Legislature(1993 - 1994)
01/21/1994 01:50 PM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
January 21, 1994
1:50 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman
Senator Dave Donley
Senator Suzanne Little
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Rick Halford, Vice-Chairman
Senator George Jacko
OTHERS PRESENT
Senator Johnny Ellis
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 13
Requesting the Congress of the United States to pass legislation to
permit the export of Alaska crude oil.
HOUSE BILL NO. 101
"An Act relating to the adoption of the National Electrical Code
and the National Electrical Safety Code."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SJR 13 - See Resources minutes dated 3/31/93.
See Judiciary minutes dated 1/21/94.
HB 101 - See Labor & Commerce minutes dated 3/23/93 and
4/13/93. See Judiciary minutes dated 4/28/93,
and 5/6/93.
WITNESS REGISTER
Donald G. Study, CSP, Director
Labor Standards & Safety
Department of Labor
P. O. Box 20630
Juneau, Alaska 99802-0630
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 101.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-2, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN ROBIN TAYLOR called the Judiciary Committee meeting to
order at 1:50 p.m.
SENATOR TAYLOR invited SENATOR ELLIS to introduce his resolution,
CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 13(RES) (EXPORT OF ALASKA OIL)
to committee.
SENATOR ELLIS explained lifting the ban on the export of Alaskan
crude was crucial to the future economic future of our state, and
he referred to the committee substitute as enumerating well and
clearly the benefits to the State of Alaska.
SENATOR ELLIS described a meeting in Washington, D.C. with some
Alaskan Legislators and people from the Department of Justice and
the Energy Department regarding the resolution. He said they were
in attendance when SECRETARY HAZEL O'LEARY made her announcement
about the full review despite opposition and intense pressure from
some members of Congress. SENATOR ELLIS reported she was moving
forward with a full objective review of the pros and cons for the
nation of lifting the ban, and they were assured PRESIDENT CLINTON
was willing to consider the benefits in the spirit of free trade,
NAFTA, and the Pacific Rim as a trading future.
SENATOR ELLIS explained the resolution calls on the Congress to
lift the ban and to support specific legislation before the
Congress to accomplish that goal. At a suggestion from SENATOR
DRUE PEARCE, SENATOR ELLIS had included language she wanted in the
resolution to call on the president to use his power under
Executive Order. He said it was a multi-purpose resolution calling
on both PRESIDENT CLINTON and the Congress to act together or
separately, whichever was the most expeditious.
SENATOR DONLEY moved to adopt the CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION
NO. 13(RES). Without objections, so ordered.
SENATOR LITTLE moved to pass CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO.
13(RES) (EXPORT OF ALASKA OIL) from committee with individual
recommendations. Without objections, so ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR introduced SENATE CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 101(L&C)
(NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE) sponsored by the House Labor and
Commerce Committee and asked for someone to testify on the bill.
Number 046
DONALD G. STUDY, Director of Labor Standards and Safety for the
Department of Labor, spoke in support of the bill, explaining it
had passed the House last session 37 to 3. He also explained it
would allow the Department of Labor to adopt the most recent
version of the National Electrical Code and the National Electrical
Safety Code, saying these codes had been adopted regularly since
1969.
Because the state had not adopted the most current code, MR. STUDY
described a problem with state oversight with the ALYESKA Pipeline.
He said the Department of Labor had been criticized by Congress for
not having proper oversight of the pipeline and not having the most
current electrical code to enforce the electrical work on ALYESKA.
SENATOR DONLEY asked, "So what? Is it all of a sudden unsafe?"
MR. STORY claimed there have been approximately 40,000 electrical
violations.
SENATOR DONLEY contended it had nothing to do with the codes.
MR. STORY agreed, but he said part of the criticism his department
had received was their lack of enforcement. He explained the
criticism could have been because they were enforcing the 1990 code
rather than the 1993 code.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked how the pipeline had gotten involved in the
code, and MR. STORY explained it was part of the oversight of the
pipeline over the past year plus the electrical problems that had
appeared.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. STORY if he was aware of any changes in
the 1993 code from any of the previous codes, that would mandate,
for example, the 40,000 repairs needed on the pipeline. He also
asked if the new code would require that repairs should be made
differently in the new code.
MR. STORY explained the new code would allow the use of new
technology, which did not exist in the older codes. They agreed
there would, also, be an effect because of the newer materials used
to do the repairs. MR. STORY said it gave more latitude on the
materials used in the repairs.
Number 092
SENATOR LITTLE approved of the manner in which the code was being
updated without specific action by the legislature. She thought
the code change should be made for the public safety, but she
questioned the three votes against the action in the House.
SENATOR DONLEY expressed his opposition to HB 101, because he
thought it is the role of the legislature to adopt these standards,
which he said would give the public adequate protection from an
over-zealous administration.
SENATOR DONLEY explained the codes in HB 101 were national codes,
might not be applicable to Alaska, and he cited a battle over the
use of plastic pipe, which was resisted by the trades-people in
Alaska. Later the national standards eliminated the plastic pipe,
because it was a poor idea, and communities all over the United
States were paying millions of dollars to replace the inadequate
pipe.
SENATOR DONLEY claimed the present Executive Branch has too much
power, and he did not approve of the delegation of additional power
to them. He thought the codes should be subject to approval by the
legislature.
However, SENATOR DONLEY did indicate his support for the 1993
standard of the National Electrical Code and the National
Electrical Safety Code, but he wanted to see the power preserved to
the legislative branch of government for the final approval.
SENATOR DONLEY complained the administration has been unresponsive
to his efforts over the years to adopt some controls over their
adoption of regulations. He said there was no adherence to the
checks and balances of the committee process or the public notices
for adopting regulations which have the effect of law. SENATOR
DONLEY suggested the three people in the House felt as he does on
his complaint. He explained it was his eighth year of opposing
regulations presented in this manner since he didn't trust them -
Republican or Democrat.
SENATOR DONLEY said he would vote to adopt the 1993 electrical code
if it was supported by the professional electrical representatives.
SENATOR LITTLE said if there was a problem with a specific
provision of the code relating to Alaska, the legislators would
know about it, and would be able to make corrective amendments.
SENATOR LITTLE empathized with SENATOR DONLEY'S concern for the
balance of power, but she thought, to not adopt the electrical code
in a timely manner, could endanger the public or not serve them as
well.
MR. STORY assured the committee that all regulations, which are
adopted, go through a public hearing process.
Number 141
SENATOR DONLEY outlined the problems he saw with the public hearing
process, and he accused the administration of ignoring the
suggestions from the public. He said it was nothing compared to
the legislative process of public hearings, and he considered it an
outrage.
SENATOR TAYLOR questioned the proposed Senate Judiciary committee
substitute. MR. STORY explained "shall" had been changed to "may"
on line 8 on page 1, and the word "immediately" was added to the
effective date on line 7, page 2.
SENATOR TAYLOR questioned whether this went from being a mandated
requirement on the department to being discretionary.
MR. STORY referred to a letter from an attorney, who questioned the
constitutionality of forcing the department to automatically adopt
the standard from a national third party.
SENATOR TAYLOR indicated this was part of SENATOR DONLEY'S concern.
MR. STORY agreed, and explained that some directives from the
national administration won't work in Alaska, and he thought there
needed to be public and professional oversight to catch and correct
problems.
SENATOR DONLEY paraphrased MR. STORY'S comments to signify the
administration was "jealously guarding their constitutional
authority to adopt regulations." He criticized the actions of the
attorney general as to the use of the word, may, instead of shall,
which he said was related to his earlier argument critical of the
power used by the administration to pass regulations.
Number 192
MR. STORY requested to read a letter received from PETER GINDER,
an attorney for the firm of KEMPPEL, HUFFMAN, AND GINDER, (255 E.
Fireweed, #200. Anchorage, AK 99503), which in part said: "I have
reviewed HB 101 as currently introduced and I have significant
reservations about the constitutionality of this legislation as
proposed. Basically the word, shall, at line 8 of HB 101 mandated
the adoption of future editions of SC. (Safety Code) This could be
seen as creating an unconstitutional delegation of legislative
authority to a non-governmental agency.
I believe this type of effort to more or less automatically adopt
future editions of the code has been attempted in the past, and has
met with adverse attorney general's opinions. Generally, the
utilities are in agreement that new editions of the code should be
adopted, but I do not think it is in anyone's interest ...
utilities of the State of Alaska that the adoption be subject to
challenges as unconstitutional."
SENATOR TAYLOR and SENATOR DONLEY agreed the argument runs both
ways, and SENATOR TAYLOR cited examples of this.
MR. STORY explained it was his idea to change "shall" to "may,"
because he said it was done automatically every three years.
SENATOR TAYLOR expressed understanding for both MR. STORY'S point
of view, and SENATOR DONLEY'S concerns. He thought the word, may,
provided him with enough wiggle room to feel more comfortable about
it, and he recalled a previous discussion a year ago when the bill
was first heard.
There being no further testimony on HB 101, the meeting was
adjourned at 2:09 p.m. by SENATOR TAYLOR.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|