently operates an impoundment program
with great success, with an automatic administrative
fee to cover the necessary paper [work] and
administrative work that is required. Anchorage does
this as well. I mentioned Fairbanks in particular
because we're looking at Juneau doing this. The
municipalities are not eager to do this unless there
is a law that the legislators pass, making them do it.
They won't do it unless you tell them to do it.
MADD feels this bill, the original bill, would be part
of the answer to Alaska's Drunk Driving problem.
While MADD realizes this is only part of the puzzle,
we need all of the pieces in place before we can begin
to accomplish the job of preventing drunk driving.
Would this bill have saved my Dad and Martin's life?
I'll never know. Will it save other lives? Yes. Is
this a bill which works for the good of the people?
Yes. Will it prevent unnecessary deaths and injuries?
Yes. Do I or does MADD want anyone else to suffer as
I am suffering? No. MADD encourages you and I ask
you to please pass this life-saving bill, and once
again, I am talking about the original bill, not this
other piece. That's all I have to say. Thank you
very much.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON asked Cindy Cashen to recite the part of
her testimony dealing with impounding and immobilization.
MS. CASHEN reiterated that states had to meet one of six
[criteria to qualify for supplemental grant funds under TEA-21
Restoration Act]. These are suspension of the offender's
vehicle registration and return of license plates, impoundment,
immobilization, forfeiture or compensation of the offender's
motor vehicle or the use of distinctive plates on the offender's
motor vehicle.
Number 2148
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN remarked that the use of distinctive plates
is similar to the situation in the Scarlet Letter. The use of
plates suggests public shame and can also be used as an
identification means for police officers. He asked if this was
the idea behind the distinctive plates.
MS. CASHEN replied that findings in states that have used
distinctive plates show that the amount of chronic drunk drivers
decreases. They are less likely to get into a car that is
marked by a red tag or "zebra" plate. If a person with
distinctive plates still chooses to drink and drive, people on
the road are more apt to watch these drivers. If they notice
drunk driving, they will call the police. Ms. Cashen said,
"MADD does not go after the driver; we go after the choice."
There are many "fine" people who have chosen to drink and drive.
Ms. Cashen disclosed that she is one of those people. She
asked: if she were convicted of drunk driving and given a
distinctive license plate, would her drinking and driving habits
change? She said she did not know but said she would "seriously
think about it."
Number 2099
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented that there seem to be ways around
it [driving with a distinctive plate]. For instance, the
"chronic drunk driver" can register his or her car under another
name or simply borrow someone's car. But people who are
drinking and driving aren't using the intelligence that they do
have. Representative Ogan remarked that if he had a problem
with drinking and driving and decided to go out and a "party,"
he would probably not take a car that had distinctive plates.
However, chronic drunk drivers are "not making good choices
anyway, so maybe they would be dumb enough to do it." He stated
that he did not think the distinctive plates would be a big
deterrent for drunk drivers.
MS. CASHEN replied:
When a chronic drunk driver goes out to drink, he
doesn't really think that, first off, he's going to
kill anyone, and he doesn't go out thinking that he's
going to drive home drunk. He thinks he's just going
to have one or two and then go home. It's really not
the plan that I'm going to go out and get totally
wasted and then try to drive.
Number 2024
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated that he wanted to make it clear to
the House Transportation Standing Committee that the committee
substitute that was introduced and adopted [Version C] should
not be taken as indicative of his being soft on DWI. This
committee has the prerogative to pass out the original version
of the bill. He said he would "certainly be amenable to that."
The reason for the CS being introduced was the question of
whether the best way to spend $40 million state dollars in the
DWI "entanglement." If the committee thinks it is the best way
to spend state dollars, then Representative Kott said he is
"more than willing to ride the horse to the trough."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented that he came into the meeting with
concerns that HB 39 was too tough. However, the new version of
the bill is too soft. He asked if there was a way the committee
could explore some of the ideas that MADD presented. He
suggested that the committee look for ways that the perpetrator
of the crime can bear the cost of impoundment rather than the
state. He recommended "serious fines" for vehicle impoundment,
which would reduce the fiscal note. This would also be a step
in getting drunk drivers who are "killing people, off the road
and reach the folks that don't seem to get it."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN also suggested exploring these issues
further through a subcommittee or the sponsor, to expedite this
legislation. He stated that he believed committees should do as
much of the work as possible in the committee unless there is
total agreement on an issue that is going to happen at the next
meeting.
CHAIR KOHRING asked Representative Kott if he would be open to a
subcommittee to explore these possibilities.
Number 1886
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT remarked that he is "certainly amenable" to
whatever the committee would like to do. However, he cautioned
the committee that if they explore this issue too long, the
objective, "to get something on the table this year," will be
missed. House Bill 39 is a small piece of meeting this
objective, whether the committee goes with the original or a
scaled down version. At some point, all of the pieces of
legislation directed towards resolving or at least mitigating
the DWI problem in this state are going to "marry it up."
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT assured the committee that there would be
tough laws dealing with DWI. He stated that he did not know
what the cost of these laws would be. It could be in the
hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the approach the
legislature takes. The legislature will have to decide if they
want to "approach the problem from the front end or the back
end." They will also have to examine treatment options such as
wellness courts, which seem to be working in other states, and
decide if those are going to be included in legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated that he was fine if the committee
wanted to study and explore other ideas. But he did not "want
to miss the opportunity to get together [with the committee]
towards the final stages and make a determination on what we
want to see included and what is the best use of the available
funds that we have at our disposal."
Number 1820
CHAIR KOHRING commented that HB 39 might not be an encompassing
bill that the House Transportation Standing Committee ultimately
would like to see passed. However, this bill is a good start
and has good provisions that would behoove us [the state] to put
it into a law. He proposed that the committee move the bill
upon receipt of the fiscal note and sectional analysis. He also
suggested a subcommittee be formed afterwards to explore
legislation that the House Transportation Standing Committee
itself could advance.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT remarked that another objective he had was
to get the discussion moving ahead, since pieces of legislation
were sitting idle. He mentioned that some of the testimony
heard today was noteworthy.
Number 1778
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON stated, "Anybody would be absolutely crazy
not to realize that we do have a problem and we need to do
something." She went on to say that she knows people who have
had their driver's licenses taken away due to DWIs. This is an
issue that needs to be dealt with. She stated that if someone
in her family were killed due to someone drinking, spending $40
million for a bill would seem well worth it. She said it is a
shame when the committee agrees on an issue but the funding
concerns hinders the process. She commented that she does not
know the answer to this dilemma but that the committee needs to
be serious about these issues. She asked what committee the
bill goes to next.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said this bill would go on to the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON suggested the committee move the bill with
a recommendation that it needs more work.
Number 1713
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN declared that he did not think he could
support the passage of House Bill 39 in its present form. He
stated that the committee substitute does not do enough. He
suggested the committee have a work session where the committee
would hear from the public and experts. This session would also
be a time in which the committee could see what measures of the
original bill can be imposed without such a large fiscal note.
This would enable the committee to pass the cost on to the
perpetrators of the crimes.
Number 1668
CHAIR KOHRING stated that HB 39 would be held over until
Tuesday. He asked the sponsor of the bill to address the
committee's concerns at the next meeting. He said that he liked
the idea of putting some "real teeth into this thing," in regard
to putting the onus on the perpetrators. He stated that the
cost of the bill should be passed on as much as realistically
possible to the perpetrators, rather than the state's general
fund. This would serve a "two-fold purpose." It would keep the
fiscal note low, and it might provide the incentive needed to
let these people, "who get behind the wheel in a drunken state,"
know that what they are doing is wrong. It would also tell
these people that if they "are going to do that [drink and
drive], and commit a crime in the course of your intoxication,
you're going to pay a severe penalty." [HB 39 was held over.]
HB 79 - Eagle River Veterans' Memorial Highway
CHAIR KOHRING announced the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL 79, "An Act designating a portion of the Eagle River Loop
Road as the Eagle River Veterans' Memorial Highway."
Number 1532
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
the bill, explained that HB 79 is simply naming a portion of
Eagle River Loop Road. For those familiar with Eagle River and
the Glenn Highway area, the portion being named starts at the
overpass (at the Anchorage Landfill) and ends at the corner of
the intersection of Eagle River Road and Eagle River Loop Road
(where Wal-Mart stands). Representative Kott also mentioned
that one of the newer roads in the Eagle River Area was actually
an extension of the Eagle River Loop Road and that a portion of
this highway is designated at 55 miles per hour.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT commented that this bill is a way of
honoring the men and women who have served our country. He went
on to say, "We are always looking at taking care of our veterans
as best we can with the limited resources that we have
available." This is one way, with zero costs, of showing
gratitude to those who have fought and died while protecting our
freedoms. Alaska has a large number of veterans, when one takes
into consideration active duty members, reserves, and the
International Guard. Currently, Alaska ranks second per capita,
behind Wyoming. The Eagle River/Chugiak Area has a particularly
high concentration of veterans in comparison to the rest of the
state. This bill provides a name for a portion of the Eagle
River Loop Road that runs through this area.
CHAIR KOHRING asked if the bill was referring to a co-naming or
a renaming of the road.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT confirmed that this bill is not renaming the
road. For example, if people were living on this portion of the
road, they would not have to change their post office address or
print new business cards.
CHAIR KOHRING asked if there was a fiscal note attached. He
also asked if the only additional signs that would be seen on
this road would be the blue ones.
CHAIR KOHRING stated that Dennis Poshard from the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities [sitting in the audience]
is in agreement about the blue signs.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated that he appreciated the committee's
consideration on this bill.
DENNIS POSHARD, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF),
stated that this is the second naming bill that has been before
the House Transportation Standing Committee this year. He said
that he has testified on naming bills for the past four years,
including one of Chair Kohring's bills the previous year.
MR. POSHARD voiced his concern that for the last seven years,
with the exception of last year, DOT&PF's maintenance budget has
been cut. Each year the department has additional burdens
placed upon it in terms of the amount of maintenance
responsibility it has.
MR. POSHARD stated that DOT&PF supports the legislature's right
and ability to name things. The DOT&PF supports HB 79 and
believes it to be a worthy cause.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if it has been a recent trend for the
legislature to name roads.
MR. POSHARD stated that in the four years that he has been
involved in this area, there have been at least three bills to
name roads each year. He pointed out that Titles 35-40 of the
statutes contain several locations that have been named through
the legislature, including bridges, various roads, and portions
of highways. The legislature has named locations for a long
time. Although there seems to be a small increase in the number
of naming bills each year, it is not a substantial increase.
CHAIR KOHRING noted that he appreciated the sponsor advancing
this bill; it is a fitting memorial for veterans.
Number 1293
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN made a motion to move HB 79 from committee
with attached fiscal notes and individual recommendations; he
requested unanimous consent. There being no objection, HB 79
moved out of the House Transportation Standing Committee.
HB 55 - OIL DISCH PREVENTION: NONTANK VESSELS/RR
CHAIR KOHRING announced the next order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 55, "An Act regarding oil discharge prevention and
cleanup involving self-propelled nontank vessels exceeding 400
gross registered tonnage and railroad tank cars and related
facilities and operations and requiring preparation and
implementation of oil discharge contingency plans for those
nontank vessels and railroad tank cars; amending the definition
of 'response action' that relates to releases or threatened
releases of oil and thereby amending the duties and liabilities
of response action contractors; authorizing compliance
verification for nontank vessels and for trains and related
facilities and operations; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR KOHRING called an at-ease at 2:20 p.m. The meeting was
called back to order at 2:22 p.m.
CHAIR KOHRING pointed out the letter given to committee members
from Larry Dietrick, director of the Division of Spill
Prevention and Response. He summarized concerns about HB 55
from the last meeting. The first issue was industry being
governed through the regulatory process. The next concern was
hiring new employees. He stated that Larry Dietrick has
specially addressed the employee issue in paragraph three [of
Mr. Dietrick's letter]. The last issue was the fiscal note.
Chair Kohring wondered what impact this program would have on
the 470 fund. The 470 fund consists of monies that are
generated into a special oil cleanup fund from North Slope Oil;
we receive 3 cents per barrel from that. The concern that the
amount of oil going through the pipeline is declining has a
direct impact on this program. He stated that there might not
be enough money to fund the various programs that are currently
relying on these monies. It would take a "third of a million
bucks" out of this particular fund for this legislation to be
enacted.
CHAIR KOHRING declared that he is not comfortable with the
information the committee has received. He explained that it
does not satisfy his quest for information concerning how this
bill would impact that fund and other programs that are relying
on it [the fund].
LARRY DIETRICK, Director, Division of Spill Prevention Response,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), explained that
the department [DEC] attempted to address some of the concerns
brought up at prior meetings. He mentioned that he appreciates
the deliberation and consideration the House Transportation
Standing Committee has given to House Bill 55.
MR. DIETRICK said in regard to the issue of long-term
sustainability, that the Department of Revenue has projections
for crude oil flow down the pipeline through 2010. The
Department [of Environmental Conservation] accepts these
projections "at face value" since they are the official source
for the state on oil flow through the pipe. He stated that when
one looks at the "out years" compared to the long-term cost of
the fiscal note, it comes to $141,500 a year. This current
estimate is roughly over 1 percent of the revenue generated by
the 3-cent surcharge. This enables the department to conclude
that HB 55 would be sustainable under a long-term forecast, at
least until 2010. This is the cost that would be in place after
going through the startup of the program in FY 03 and FY 04.
After that, the program would be in the steady state mode as
shown in the fiscal note.
CHAIR KOHRING asked Mr. Dietrick to address the employee issue
discussed in the third paragraph on page one of the letter.
Number 0242
MR. DIETRICK said the department understands the concern about
growth in state government. He said that the note has been
ratcheted [down] substantially since the task force made the
first estimates. He remarked that at this point, assumptions
that the task force envisions include the private sector
approach coming online. The department has modified its
assumptions to take into account that the spill cooperatives,
the incident management surfaces, the marine exchange, and the
ship's agents will provide the services that were envisioned by
the task force as being the way to get this legislation
implemented. As a result, the fiscal note will be cut back by
converting two employment positions to temporary ones. This is
a way of "providing a checkpoint. He said: "after we have FY 03
and 04, those positions won't linger on so to speak." The
positions would be changed to accommodate the peak workflow
period during the phase in of the program. It was also
recommended that the department take stock at the end of that
fiscal year, FY 04, and make adjustments as may be appropriate
based on the actual workload that comes in.
CHAIR KOHRING remarked that it was commendable that the
department lowered the number of employees from eight to two.
CHAIR KOHRING said in regard to regulation and industry that "we
were concerned that this might be a opening the door for
excessive oversight and control of the maritime industry." He
stated that this was brought to the committee's attention by
Representative Ogan and his recommendations.
Number 0352
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN brought attention to Amendment 1, labeled
22-LS0309\A.3, Chenoweth, 1/25/01, which read:
Page 1, following line 9:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska
is amended by adding a new section to read:
INTENT. It is the intent of the legislature that the
report of the Task Force on Motorized Oil Transport (sec.
5, ch. 128, SLA 2000), the documents the task force used in
preparing the report, and the transcripts of the task force
meetings be used by the Department of Environmental
Conservation as the guidelines for drafting regulations to
implement this legislation."
Page 1, line 10:
Delete "* Section 1."
Insert "* Sec. 2."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 6, line 13:
Delete "sec. 7"
Insert "sec. 8"
Page 6, line 14:
Delete "sec. 7"
Insert "sec. 8"
Page 6, line 17:
Delete "sec. 7"
Insert "sec. 8"
Page 6, line 18:
Delete "sec. 7"
Insert "sec. 8"
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN explained that Amendment 1 would essentially
codify the legislative intent into law. It would say that the
task force recommendations on motorized oil transport and the
documents used in preparing the report shall be used as
guidelines for drafting regulations to implement this
legislation. He suggested that this amendment would have more
force than a letter of intent. If there were regulations that
exceeded what the intentions of the task force and legislature
were, the industry would be able to make a case before a judge
that this was not the legislation's intent. He said that this
amendment makes him "a little bit more comfortable with the
bill." He mentioned that there seems to be broad support from
industry representatives for this amendment.
CHAIR KOHRING commented that he agrees with Representative
Ogan's thoughts on the intent of the amendment. He was
concerned that HB 55 would not be carried out as far as the
legislature's intent. He said that it is not that "we don't
trust the agency; it's just there might be a difference of
opinion as far as to what extent do we carry the regulatory
process."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN added to Chair Kohring's comments, "The
industry wants some rope to hang themselves. I'd like to give
them as little rope as possible; so they're asking for rope,
we'll give them rope, but no more than they need."
CHAIR KOHRING asked Mr. Dietrick if he had any problems with the
amendment.
MR. DIETRICK said the department concurs with the amendment.
The department participated in the task force on an "equal
footing basis" with the other members. Therefore, the task
force report is the department's instruction book for writing
the regulation. He said this was a good amendment and that the
department can support it.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN, in response to Representative Wilson,
explained that the amendment is not deleting any sections. It
is a technical change through renumbering. The amendment is
creating a new Section 1 [on line 3 of the amendment]. Line 12
of the amendment conforms the rest of the bill. "Delete
*Section 1." means delete the word and replace it with the word
"Section 2.," not the actual Section 1. He said that the
remainder of the amendment deals with renaming as well.
Number 0690
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 with
unanimous consent. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was
adopted.
CHAIR KOHRING stated that he does not want to move the bill out
of committee until his concerns in regard to projections for the
470-fund issue are addressed. He stated that he assumes the
Department of Environmental Conservation is currently working
with the Senate Finance Committee on this issue. He is
concerned that if the 470 fund is substantially depleted, it
will take away monies from important programs such as the
underground storage tank remediation program. People in the
Matanuska-Susitna area have used monies from this program to
help finance the replacement of underground storage tanks that
have leaked. He said that after the committee receives this
information on the 470 fund, they will proceed in possibly
moving HB 55 out of committee.
Number 0788
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI asked if the 3-percent surcharge, which
Mr. Dietrick mentioned earlier, is a new fee.
CHAIR KOHRING responded that it was a 3-cents-per-barrel
surcharge, as opposed to a percentage.
MR. DIETRICK explained that the 3-percent surcharge is 3 cents
per barrel on Alaska crude oil production. It was instituted at
5 cents a barrel as a result of the Exxon Valdez situation. It
was then changed and split from the 5-cent to the 2-cent and 3-
cent accounts in 1995.
REPRESENTATIVE SCALZI said he'd meant to ask if there was
additional revenue coming out of this. He asked for
clarification on Mr. Dietrick's estimate that 1 percent of the
standard surcharge for a barrel of oil would cover this cost.
MR. DIETRICK clarified that the 3-cent surcharge is the price
per barrel that flows through. He explained that the Department
of Revenue forecasts current production rates as the volume
through the pipe. It generates approximately between nine and
ten million dollars a year. In short, the $140,000 fiscal note
for this program is a percentage for the amount generated; the
9.4 million is a little over a percent of that revenue that is
generated from the 3-cent surcharge.
REPRESENTATIVE KOOKESH stated that his first impression was that
1 percent of the 3 percent was going to be taken out, not 1
percent of the total amount that is generated (140,000). He
said that it is only 1 percent of the nine-plus millions that
are generated; it would take 1 percent of the 3 percent, which
would be about three million dollars.
MR. DIETRICK apologized for any confusion on this issue. He
reiterated it was 1 percent of the total revenue generated.
CHAIR KOHRING thanked Mr. Dietrick for the letter. He stated
that substantial progress on HB 55 is being made, which is
encouraging.
CHARLOTTE MACCAY, Senior Administrator, Environmental and
Regulatory Affairs, Cominco Alaska Incorporated, noted that
she'd prepared comments to address the concern on why private
industry might be embracing more regulations. She read the
following testimony:
The Spot Charter Group has an interesting perspective
on non-tanker oil co-regulation. We do not have our
own vessels, nor do the vessels used spend much time
in Alaska waters. The vessels we use are chosen by
availability off the world market. (Indisc.)
depending on taking whichever vessels are available.
Often vessels only come to the same port one or two
times. The private industry ... using these vessels
has little control or influence on the vessels
preparing us for an oil spill or on our action during
a spill. We, however, are likely to hold a great
responsibility in the cleanup of any such spill.
We also have a public relations and ethical concern
regarding the potential for damage that can be caused
by the ships we bring into our port. The regulations
passed last session provided the users of the
(indisc.) that these vessels will be required to
(indisc.) adequate oil spill response.
The task force findings will provide us assurance that
these oil spills preparations will be adequate, very
feasible, very (indisc.) and most importantly,
effective. This is a (indisc.) that would have been
unlikely to be effectively provided by individuals
(indisc.) on a one-time basis on short notice. But
the task force findings provide for an agent to have
an incident management team and still refund the
contractor set up to place the specific oil spill
plan.
This way, the ship would often come on just a few days
notice and are able to sign into this plan and these
preparations in an expeditious manner while ensuring
they do have the resources and the authority to commit
those resources as needed. The task force also gave
recommendations that [provide] substantial reassurance
to the agents that they will not be held liable in the
consequence of providing these services; (indisc.)
they will have the incentive to provide these services
and the liabilities will remain with the ship.
Furthermore, by having a regulation in place, the
playing field is level in regards to (indisc.)
cognitive oil spill prevention. Without a regulation
in place, (indisc.) operators would take some of the
cost to replace at an economic disadvantage in the
competitive market. With the regulations in place as
well as the similar regulations already in place in
the other (indisc.), no operator will be put at an
economic disadvantage by being prepared for an oil
spill from these ships. Furthermore, there are many
options for (indisc.) including fleet plans (indisc.).
TAPE 01-10, SIDE A
Number 0001
MS. MACCAY concluded by urging that the task force
recommendations in this bill move forward. [HB 55 was held
over.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0050
CHAIR KOHRING adjourned the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting at 2:43 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|