Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
03/06/2017 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB120 | |
| HB20 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 120 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 120-DEPT OF LAW: ADVOCACY BEFORE FERC
1:19:14 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 120, "An Act relating to the Department of Law
public advocacy function to participate in matters that come
before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission."
1:19:41 PM
CLYDE "ED" SNIFFEN, Chief Statewide Section Supervisor,
Regulatory Affairs & Public Advocacy (RAPA), Department of Law
(DOL), explained that HB 120 is a fairly simple bill in that it
allows the Department of Law (DOL) to include some of the work
it currently performs before the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission as part of the budget, and seeks to use regulatory
cost charge funds. He explained that all regulated utilities in
the state are subject to oversight by the Regulatory Commission
of Alaska (RCA) and to pay for that regulatory oversight, there
is a regulatory cost charge that appears on utility bills. He
described it as a small amount that goes into this fund, and
that fund pays for the cost of regulation for pipelines and
regulated utilities. The attorney general has the function of
protecting the public interest in these matters before the RCA.
The Department of Law (DOL) appears in matters before the RCA to
protect the public from unnecessary rate hikes and protects the
public's interest in making sure those rates are just and
reasonable, which is paid for through this regulatory cost
charge. Recently, he explained, the department found that many
matters are before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC), and as the department works to limit its use of outside
counsel, it spends a lot of time on FERC matters now. The
department would like to charge some of that work toward the
regulatory cost charge and, he pointed out, the statute
recognizes that through the pipeline regulatory cost charge that
that is entirely appropriate.
MR. SNIFFEN noted that the total amount of the regulatory cost
charge is capped, which is set by the legislature, and it is a
certain amount of adjusted gross revenues from the utilities,
and the department gets to use .17 percent of that. He
explained that the department sets a budget every year within
that cap on how it believes it will spend its money. This bill,
he explained, would allow the department the flexibility to
allocate its funds among pipeline and utility matters in a more
efficient way and; therefore, utilize its budget more
efficiently. Those are funds that would normally be charged to
the general fund that DOL could now charge through an
appropriate use of the regulatory cost charge. He referred to
the handout he provided and said it explains the bill, and he
would be happy to answer any questions.
1:22:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN acknowledged that he is not familiar with
how the functions of the attorney general's office were
established in the statutes, and asked why the legislature needs
to create a statutory provision to permit the attorney general's
office to do something that the attorney general has deemed is
in the public's interest.
MR. SNIFFEN responded that he believes Representative Eastman's
question was in reference to these public interest functions the
attorney general pursues in statute versus not being an inherent
power of the attorney general. He said he was unsure he could
answer the statutory history, but the attorney general is
charged with enforcing certain public interest functions of the
state. For example, the consumer protection functions are
things the attorney general does just to protect the public's
interest, and the function through the Regulatory Affairs &
Public Advocacy Section is another one of those. He commented
that perhaps without those directions it would be more difficult
in this rapid context, for example, to get funding for that
function. The way the attorney general's authority is laid out,
those are the things she's been charged with doing and why there
are not others in there, he could not speak to that question.
1:24:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered a scenario that the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) was going through its process,
and he asked whether something is needed in statute to give the
attorney general the opportunity to participate in a public
advocacy role.
MR. SNIFFEN answered that it depends upon the role of the
attorney general. He explained that the attorney general is
charged with representing the agency that would enforce the
state's environment protection laws, so the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), for example, is a client of
the attorney general. The attorney general will provide legal
advice to that agency to the extent that the agency is pursuing
whatever remedies for whatever case it is pursuing, he advised.
1:25:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said that, clearly, the department is in a
predicament with its advocacy role, and the way the law is
structured now it makes it difficult for any costs recovery.
This bill resolves that, and he described it as a good piece of
legislation.
1:25:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD referred to the fees people pay on their
utilities bills, and asked whether those are the fees that would
be used by the attorney general to go before FERC.
MR. SNIFFEN offered a qualified yes. He explained that it is a
complicated process in that DOL establishes a budget each year
that goes before the RCA, and that budget is limited by the
legislature. The RCA approves that budget, and depending on
what sectors received DOL's attention throughout the year, for
example, if DOL had a year that was heavily weighted toward gas
regulation versus electric or waste water, then a bigger portion
of the regulatory cost charge would be assessed for the gas
utilities, and vice versa. He advised that it is a process that
equalizes among the sectors fairly, and then that gets passed on
to the utilities, and the utilities can pass it on to their rate
payers if they so choose. The rate payers see that small line
item bill at the bottom of their utility bill, $0.17, or
whatever, for the regulatory cost charge, he explained.
1:27:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD surmised that the people pay through
their utility bills for the attorney general to perform work
before the federal government, which is another way to increase
the size of government. She asked "Why now," and whether this
has anything to do with the gas line, LNG project. She
explained that stories hit the news where the governor just
asked the current national administration for "a whole bunch of
help and loopholes for the state government to get out of doing
things that the private sector ought to do."
MR. SNIFFEN replied absolutely not. He stressed that this will
not affect the governor's gas line at all. The issue came to
DOL's attention now, because over the last couple of years it
was tasked with finding ways to save money, and one of those
ways was to reduce the department's reliance on outside counsel.
The FERC work has been performed by outside counsel for 30
years, and the department is now bringing that work in house,
thereby, saving significant amounts of money for the state. It
recently came to the department's attention that it was unable
to pass some of those costs on to the shippers and the customers
who are benefiting from the department's work. The FERC piece
is one piece the department saw where it performed work that
benefited the public's interest, and it could be properly
included within the pipeline regulatory cost charge. He
estimated that the people who would probably absorb most of
this, if anything, would be the shippers of oil on the pipeline,
and not to the normal utility customers. He said he suspected
that the regulatory cost charge for a person's water bill or
electric bill would not be affected at all.
1:29:09 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN referred to Representative Reinbold's question
regarding charging the consumers, and responded that the
legislature made the decision many years ago for utility bills
to be part of the consumer protection function. The public
would want the attorney general's office involved in rate paying
cases, and the legislature determined that the attorney general
could participate, but could only charge .17 percent in terms of
paying the attorney general to perform that consumer protection
function. This bill is not actually adding new collection
authority, he explained, it is more about allowing the attorney
general's office to have more flexibility in what it can do with
the .17 percent it is already collecting.
MR. SNIFFEN replied that that is absolutely correct.
1:30:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether this has anything to do
with the current gas pipeline, and reiterated "why now." She
acknowledged that Mr. Sniffen explained it was to save money,
but that she finds this intriguing timing. She asked whether
this will impact any private businesses, the budget, or the rate
payers.
MR. SNIFFEN reiterated that the answer to "why now" is in an
effort to reduce its reliance on outside counsel and bring some
of the FERC work in house due to budget considerations. He
further reiterated that, as to the timing issue, it recently
came to the department's attention that the department is unable
to use this fund to pay for some of the FERC work that would
otherwise be before the RCA, but for the need to do it at FERC
first. In response to whether it has anything to do with the
governor's new pipeline, he reiterated that it does not.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said she asked who would be impacted
now, such as any business in Alaska, or any rate payer.
1:31:56 PM
MR. SNIFFEN reiterated that the people who pay into the
regulatory cost charge are all of the regulated utilities and
pipelines. The work on FERC would be a pipeline related issue,
so the people impacted by this would be shippers on the pipeline
and they would have to pay the regulatory cost charge if there
was an increase.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked who the shippers are on the Trans-
Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS), and who it will impact.
MR. SNIFFEN answered that the shippers on TAPS include all of
the major producers, shippers, and also intrastate shippers on
the pipeline which includes the Tesoro Corporation and Petro
Star Inc., because they pay intrastate tariffs to receive
product off of the pipeline as well.
1:32:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked what kind of impact it will have
because it sounds like the attorney general will now "do a bunch
of work," maybe before the FERC Regulatory Commission. She
asked what kind of expenses would be incurred, and what the
state would ask the private sector to pay in this recession.
MR. SNIFFEN responded that it is hard to say, but it will not be
an amount that is very noticeable. Depending each year on how
the department's budgets fall out, if it allocates a certain
percentage of its time toward this FERC work, that cost will be
passed on to the shippers, they will pass it on through their
tariffs, and those tariffs are spread out over millions of
barrels of product. The customers who buy that product would
ultimately pay that price which, he opined, would be a small
amount.
1:34:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said this impacts the private sector and
she requested the name of every shipper this economically
impacts because they have investments over a long period of
time, and this is another way to get into another pocket of
theirs. It is important to understand the impact to the private
sector before passing legislation, she said.
1:34:56 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN queried as to whether she was asking Mr. Sniffen to
provide the name of any customer, not just for the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline System (TAPS), but any customer of any type that could
be impacted by this particular bill allowing the department to
participate in FERC matters.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD clarified that she is asking for the
information regarding this bill particularly, and who will be
impacted directly.
CHAIR CLAMAN noted that there is TAPS, within which contains
some intrastate and interstate regulations, and the intrastate
is regulated by RCA, which is Tessoro and others that refine oil
in the state who take the oil off the pipe. Everything, he
explained, that goes out is regulated by the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC). He then asked for clarification
whether she is just asking about people involved in the TAPS, or
asking about any utility bill or anything else that might come
before FERC.
1:36:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD explained that she is asking for anyone
who would be impacted by this bill overall so they could
prepare, she said to look at the intended and unintended
consequences of HB 120.
MR. SNIFFEN explained that the regulatory cost charge for
pipelines is assessed on all pipelines operating in the state,
and he will provide the list of the pipeline operators.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said that was not exactly what she was
asking.
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that that was the question he was
asking because when one asks the impact of a .17 percent
regulatory cost charge, he related that it impacts everyone.
For example, he said, Chugach Electric also has the .17 percent
factored in; therefore, not only does the utility pay it, but
the utility passes it on to the consumer, which means there is a
component in which everyone is affected. He said he is trying
to get some clarity as to who she wants Mr. Sniffen to provide
information for because the universe could be everyone in
Alaska, or a small number of people who own TAPS. He said that,
frankly, he is confused by the question himself, and it appears
Representative Reinbold is not happy with Mr. Sniffen's answers.
1:37:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD clarified that Mr. Sniffen can do it in
aggregate, but if a municipality or consumers, or if only the
shippers of TAPS are impacted, she would like to know in the
short term and the long term. Alaska is in a recession with
massive deficits and Alaska's economy is delicate, and sometimes
a tiny change can have a huge impact, she said.
MR. SHIFFEN said he understands Representative Reinbold's
question and that the impacts would be only to the pipeline
operators in Alaska, it will not be passed to the
municipalities, or to the RCC contributors. The department's
FERC work deals with tariffs on the TAPS pipeline, and the
people who pay those tariffs are the people who will be
impacted. Currently, he reiterated, the intrastate tariffs paid
in the state are only by two companies, Tessoro and Petro Star.
1:39:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to Mr. Shiffen's testimony
wherein only the tariff payers will be impacted by the FERC
portion of this, and noted that all of the expenses get split
with everyone.
MR. SNIFFEN explained that the department estimates how much of
its time will be spent on pipeline matters, and how much time
will be spent on utility matters. Within those different
sectors it breaks it down even further on how much time is
between the different types of utilities. The amount of money
the pipeline shippers would pay into the regulatory cost charge
is what might be affected by the department's decision to
perform more FERC work versus other utility work, he explained.
1:40:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP voiced his understanding that the state has
year-to-year appropriations for FERC work to the Department of
Law (DOL), and those have to be appropriated each year.
Therefore, he said, the legislature would have the authority to
not make appropriations if it so desired.
MR. SNIFFEN responded that that is not quite correct, the
legislature can make appropriations to the department, and the
department does use general fund money for its FERC work,
currently.
1:40:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether there is a projection as to
the cost impacts the legislature can expect from the
department's work, not being paid now but going forward as a
result of this legislation.
MR. SNIFFEN answered that he did not think the total amount the
department would spend, in addition to what it already spends,
as a result of this bill would change that much. The department
is operating under the cap set by the legislature already, and
it is pretty close to that cap with its current budgets. There
are some not used, which is carried forward to the next year,
and if the department is able to put some of its FERC work into
that pot of money, it may fill it up a little more. He said it
is difficult to predict, but it will be in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars or less, it certainly is not into the
several hundred thousand or even the million range. The
department set its budget where it is, and if it uses that
budget performing utility work, great - and if it isn't used,
then it goes into the next year's cycle, he said. In the event
the department is able to use some FERC work and put it into
that pot of money as well, then the department might use a
little more of that. Therefore, it would be less money rolling
over to the next year depending on where the work was
concentrated, but it is not a huge amount of money, he
explained.
1:43:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP offered that his understanding of the bill
was that it wasn't so much generating new revenue as it was the
department having access to receipts that are currently
collected, in a manner that is currently unavailable to
department when it advocates for FERC matters.
MR. SNIFFEN answered that Representative Kopp was correct.
1:43:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked the exact relationship
between the 0.7 percent statutory cap on RCC regulatory cost
charge, and the relationship between that 0.7 and the .17
percent that can go to the Department of Law (DOL), and where it
goes, he asked.
1:44:16 PM
MR. SNIFFEN responded that there is a statutory 0.7 percent cap
and a .17 percent cap. The 0.7 percent is what is used by the
regulatory commission to fund its operations, and the .17
percent is what the department uses to perform its public
advocacy functions.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS surmised that if this piece of
legislation passes and the department is able to start using
this to reimburse its FERC work, is that money coming to the
department because, currently, the department is not up to the
.17 percent cap and there is a delta between whatever the
department is right now, and .17 percent.
MR. SNIFFEN said Representative Kreiss-Tomkins is exactly
correct, that delta is the only thing that would be affected by
this bill. He offered that the department might shrink that
delta a bit in some years, and it might not, because it may be
able to cover the department's costs with the money it currently
spends by the way it allocates money among the utility functions
and its FERC functions. That's the delta that could be
affected, for example, he advised, in 2017 it was less than
$40,000, and as the department's budgets unfold, no one knows
what it will be in future years. He explained that this bill is
not more about increasing that cap because the cap is the cap,
but rather the bill gives the department the flexibility to move
money under the cap among the functions the department performs.
1:46:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS surmised that the department is
not at the delta, and asked approximately where the department
is in terms of percentage.
MR. SNIFFEN responded that he does not have the exact number but
it is closer to .167, and that is what the department budgets
for every year. He reiterated the department doesn't
necessarily use all of that budgeted money, but when it predicts
what its costs would be, it is pretty close.
1:47:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS surmised that this bill would
allow the department to close that 0.03 gap, $40,000 or whatever
it ends up being. He noted that the department is not up to its
cap currently, and whether that means the RCA is participating
in these extra 0.03 percent of overall utility funds. He asked
where the delta would go in the event the department was not at
its cap.
MR. SNIFFEN reiterated that it is carried over to the next cycle
and it is considered in the department's next budget.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS commented that, with Mr. Sniffen's
background, he likes the direction the Department of Law (DOL)
has been going in terms of becoming more self-sufficient, and
also, with this legal work it makes a lot of sense given the
fairly unsettled direction the legislature has given the
agencies over the last few years. He asked Mr. Sniffen to speak
to the amount of money the department had spent on outside
counsel for FERC work, how the department's overall expenditures
on FERC work has changed by moving from outside counsel to more
of an in house approach, and how the department might see that
trend continue to play out in the event this bill passes.
MR. SNIFFEN replied that over the last, at least, two years, the
department reduced its reliance on outside FERC counsel
significantly. The department's budget for FY18 is $375,000 and
previously it was over $1 million. He noted that [the reliance]
depends on whether the department, for example, was involved in
a large piece of litigation, and he pointed to the department's
"strategic reconfiguration thing" that legislators may have
heard about. He explained that a lot of effort was involved,
the department recovered just over $200 million for the state
largely due to its outside counsel. He acknowledged that the
department still needs the outside counsel, but it is trying to
bring it in house, with himself and one other attorney dealing
with these issues and learning "this stuff" to build in house
expertise and rely less and less on outside counsel. Although,
he pointed out, it is difficult when the outside counsel has
been doing this work for the state for 30 years and has much in
house knowledge and historical information from doing it so
long, and the department relies on that historical knowledge in
moving forward. Currently, he advised, the department is trying
to use that outside counsel in more of an advisory role to help
the department navigate the complicated FERC issues, and in the
future the advisory role will, hopefully, be less and less.
1:50:13 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that under the current scenario,
because the legislature hasn't given the attorney general
authority to participate in FERC matters, currently, in order to
participate in a FERC matter, the department, essentially, must
hire outside counsel. The department must then obtain a
separate appropriation or put it in the budget somewhere to give
the department funds, on top of the .17 percent, he said.
MR. SNIFFEN agreed, and he explained that the department uses
general fund money for its FERC work currently. Having the
ability to pass some of this cost on to the regulatory cost
charge will probably not eliminate the need for that general
fund money, but it will somewhat offset some of those costs.
CHAIR CLAMAN surmised that what is essentially happening today
is that the .17 percent, without the statutory change, is all
used in RCA matters.
MR. SNIFFEN answered in the affirmative.
CHAIR CLAMAN continued that if the legislature passes this
legislation, it essentially means that from that .17 percent, in
just picking a number out of a hat, if .07 was used for FERC and
.10 was being used for RCA, what would happen is that the people
regulated in RCA would pay a little less, and those regulated in
FERC would pay a little more, but the .17 remains the same.
MR. SNIFFEN answered in the affirmative.
1:51:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for verification that Tessoro and
Petro Star are the two main businesses that will be impacted,
and that Mr. Sniffen does not see any impact to anyone else.
MR. SNIFFEN noted that there may be some impact on some Cook
Inlet pipeline operators, such as Hilcorp Energy to the extent
they are also purchasing oil or gas from one of those folks for
their operation. Other than that, he said that Representative
Reinbold was correct.
1:52:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD said the three main businesses are
Hilcorp Energy, Tessoro, and Petro Star, and acknowledged that
she doesn't understand anything that is going on with FERC and
TAPS right now. She asked whether there is something in the
works right now, and whether he was anticipating some need for
the attorney general to get involved with FERC right now.
MR. SNIFFEN explained that currently the state is in litigation
involving tariff rates on TAPS for the years 2011-2015, and is
in a settlement posture currently. Depending upon how that
goes, if the department ends up in litigation on that case, it
will require a lot of resources to litigate that case.
Although, the end result of that case could mean $500 million to
the state, plus or minus. Therefore, he pointed out, it is
important that the department deal with that litigation
appropriately.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked the name of the parties involved
in the lawsuit.
MR. SNIFFEN answered that joint parties are involved in this
case, it is the state, FERC trial staff, and Tessoro and
Anadarko Petroleum. The state is challenging the rates filed by
the carriers for the TAPS tariffs for years 2011-2015, he
explained.
MR. SNIFFEN, in response to Representative Reinbold, answered
that the carriers are ExxonMobil Corporation, ConocoPhillips
Alaska, Inc., and British Petroleum.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether those companies will be
impacted by this.
MR. SNIFFEN reiterated, "No."
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked for verification that solely
Hilcorp Energy, Tessoro, and Petro Star are impacted by this
lawsuit.
MR. SNIFFEN agreed, and said it would be "the intrastate, the
instate folks who actually operate pipelines in the state."
1:54:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether Mr. Sniffen was asking for
a law change because the department needs something for a
lawsuit [involving tariffs from] 2011-2015, some sort of tariff
settlement.
MR. SNIFFEN said no, this law probably wouldn't impact that
much, to the extent the department can use some of the RCC funds
to pay for a little bit of that work, but that work will far
exceed any money the department might receive from shifting
money around in this regulatory cost charge.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD reiterated her previous questions and
asked whether there is any other reason "why now" the department
wants the attorney general to work with the FERC, and whether
RCA and FERC is supporting it.
MR. SNIFFEN answered that the department approached the RCA and
it did not express any opposition, it did not approach FERC
because it doesn't have a role in this.
1:56:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD asked whether there is anything else Mr.
Sniffen is anticipating going before the FERC that requires the
attorney general to be involved.
MR. SNIFFEN responded that the department will have ongoing
matters with FERC on the TAPS pipeline until the pipeline is
finished, and those matters vary year-to-year. He explained
that it is largely driven by what the carriers decide they want
to do, for example, when the carriers want to raise their rates
they have to make a filing, the department reviews it and
decides whether those rates are just and reasonable. He
explained that those rates directly impact production taxes and
royalties the producers pay to the State of Alaska because those
transportation costs are deducted when determining value at the
wellhead. He clarified that, currently, the state has a lawsuit
against these carriers for these TAPS rates before FERC. The
carriers filed their rates, the department is reviewing them to
determine whether the rates are [just and reasonable]. He said
he does not want to leave the impression that the department has
litigation out there against them, and explained that the
department has had this administrative process going on which
could become a lawsuit, but that is currently not happening.
1:58:01 PM
MR. SNIFFEN, in response to Representative Eastman, agreed that
the .003 amount is not expected to get to the full amount needed
to participate in the proceedings.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked the value of the .17, and how much
higher would it need to go to get the department to the amount
needed. He offered that he recognizes, from previous hearings,
that the department is under financial constraints, and if this
is an important issue he would not want to see these types of
proceedings competing unnecessarily against prosecuting cases in
the criminal division, for example.
MR. SNIFFEN responded that the .17 percent is a percent of
another number, it's the gross operating revenues of these
pipelines and utilities, which varies from year-to-year. He
opined that last year it was roughly $2.1 million, and there is
an amount under that which pays for the work performed at the
attorney general's office to represent the public's interest in
these proceedings, and that will not change. The department
would use a small amount for the department's work related to
pipeline work, for example, but that is mostly work before the
RCA on utility matters and not pipeline matters. As to how much
money is needed down the road to continue looking at these TAPS
tariff cases, he said he does not have that answer. The
department's budget now has attorneys devoted to working on
these matters, and maybe one or less attorneys to do FERC work.
He related that the department will rely on its outside counsel,
as it has in the past, and hopes to wean off a bit in moving
forward. It just depends on the type of cases that come up, in
the event complicated big pieces of litigation come up, and it
has to start hiring experts, for example, it may cost a little
more.
2:00:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that last year the amount was $2.1
million, and he asked how much above the .17 percentage point
the department would have needed in order to not incur general
fund obligations.
MR. SNIFFEN replied that he does not have an answer and will see
if the department can get that information to him.
CHAIR CLAMAN opened public testimony. After ascertaining no one
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 120.
2:01:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked him to explain the procedure used to
ensure that the word had gotten out to the stakeholders who
could be impacted by the bill.
MR. SNIFFEN advised that the department spoke with
representatives of the utilities, it approached the Department
of Commerce, Community & Economic Development and the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska (RCA) to offer their input on the bill, and
their feedback indicated they did not have concerns with HB 120.
He offered that he heard from representative of Hilcorp Energy
who didn't express any opposition to it at that time, and the
department has not heard from any of the other potential
stakeholders.
2:02:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked Mr. Sniffen to explain exactly what
the department has done to make sure they are at least aware of
this bill.
MR. SNIFFEN answered that the department contacted the
stakeholders through informal communications, and advised that
Robin Brena, representative of Tessoro, is aware of the bill and
hasn't expressed any concern to Mr. Sniffen. Mr. Sniffen
related that the department couldn't think of any others who
would have an interest in this bill that are not already very
aware of the legislation and its impact.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD related that it is important to get
these people before the committee, because any time the bill
impacts the other side it is good to hear their thoughts.
[HB 120 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB120 ver. A 3.1.17.PDF |
HJUD 3/6/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 120 |
| HB120 Transmittal Letter 3.2.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 120 |
| HB120 Summary of Bill 3.2.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 120 |
| HB120 Fiscal Note LAW-CIV 2.24.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2017 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 120 |
| HB020 Draft Proposed CS ver. J 3.1.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2017 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB020 Amendments 1-12 3.3.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2017 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB020 Amendment 1 replacement 3.3.17.pdf |
HJUD 3/6/2017 1:00:00 PM |