Legislature(2019 - 2020)CAPITOL 17
02/11/2020 10:15 AM House ENERGY
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 | |
| HB232 | |
| HB151 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 232 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 151-ELECTRIC RELIABILITY ORGANIZATIONS
10:30:33 AM
CHAIR HOPKINS announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 151, "An Act relating to the regulation of
electric utilities and electric reliability organizations; and
providing for an effective date."
10:30:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 151, Version 31-LS0870\K, Klein, 2/10/20,
as the working draft. There being no objection, Version K was
before the committee.
10:31:10 AM
JOE HARDENBROOK, Staff, Representative Grier Hopkins, Alaska
State Legislature, presented HB 151 on behalf of the House
Special Committee on Energy, sponsor, on which Representative
Hopkins serves as chair. He paraphrased from a prepared
overview statement, which read [original punctuation provided]:
thank you for the opportunity to do a quick overview
on the CS for House Bill 151 and to update the
committee on some of the developments that occurred
since our last meeting. The committee chair and
committee staff have met and engaged constructively
with the leadership of the Senate Special Committee on
the Railbelt Electrical System to continue to hone
this legislation, while incorporating feedback from
the Railbelt utilities, stakeholders, consumer
advocates and local governments.
Following our joint committee meetings with the other
body, The Senate Special Committee has opened public
comment on the bill, and they have heard from
utilities, stakeholders, independent power producers
and community leaders. The input from these
individuals and organizations continues to guide our
efforts, as does constructive engagement with the RCA.
The CS which the committee has adopted moves SB 123
and HB 151 into alignment, reflecting the most recent
draft language vetted by the utilities, stakeholders
and advocates. The Regulatory Commission will meet
tomorrow to review the latest changes, and hopefully
continue to endorse our efforts.
For the information of the committee, we have provided
in the bill packet the following items:
• The latest version of the bill.
• A sectional analysis detailing changes from the
previous version
At this point, Mister Chairman, I'd like to walk the
committee through the changes to the bill from our
previous CS.
10:32:31 AM
MR. HARDENBROOK paraphrased the Summary of Changes [included in
members' packets] to the proposed committee substitute, Version
K, of proposed HB 151, which read [original punctuation
provided]:
Throughout: Changed references to 'bulk power
system' and 'interconnected bulk power system' to
'interconnected bulk electric system'
Page 1, lines 1-5: Redrafted a more descriptive
title.
Page 1, line 11: Changed 'certified' to
'certificated'.
Page 1, line11, to page 2, line 1:
Added provision specifying that a group of utilities
all of which are exempt as municipal entities or
political subdivisions of the state are exempt from
the requirement to participate in an ERO.
Page 2, line 4: Changed 'certify' to
'certificate'.
Page 2, line 5: Changed 'certify' to
'certificate'.
Page 2, lines 7-8: Restructured to separate the
provisions for applications and approval from the
requirements an ERO must demonstrate in order to be
approved.
Page 2, line 24: Changed 'be' to 'is'.
Page 3, lines 2-4: Added requirement for the RCA to,
once regulations are written and bill is in effect,
notify the load-serving entities in a system that an
ERO is required.
Page 3, line 5: Added 'and certificate' after
'form' to clarify an ERO formed by the RCA also must
be certificated.
Page 3, lines 5-12: Restructured provisions directing
the RCA to form an ERO. The previous bill required the
RCA to form an ERO if no one had applied to be an ERO
within three months. The CS applies the notice
requirement in (d) on page 2; once notice has been
given, the RCA will form an ERO is no one has applied
to be an ERO after 90 days. If someone has applied but
the RCA has not certified an ERO within 270 days, the
RCA shall form an ERO.
Page 3, lines 13-17: Provides a process for the
RCA to waive the need for a given network to have an
ERO.
Page 3, lines 20-22: Emphasizes that all users,
owners and operators of an interconnected system must
comply with standards; this includes entities that are
otherwise exempt from RCA regulation.
Page 3, line 24: Changes 'adopted' to 'approved' to
conform.
Page 3, line 27: Technical change to the structure
of (g).
Page 4, lines 2-3: Prohibits standards from being
designed with the intent to require enlarging
facilities or new construction.
Page 4, line 5: Clarifies that the commission must
give public notice and hold a hearing before acting on
a reliability standard filed by the ERO. Adds 'or
reject' after 'approve'.
Page 4, lines 9-16: Lays out the new process the RCA
must undertake to modify a standard. The RCA must give
the ERO an opportunity to modify the standard.
Page 4, line 16: Removes "A proposed standard or
modification takes effect upon approval by the
commission" as redundant to existing RCA tariff
statues.
Page 5, lines 4-5: Clarifies that penalties imposed
by the ERO can be appealed to and reviewed by the
commission.
Page 5, line 11: Conforms to new subsections
enabling penalties.
Page 6, line 1: Removed a provision that the RCA
may require an ERO to obtain a certificate of public
convenience and necessity (CPCN). An ERO is already
required to have a CPCN under Sec. 42.05.292 (b) on
page 2.
Page 6, line 7: Changes 'electric utility' to
'load-serving entity' to conform with defined terms.
Page 6, line 9: Deletes requirement to 'prepare'
before 'file'. Specifies that an integrated resource
plan must be filed with the RCA as a petition for
approval.
Page 6, line 11: Changes 'most cost effective
manner' to 'in a manner that provides the greatest
value.'
Page 6, line 15: Adds battery storage to the
options an integrated resource plan should consider.
10:37:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ referenced the changes on page 6, line
11, and asked whether there was a definition for "greatest
value."
MR. HARDENBROOK replied that he would research that specific
definition. He explained that the change resulted from
discussions with the utilities and stakeholder groups that the
highest standard to be considered should not be the bottom
dollar but, instead, the greatest value that could be provided
to the consumer through increased reliability or geo location of
an asset that would make it more secure for serving a specific
community.
CHAIR HOPKINS reported that there had also been discussion for
types of fuel stock and ability for new technology to come on-
line. He noted that the RCA should not be making a singular
reason for approval based on the lowest cost.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked to underscore her concerns that
reliability often means redundancy which can often cost more.
She expressed her desire for caution in order to protect the
ratepayers when moving forward, which could sometimes mean
making choices that did not involve the creation of more
redundancy.
MR. HARDENBROOK reiterated that he would research the technical
definition for "greatest value."
10:40:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS declared his support for the change to
"greatest value." He asked about review of the transmission
line and offered his belief that page 7, line 21 through page 8,
line 6 addressed and clarified approval for the project and not
engagement in micromanagement for exactly where the transmission
line would be sited.
MR. HARDENBROOK replied that the work on the proposed bill
reflected an attempt to avoid some of the stumbling blocks and
pitfalls that had been encountered when other jurisdictions had
interconnected their utilities. He noted that there were some
specific regulations by local governments that determined "what
color the power lines and power poles can be." He said that
this language had been added to give the utilities assurance
that the RCA would not micromanage to that level.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS noted that Kodiak had outperformed
Anchorage for utility costs with its use of batteries. He
expressed his support for maintaining the RCA backstop authority
to establish an ERO, declaring that it was important to have
that accountability.
10:42:37 AM
MR. HARDENBROOK shared the last few changes to the proposed
bill, which included [original punctuation provided]:
Page 8, line 13: Increases the length of a high-
voltage, above-ground transmission line requiring
project pre-approval from 5 to 10 miles.
Page 8, lines 14-16: Separates high-voltage
submarine or underground cables from above-ground
lines and requires pre-approval if longer than 3
miles.
Page 8, lines 17-22: Adds, to projects requiring
pre-approval, energy storage devices and reactive
compensation devices. Definitions are renumbered.
Page 9, line 20: Updates the date by the which the
RCA must adopt regulations to July 1, 2021.
Page 9, line 25: Updates the effective date of the
bill to July 1, 2021.
10:43:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked whether the 15-megawatt threshold
applied to pre-approval of energy storage devices, as well.
MR. HARDENBROOK replied, "I'll get back to you on that."
CHAIR HOPKINS announced that there would still be public
testimony before moving the proposed bill forward. He pointed
out that this work had been an on-going effort for about 40
years.
MR. HARDENBROOK explained that the Senate Special Committee on
the Railbelt Electrical System would meet on February 12 and 14
and continue to take invited and public testimony with the
potential of adopting a further CS.
10:45:06 AM
CHAIR HOPKINS announced that HB 151 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 2020-02-06 - HB 232 ASHBA Letter of Support.pdf |
HENE 2/11/2020 10:15:00 AM HL&C 3/2/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 232 |
| 2020-02-06 - HB 232 Fiscal Note - Version U.pdf |
HENE 2/11/2020 10:15:00 AM HL&C 3/2/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 232 |
| 2020-02-10 - HB 232 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HENE 2/11/2020 10:15:00 AM HL&C 3/2/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 232 |
| 2020-02-11 - HB 232 AML Letter.pdf |
HENE 2/11/2020 10:15:00 AM HL&C 3/2/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 232 |
| 2020-02-10 - HB 232 Sponsor Statement - FINAL.pdf |
HENE 2/11/2020 10:15:00 AM HL&C 3/2/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 232 |
| 2020-02-11 - CS for HB 151 version K.pdf |
HENE 2/11/2020 10:15:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 2020-02-11 - HB 151 Summary of Changes U to Workdraft K.pdf |
HENE 2/11/2020 10:15:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| 2020-02-10 - HB 232 FNSB Letter of Support.pdf |
HENE 2/11/2020 10:15:00 AM HL&C 3/2/2020 3:15:00 PM |
HB 232 |