Legislature(2009 - 2010)
03/24/2009 08:06 AM Senate L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Regulatory Commission of Alaska | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
SENATE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
8:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
SENATE LABOR AND COMMERCE
Senator Joe Paskvan, Chair
Senator Joe Thomas, Vice Chair
Senator Kevin Meyer
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE
Representative Kurt Olson, Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
SENATE LABOR AND COMMERCE
Senator Bettye Davis
Senator Con Bunde
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice Chair
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Bob Lynn
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Overview: Regulatory Commission of Alaska by Robert M. Pickett,
Chairman
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to consider
WITNESS REGISTER
ROBERT M. PICKETT, Chair
Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA)
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented RCA overview.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:06:00 AM
CHAIR JOE PASKVAN called the joint meeting of the Senate and
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committees to order at 8:06
a.m. Present at the call to order were Senators Meyer and
Paskvan and Representatives Holmes, Coghill, Buch, and Olson.
^Overview: Regulatory Commission of Alaska
REGULATORY COMMISSION OF ALASKA OVERVIEW
CHAIR PASKVAN announced the business before the committees is to
hear an overview from the Regulatory Commission of Alaska.
8:06:49 AM
ROBERT M. PICKETT, Chair, Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA),
presented the overview. He said the Commission was created in
1999 to regulate public utilities and pipeline carriers
throughout the state; it replaced the old Alaska Public
Utilities Commission. It has five commissioners appointed by the
Governor for a six-year term. He was elected chair of the
Commission in July 2008. The chairman is responsible for the
administrative functions of the agency and makes sure the work
flow continues; he is also the spokesperson for the Commission.
The Commission's authority comes from AS 42.05.990(a) that says
the RCA may do all things necessary or proper to regulate every
public utility engaged or proposing to engage in a utility
business inside the state.
8:09:19 AM
The definition of public utility is in AS 42.05.990(4) that says
a "public utility" or "utility" includes every corporation
whether public cooperative or otherwise, company individual, or
association of individuals, their lessees, trustees, or
receivers appointed by the court, that owns, manages or controls
any plant, pipeline or system for:
· (A) furnishing, by generation, transmission, or
distribution, electrical service to the public for
compensation;
· (B) deals with telecommunications, which he would answer
question on;
· (C) furnishing water, steam, or sewer service to the public
for compensation;
· (D) furnishing by transmission or distribution of natural
or manufactured gas to the public for compensation;
· (E) furnishing for distribution or by distribution
petroleum or petroleum products to the public for
compensation when the consumer has no alternative in the
choice of a comparable product at an equal or lesser price;
8:10:10 AM
The definition of "public" or "general public" is from AS
42.05.990(3) and says:
· (A) a group of 10 or more customers that purchase the
service or commodity furnished by a public utility;
· (B) one or more customers that purchase electrical service
for use within an area that is certificated to and
presently or formerly served by an electric utility if the
total annual compensation that the electric utility
receives for sales of electricity exceeds $50,000 - this
impacts some alternative energy projects that are out
there;
· (C) a utility purchasing the product or service or paying
for the transmission of electrical energy, natural or
manufactured gas, or petroleum products that are resold to
a person or group included in (A) or (B) of this paragraph
or that are used to produce the service or commodity sold
to the public by the utility;
MR. PICKETT explained that their role starts with the
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) and there
currently are 650 CPCNs across the state. They cannot issue a
certificate unless they find that the applicant is fit, willing
and able to provide the utility services applied for and that
the services are required for the convenience and necessity of
the public.
8:11:51 AM
He said there are some statutory exemptions for electric as
follows:
- Exemptions from certification is any utility making less
than $50,000 unless their customers petition for regulation
(AS 42.05.711(e)
- Any Joint Action Agency established by AS 42.45.310(AS
42.05.711(o))
- Possibly utilities that receive a Qualifying Facility (QF)
designation from FERC
8:12:21 AM
SENATOR THOMAS joined the committee.
MR. PICKETT explained that another level of exemptions from
economic regulation are:
- Utilities owned by a political subdivision with the
exception of a utility the competes with a regulated
utility (AS 42.05.711(b))
8:12:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked for a definition of "qualifying
facility".
MR. PICKETT answered that it is a category of electrical
producers that the federal government has deemed important for
the purposes of distributed generation encouraging the
development of alternative energy. If an entity that is
proposing to produce power self-certifies or goes through the
formal FERC-certification process, and is trying to sell their
power to an electrical utility and perhaps meets some reticence
there, this is a "hammer" to force the utility into purchasing
the power.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked if the entity would be a generator,
not a distributor of energy.
MR. PICKETT replied yes, and this is a federal designation.
8:14:37 AM
He continued explaining the exemptions from economic regulation:
- Utilities that make between $50,000 and $500,000 and they
have that have a deregulation election (AS 42.05.711(f))
- Cooperatives that have a deregulation election (AS
42.05.711(h))
- Utilities that receive a QF designation from FERC) (18
C.F.R. 292.602(c))
8:15:06 AM
The RCA regulates:
Utilities
Natural gas distribution
Natural gas pipelines
Electric power generation, transmission and distribution
Water and sewer
Telephone
Solid waste
Pipelines
Crude oil pipelines
Petroleum product pipelines
Natural gas pipelines
8:15:32 AM
SENATOR THOMAS asked if Fairbanks Natural Gas is economically
regulated.
MR. PICKETT replied that it continues to not be economically
regulated. A number of legislators petitioned to open a docket
to reevaluate that situation. Because it is an open docket, he
couldn't say much other than the Attorney General has arrived at
a stipulation with Fairbanks Natural Gas and the Commission
would be acting on that shortly.
SENATOR THOMAS asked him why it was not initially economically
regulated.
MR. PICKETT replied that it was believed that its size was too
small at the time to sustain the financial burden. That
designation was given with the understanding that it would be
continually reevaluated as the utility grew.
SENATOR THOMAS added that there was also the aspect of competing
with fuel oil and alternatives.
8:17:15 AM
MR. PICKETT said the Commission has a role in a couple of
current energy supply issues and he would focus on three in
particular: the Cook Inlet natural gas supply issue, the
electric utility current infrastructure needs and the power cost
equalization (PCE) program.
MR. PICKETT said the RCA does not regulate the producers of
natural gas in Cook Inlet, but rather it evaluates gas sale
agreements (GSA) between the utilities and the producers. Their
standard of review considers whether the utility acted in a
prudent manner, whether the terms of the GSA are reasonable and
whether the GSA insures reliable and reasonably priced utility
service.
CHAIR PASKVAN said they don't regulate producers, but on the
page before he said they regulate the supplies and he asked him
to explain that.
8:18:39 AM
MR. PICKETT replied that on the previous page he was outlining
the overall Cook Inlet natural gas supply issue, because it's
important to recognize that it operates as a system and the
utilities are but one part of that system. The RCA has nothing
to do with the LNG plant or certain large commercial and
industrial customers.
CHAIR PASKVAN asked if a producer's discoveries are regulated by
the RCA or its information made available to it.
MR. PICKETT replied that the RCA does not regulate the operation
of the gas fields in Cook Inlet. It works with DNR to try to
assess situations with information that is public already. A lot
of things are not known.
8:20:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH remembered that the Kenai Peninsula Liquid
Line (KPLL) was the first natural gas pipeline the Commission
regulated and asked if that line was considered as a component
of the Cook Inlet natural gas configuration.
MR. PICKETT replied yes.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked what other pipelines they have purview
over such as the one that comes from Beluga.
MR. PICKETT replied that Beluga has a tariff before the
commission now so he couldn't comment, but yes it is under the
RCA's jurisdiction.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked what other pipelines they have purview
over that pertain particularly to the Cook Inlet natural gas
system.
MR. PICKETT replied the Cook Inlet Gas Gathering System (CIGGS),
the South Kenai Peninsula Pipeline and the Enstar Pipeline
System.
8:21:00 AM
He related that the RCA Standard of review is guided by AS
42.05.431(a). Under this subsection the RCA is required to
determine whether a gas sale agreement or particular terms
within such an agreement are unjust, unreasonable, unduly
discriminatory or preferential. This determination must be
viewed in the context of the Cook Inlet market, which is unique
among regional natural gas markets in the United States.
He explained that gas markets in the Lower 48 are connected and
interconnected by a very sophisticated and extensive series of
pipelines such that if one particular field is not producing the
way folks think it should, there are alternatives. Cook Inlet
doesn't have that nearly to the extent it is available Outside.
The reserve to production ratio for Cook Inlet is approximately
10:1, and, he said, this is in the same range as is typical for
Lower 48 production areas. It's lower than past years just
because there was such an abundance of natural gas that was
found as a byproduct of looking for oil.
MR. PICKETT said that Cook Inlet is unique as the home of the
only plant in the U.S. that liquefies natural gas and ships it
out of the immediate areas as LNG. This is also the oldest LNG
export facility in the world. The RCA in its last review of a
natural gas sales agreement, EO 858, found that Cook Inlet is a
natural gas production basin as opposed to a city gate or
consuming type of area.
ConocoPhillips, Marathon and Union Oil of California, a division
of Chevron (Union) control the vast majority of the natural gas
supplies in the Cook Inlet. Of these three, ConocoPhillips and
Marathon are the largest and these two own the Kenai LNG export
facility as well.
The Cook Inlet market is vertically integrated with the two
largest producers being the best customers through its sales to
the LNG export facility.
8:23:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked how they came to this situation again.
In the 1920s this issue was resolved in a Supreme Court case
against Standard Oil and vertical integration was considered a
monopoly. So, now we are back to that same realm of operation
where producers have that same access to all phases.
MR. PICKETT replied it is important to make the distinction that
EO 858 the RCA in found for market power, which is not the same
as a monopolistic finding. The RCA worked closely with the AG's
office on a number of these issues and found no evidence that
anything illegal is going on in Cook Inlet. Market power is
legal and can be a business strategy. The point the Commission
is making is when those conditions exist with an individual
utility trying to get natural gas supplies, there is a mismatch
at the negotiating table.
8:25:13 AM
MR. PICKETT said the Cook Inlet market is not an open and
transparent gas market. It has few transactions and they tend to
be somewhat intermittent - and some of them are not available in
a public form. There is no commonly acceptable pricing mechanism
in Cook Inlet, and that makes it a challenge, because in the
2001 RCA/Henry Hub Order a variety of pricing proxies were
considered by the utilities, the producers, the AG and the RCA,
but none of them were accepted by all of the parties that need
to have that understanding. None of these pricing proxies has
resulted in an RCA approved gas sale agreement that currently
delivers gas to utility customers. "Given the fact that several
of the utilities are headed for a cliff in terms of their gas
supply agreements in the next couple of years and out, this is a
matter of most serious public concern. In my opinion."
8:27:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked what has been the discussion about
the export supplies and the utility need with regard to the
RCA's regulation and knowing that natural gas is being exported.
MR. PICKETT replied that the RCA is very cognizant of the
situation. That deal was entered into EO 858 because of the
information it presented at that time. The RCA recognized the
importance of the LNG export facility, because the utility rate
payers and the amount of gas consumed there is not sufficiently
large to create the incentives needed to encourage the
exploration and production that would have to take place in the
Inlet. "It's a very, very tricky situation."
The LNG plant is operating under a two-year export license
starting next week, he explained. Within the 2008 settlement
agreement with the state there were terms that indicated
conversations were going on between the producers, DOE and the
state for a five-year export license if sufficient quantities
could be demonstrated.
Deliverability is a key issue within the Inlet now. Enstar came
before the Commission with other utilities at a special public
meeting in early January during the cold snap about their
ability to deliver, because even two years before that they felt
they were close to hitting the deliverability wall. These fields
aren't like a big balloon with a valve on it that you can open
it up to high. It's much more complicated than that, and storage
is a big part of the issue.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if the RCA as a regulator will
require storage or does the Legislature need to give them
authority.
MR. PICKETT replied the RCA doesn't regulate the producers and
each one of them has its own business model to determine its
level of investment. Many of these companies are international,
and with the collapse of commodity prices and the implosion of
the financial markets, it's a very challenging environment. He
emphasized there needs to be some sort of agreement on how to
price gas in Cook Inlet that is fair to the rate payers and is
defensible based on some sort of record through the RCA or the
Legislature. Somehow the producers must have sufficient
incentives to explore and produce more gas in Cook Inlet.
8:32:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if the capacity to fill the need
and convenience of the customer base that has already been set
put pressure on the state to support the companies' sales
agreements in selling LNG on the market.
8:32:28 AM
MR. PICKETT replied that is a factor that can be considered. The
producers also know it is in their interests to have utility gas
sales agreements in place, because that makes a stronger case
for the five-year extension - "And you don't want the utilities
going before, as they are right now, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals attempting to overturn."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that LNG requires a lot of storage
and that could be the reason behind the collapsing balloon for
the winter season in Anchorage. But he asked, "Should we be
selling our gas when we so desperately need it?"
8:34:08 AM
CHAIR OLSON asked if part of the problem is that Enstar has peak
demand only for about 10 weeks during the winter and the sales
to the Tokyo Electric Utility is the same volume every two
weeks. Right now nothing else needs that volume of gas outside
of the 10 week period.
MR. PICKETT believed that to be true. The diversion of gas from
the LNG plant into the utility in January/February 2009 is what
provided the cushion in the past. But now Enstar's 2009 figures
show that period took away most of its margin. That's why gas
storage is a critical issue in the Inlet. Several producers have
their own storage by pumping gas into essentially what are old
fields. DNR is looking to have RFPs and offerings for potential
storage sights on the Beluga field.
8:36:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked what he saw as the RCA's role in
resolving this dilemma and asked for an outline of their plan.
MR. PICKETT said the RCA would keep the Legislature appraised of
how both the storage and natural gas pricing dockets are
proceeding by putting members on a modified distribution list.
8:38:18 AM
CHAIR PASKVAN asked if his comment about a cliff in the coming
years meant that supplies are going to be scarce in the coming
years.
MR. PICKETT responded that it is important to not be over-
alarmist. Cook Inlet still has gas; it's a matter of price and
what it will take to get it produced. The drop off is much
sooner without more exploration and investment.
CHAIR PASKVAN asked if he was trying to regulate pricing based
upon a perception that it could be whatever someone wants it to
be in a vertically integrate market.
MR. PICKETT replied there is an element of truth to that, and
the information they get is highly imperfect.
8:40:45 AM
SENATOR THOMAS asked if Cook Inlet gas is worth more to the
producers for instate use or for export.
MR. PICKETT replied that markets are moving targets. It depends
on the length of contracts for one thing. Before there was a
shortage of both supply and boats, but now Japan has released
tankers from service, as has Korea, Taiwan and Spain. So the LNG
market has a lot of excess capacity right now.
8:43:21 AM
MR. PICKETT continued talking about the electric utility
infrastructure needs primarily focusing on the Railbelt. Alaska
Railbelt Electrical Grid Authority Study (REGA) released in 2008
estimated a cumulative capital investment requirement ranging
from $2.5 to $8.1 billion over the next 30 years. The
transmission infrastructure in the Railbelt is aging, and
investment is needed for generation and transmission replacement
and expansion.
8:45:00 AM
He showed charts of installed and existing Railbelt generation
along with proposed projects. They indicated the dominance of
natural gas for generation purposes in the Railbelt, which ties
back to the issue of natural gas supplies in Cook Inlet. Of all
the proposed projects the Susitna Hydro Project would dwarf
anything else. He also remarked that the Fire Island Project
would eek out a little more power with its new configuration.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH said the new configuration for Fire Island
is 100 MW instead of 30 MW.
8:46:37 AM
MR. PICKETT said some regulatory issues have to be dealt with as
new generation comes on, particularly with the alternative
energies and more distributed forms of generation.
Under firm vs. non-firm power supplies, Mr. Pickett said by
definition firm power is a predictable source of power that can
be scheduled by a utility and that offsets both fuel and
generation capacity expenses. In this category you see some
hydro, co-generation, geothermal. Essentially you have a switch
that you can flip and the "power is going to be there."
Non-firm power is a more unpredictable source of power that
cannot be scheduled by a utility. The provision in non-firm
power only offsets the use of fuel by the utility. Generation
capacity needs to be maintained to provide power when the non-
firm power is unavailable. RCA regulations require spare
capacity to be available at all times.
8:47:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked how much they require.
MR. PICKETT replied, "It has to do with the largest generation
unit that you have if it were to go off line." Beluga is
actually a series of generators - the theory being if some
generation goes off line, the ability to make it up is there.
8:49:05 AM
The RCA has a number of unfunded mandates given to it by the
federal and state governments. Under the Power Cost Equalization
(PCE) program, the state pays a portion of the electric bills
for consumers served by utilities participating in the program.
A regulatory cost charge (RCC) of .7 percent is on a utility's
bill indicating its contribution. Over 150 communities
participate in this program.
Different industry groups have a different calculation as to how
much of that is applicable, but most of the small utilities in
the PCE program are not regulated. So, in essence, the rate
payers and the regulated utilities are paying for the PCE
program. The RCA has made OMB aware of this and he thought the
administration would provide some relief through a cooperative
agreement with the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA).
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked what a rebate to the RCA would look
like for those several utilities.
MR. PICKETT replied that he hopes to pick up a couple of staff
equivalents to do the filings and work with some of the small
struggling utilities that have difficulty getting their
paperwork together to eligible for the program. "It's a staffing
problem, primarily."
AS 42.45.110(c)(2) provides that the Commission during each
fiscal year adjust the power costs for which PCE may be paid to
an electric utility based on the weighted average retail
residential rate in Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau - subject to
the statutory ceiling, whatever that is at that point in time.
The actual PCE, itself, is administered by the AEA.
8:51:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES asked if the RCA made an adjustment when
Juneau went to use diesel last winter.
MR. PICKETT said the Commission made a one-time adjustment for
that situation.
8:51:28 AM
MR. PICKETT went on to explain that the RCA opened Dockets R-09-
1 and R-09-2 to consider net metering and interconnection
standards with regard to renewable and alternative energy. He
explained that in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, the federal
government mandated that all commissions consider standards that
include net metering, interconnection, smart grid and things of
that nature. The RCA conducted a two-year proceeding on that and
elected not to adopt any of the federal standards, because they
were not appropriate for Alaska conditions. That is when they
opened these two dockets and those are currently under way. The
RCA's goal in the R-09-1 docket on net metering is "to create an
Alaskan rule that will encourage the development of distributed
small-scale renewable generation while maintaining system
integrity and fairly apportioning costs among consumers and
consumer/producers."
The RCA had technical workshops on that in late February and
last week on the interconnection standards. The industry is
heavily engaged in that with the utilities, proponents of net
metering and some of the alternative energy. They have had more
input on the net metering docket than any other docket in the
last couple of years.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked when the RCA rejected the federal
standards, did it come up with a "packet of rationale," because
that might help the Legislature in its deliberations on net
metering standards.
8:53:30 AM
MR. PICKETT replied that when they declined to accept the
federal standards they provided a rationale in their order. The
issues are fairly well clarified at this point.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON asked him what kind of time frame they are
working with.
MR. PICKETT replied when the Commission declined to adopt the
federal standards, they committed to as expedited a process as
possible. The issues are fairly clear at this point.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked him to make those available to the
chairman.
CHAIR PASKVAN said there is an alternative method other than net
metering - some sort of a tariff system.
MR. PICKETT replied maybe he was referring to the SNAP program
that Golden Valley has instituted.
CHAIR PASKVAN said that Germany adopted this system that is like
phased-in tariffs.
MR. PICKETT said he wasn't familiar with that.
8:55:41 AM
He continued saying that Docket R-09-2 is to create an
interconnection standard that recognizes Alaskan conditions and
provides uniformity in interconnection requirements of Alaskan
electric utilities and simplifies the interconnection process
for small distributed resources. Some real technical issues have
to be dealt with, because a large project can throw a small
utility into imbalance quickly. Even some of the larger
utilities have concerns about system integrity as this issue
progresses.
Another issue is that the AEA is requiring that all independent
power producers receiving renewable energy grants from the state
obtain a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN)
from the RCA. The RCA has had discussions with the AEA about
what protections they might want in addition to the CPCN.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked given the standards, what is the
timeline for the certificate.
MR. PICKETT replied that would depend on how many certificate
requests it gets at the same time; the RCA is severely stressed
in terms of staff. "If it's a handful, they will be handled
expeditiously subject to our workload and the statutory
deadlines and all of our other dockets. If we were to receive 30
or 40 of them simultaneously, that would be an entirely
different matter, and I would not be able to give you a clear
answer on that."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said the Office of Legislative Budget and
Audit (LB&A) would be watching those closely; so they need to
have a good handle on what is coming and what staff needs will
be.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON asked how the new timelines are working
out.
MR. PICKETT replied that the RCA is meeting the statutory
deadlines although they have had to be extended occasionally.
They are frustrating for the Commission in one sense, but they
have a way of focusing attention.
8:59:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked for an outline today of how the price
of natural gas is established for the consumer, and how it comes
to Alaskans - within the realm of the commodity pricing
structure of the United States.
9:00:08 AM
MR. PICKETT replied in Alaska it's fair to say the pricing of
natural gas is determined by the contracts between the utilities
and the producers. Some of these contracts have been going on
for many, many years, if not decades. Each one has a different
pricing mechanism imbedded within it. Some are tied to the price
of crude oil or to Henry Hub, for instance. The RCA did not
approve the latest Enstar gas supply agreements that were
restructure for two years, because under the terms of their
existing tariff, there is the weighted average cost of gas in
Cook Inlet (WACOG) option, which looks at all of these contracts
and comes up with a weighted average depending on the price and
volumes associated with the contract. As long as they came in
under the WACOG, they had the ability to claim those gas
charges.
CHAIR PASKVAN said he is interested in how broadband can be
brought to Alaska - in relation to federal stimulus moneys - so
Alaska can be competitive in a business environment.
9:01:44 AM
MR. PICKETT replied that the RCA has been involved in receiving
a broadband grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Rural Utility Services for a couple of years. The original
figure was $15 million and they have roughly $7.5 million left
because of the conditions that go along with it and the
definitions of broadband that are way too low - totally
inadequate. People who had dial-up or very slow service were not
eligible to upgrade. The system ahs some gaps; for instance, an
area of the state has some of the most sophisticated
telemedicine in the nation that is linked to a network that is
microwave-based, but then it comes to a point of having a
satellite uplink, and that's the bottleneck for the whole
system. Another part of the state has a gap on the ground to
where you can't interconnect to undersea cable, and that would
seem to be a very logical type of project if stimulus funds were
to be available.
He said the RCA provided a lot of comments on the stimulus
package, but the federal side has some unresolved issues. Some
of the funds would go directly to the telecommunications
companies, but rules and regulations have not been established
for prioritizing funding. It would be helpful if the state had a
comprehensive broadband vision. The RCA regulates some of these
entities which puts it in a tenuous position; they can't be
picking winners and losers and regulate them at the same time.
9:04:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked if other states have set this up, and
can Alaska follow another existing model.
MR. PICKETT replied a number of states have, particularly those
that are more rural. He couldn't emphasize enough, however, that
when it comes to telecommunications, Alaska is in a league of
its own.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked how many dockets the RCA has open.
MR. PICKETT replied around 150.
9:06:01 AM
CHAIR PASKVAN thanked Mr. Pickett and adjourned the meeting at
9:06 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|