Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 17
03/06/2006 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB445 | |
| HB392 | |
| HB51 | |
| HB424 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 445 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 392 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 51 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 424 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 392-SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES ACTING CHAIR KOTT announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 392, "An Act authorizing the establishment of regional solid waste management authorities." 4:17:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, informed the members that a new committee substitute (CS) had been drafted for the members' consideration. REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to adopt CSHB 392, Version 24- LS1227\X, Bullock, 3/2/06, as the working document. There being no objection, Version X was before the committee. ACTING CHAIR KOTT asked Representative Wilson to explain the changes made in the CS. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON explained that during the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee (CRA) hearing on the bill, a CS was drafted to change the authority language to allow a municipality to opt out of an authority without causing that authority to dissolve. She said that in addition to changing the Solid Waste Management Authority statutes, the CS inadvertently modified the Port Authority statutes. She stated that the new CS removes all language that would modify the Port Authority statutes, as this was not the intent of the bill. ACTING CHAIR KOTT remarked that he would have offered an amendment to make this change if the CS had not been drafted. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON, in response to questions from Representative LeDoux, said that the new CS removes Sections 2 and 3, which dealt with the Port Authority. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said that she would like to have a member of her staff explain the details of the legislation. 4:21:02 PM BECKY ROONEY, Staff to Representative Wilson, Alaska State Legislature, said that the Southeast Conference has spent [two] years researching the legislation and has received grants to identify the problems, suggest solutions, and generate language for the bill. She stated that the bill provides a mechanism that can be useful all over the state; however, the sponsor is mainly interested in the affect the bill will have on Southeast Alaska. She said that each Alaskan produces 6 1/2-7 pounds of solid waste per day, which is a total of 2,125 tons per day. In Southeast Alaska, 250 tons of solid waste a day is generated, which is over 90,000 tons per year. She stated that over the past 10 years, Southeast Alaska has seen many landfills, waste- to-energy plants, and incinerators close, which has caused several communities to ship solid waste to super landfills in the Lower 48. She explained that due to the high cost of developing regional solid waste management facilities, individual communities have been unable to take on this task. MS. ROONEY went on to say that recycling and solid waste disposal is expensive, and Southeast Alaska communities are paying anywhere from $77-$220 per ton to ship recyclables to markets, and to ship solid waste to landfills, while in Anchorage, it only costs $40 per ton to deal with solid waste. She said that the communities that ship solid waste to the Lower 48 ship a combined average of 23,000 tons of municipal waste each year. This does not include the 32,000 tons processed in Juneau. She stated that some Southeast Alaska communities have landfills nearing the [maximum] capacity, while others have improper or un-permitted dumping sights. She said that the bill would allow several communities to form an authority, which would allow them to produce a regional solution to deal with municipal solid waste. She stated that the authority would keep the money spent on municipal waste disposal in Alaska, thus helping the regional economy. She explained that the bill would not affect how a municipality handles garbage pickup or any ordinances that govern mandatory participation in a program. MS. ROONEY said that HB 392 is modeled after the Port Authority and requires that voters in each municipality approve the authority. She said that the authority would have an independent legal existence and would be able to issue bonds, borrow funds or enter into contracts. She stated that a board would be responsible for creating the by-laws and regulations which would govern the authority, adding that the board would have representation from each municipality that is a member of the authority. She explained that a municipality would be able to withdraw without dissolving the authority; however, the municipality would still be responsible for any existing obligations to the authority. Ms. Rooney stated that once formed, the authority would decide where a regional facility would be located, along with the technologies that would be used to deal with solid waste management. This could include facilities for recycling, state of the art landfills, thermal- reduction or waste-to-energy plants, composting, and areas to treat oily soils. 4:25:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG, referring to a letter in committee packets, asked if the concerns of the Attorney General have been addressed. MS. ROONEY replied that these concerns have been addressed. She said that she would provide a copy of the letter from Legislative Council, which includes answers to these concerns. 4:26:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD commented that in Europe, each home has a compost pile and both homes and stores are charged for disposal of any garbage produced. He stated that during the time when he was in Europe, the cost was $2.25 for a sticker to place one bag of garbage in the landfill. He said that this reduced the amount of garbage produced, as all biodegradable materials were placed in a compost pile. He expressed his wish to see the emphasis placed on individuals and businesses to do what they can to reduce the amount of garbage produced. He remarked that the root of the problem needs to be addressed and said "we throw too much stuff away." 4:28:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the Municipality of Anchorage is in favor of or against the bill. Municipality of Anchorage had not been contacted; however, the waste management group that processes the garbage at the Anchorage landfill was supportive of the legislation. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed concern with regard to the impact on the Municipality of Anchorage. He recalled that there have been "garbage wars" in the past and expressed concern that this may allow the municipality to create a port authority to operate the landfill as a subterfuge to avoid the municipal tax cap that is currently in place. He asked if Representative Wilson has spoken with the Regulatory Commission of Alaska regarding who would be regulating the proposed Solid Waste Management Authority. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON replied that the Department of Law has looked over several revisions to ensure that it would not affect other areas. She stated that Rollo Pool would be able to give more detail regarding this issue. 4:31:31 PM ROLLO POOL, Executive Director, Southeast Conference, related that Southeast Conference is supportive of HB 392. He informed the committee that over the last 15-20 years, practically every community in Southeast Alaska has created a solid waste plan, a recycling plan, and household hazardous waste. Furthermore, nearly every report and study relates that communities should work together to solve the problems as a group. However, nothing has ever been done to [encourage] communities to work together on the issue. This legislation allows communities to collaborate and cooperate on the collection, sorting, and disposal of solid waste. This legislation provides an important step for communities to address solid waste in a regional fashion. Regarding the earlier question as to whether this would be regulated by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA), he opined that Southeast Conference would prefer it not to be regulated by the RCA because the communities will operate the process and will do so in full view of the community. He noted that he has had no correspondence from the RCA that it should regulate the proposed authority. 4:33:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Pool had talked with the RCA regarding its current regulatory authority. He indicated his understanding that the RCA is trying to leave the garbage business. MR. POOL said that he didn't speak with the RCA. However, discussions with the Department of Law revealed that the regulation could [be performed by the communities or the RCA] depending upon Southeast Conference's preference. He reiterated that the Southeast Conference doesn't want [the proposed authorities] to be regulated by the RCA because they will be in the public domain. In further response to Representative Rokeberg, Mr. Pool highlighted that every community in Southeast Alaska is different. For example, Juneau has a private hauler and a landfill; Sitka has a private carrier for its garbage; and Haines has a privately owned landfill. The remainder of the region has publicly owned [waste facilities]. He noted that most of the publicly owned landfills do not accept raw garbage and thus construction and demolition debris and items that aren't inert aren't allowed. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to how an authority would deal with the private services. MR. POOL said that the currently operating landfills could become a player in a regional solution. He informed the committee that a plan reviewed those communities that are currently shipping waste, which amounts to about one-third of the garbage in Southeast Alaska. Mr. Pool opined that it would be cheaper to ship waste [within the region versus out of the state]. He mentioned the possibility of capturing energy from the waste. This is a long-term project, and he said that whatever it considered would have a life expectancy of 25-50 years. 4:37:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed concerned that under HB 392, the authority can be established and collect waste, which could result in a potential conflict between private enterprise and the state authority. 4:37:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON replied that the intent is [for the authority] to deal with the waste once it is delivered to the harbor/port. This legislation, through the authority, allows the communities to save money while not interfering with how the communities handle their waste. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that page 1 specifies that the purpose of the solid waste authority includes storage, collection, transportation, separation, processing, recycling, and disposal. MS. ROONEY said that HB 392 doesn't hamper any municipality's collection services. The reference to "collection" refers to the time after it has been collected. She clarified that it speaks to waste leaving the [community]. 4:39:50 PM CINDY ROBERTS, Denali Commission, Division of Community Advocacy, Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development (DCCED), informed the committee that she manages the solid waste grant program. She related that in fiscal year (FY) 04 the Denali Commission was pleased to work with the Southeast Conference to create the language in HB 392 for which she related support. Ms. Roberts highlighted that while HB 392 is important for Southeast Alaska specifically, the legislation presents opportunities for communities [in other regions]. For instance, last summer over 1 million pounds of hazardous waste and steel was brought out of the Yukon drainage by a nonprofit organization. If some of the communities along the Yukon River could utilize HB 392 to form an authority and thereby have funds, it could help them do a better job. Ms. Roberts concluded by strongly encouraging the committee to support HB 392. 4:43:15 PM JOHN BOLLING, City Administrator, City of Craig; Member, Southeast Conference, echoed earlier testimony regarding the mechanism HB 392 provides for communities to work together to address solid waste issues. He opined that this will allow communities in Southeast Alaska to take advantage of an economy of scale for the disposal of solid waste. Ideally, it should reduce the cost of handling municipal solid waste over time. He informed the committee that the City Craig pays $200/ton for solid waste to be shipped to the Lower 48. This proposed authority provides the City of Craig the ability to partner with other communities in the region to develop a long-term cost- effective solution. Furthermore, the funding to dispose of the solid waste in Southeast can stay in the region and create jobs in the region. Mr. Bolling concluded by noting that the City of Craig supports HB 392. 4:45:21 PM ACTING CHAIR KOTT inquired as to how the shipping costs for the City of Craig have increased over the last decade. MR. BOLLING responded that about five years ago, the City of Craig was paying $.04/ton to dispose of the solid waste that the city collects from its residents. Currently, it costs $.10/ton to do so, which he characterized as a substantial increase. In further response to Acting Chair Kott, Mr. Bolling clarified that there is a chance of decreasing the aforementioned costs. However, he said that he is really looking for stability. One of the advantages the authority might bring, he opined, are more predictable costs for the City of Craig. In even further response to Acting Chair Kott, Mr. Bolling said that he didn't envision that the city's costs would increase during the initial inception of the legislation. 4:47:05 PM DAN EASTON, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), stated that DEC certainly supports HB 392, which it views as creating opportunity for additional regional solid waste management systems in Alaska. He pointed out that for solid waste management, larger is better in terms of funding and operating. He noted that larger solid waste operations are less apt to create environmental or human health problems. Therefore, he urged the committee's support for HB 392. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if anything in HB 392 eliminates DEC's regulation of this industry. MR. EASTON replied no, and clarified that DEC's statutes and regulations typically apply to a person who is defined very broadly as a government, authority, person, and group. 4:48:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if DEC regulates landfills throughout the state. MR. EASTON replied yes. In further response to Representative Rokeberg, Mr. Easton explained that DEC permits landfills throughout the state and regulates their operation in terms of human health and environmental impact. In terms of the financial regulation that the RCA does, he said he didn't know what the RCA's role is for solid waste facilities. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether a private corporation or person that applied with DEC and met its requirements as well as local requirements, would be granted the permit to operate a private landfill. MR. EASTON replied yes. 4:49:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG directed the committee's attention to page 2, line 22, of Version X, which is the enabling ordinance that allows an authority to be established and leaves it to establish its powers and boundaries. He asked if the language allows the authority to establish its boundaries beyond the lines of the municipality. 4:50:29 PM RUTH HAMILTON HEESE, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental Section, Civil Division - Juneau, Department of Law, related her understanding that the intent of HB 392 is to make the legislation operate in similar fashion to the port authority legislation. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG, referring again to page 2, subsections (e) and (f), pointed out that if the authority establishes boundaries outside of the municipality, then there are no voters. He then pointed out that subsection (g) on page 2 refers to the authority organizing in a manner "not prohibited by law already." [Due to technical difficulties, the recording fades from 4:51:48 p.m. to 4:52:18 p.m.] MS. HAMILTON HEESE indicated that the solid waste facility would be operated within the region of the municipalities that band together. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG pointed out that on page 4, paragraph (14) gives the authority the power to exercise eminent domain under AS 29.35.030. He inquired as to what falls under AS 29.35.030. MS. HAMILTON HEESE said she couldn't answer that today. 4:52:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, referring to page 12, Section 3, related his understanding that the authority would be regulated by the RCA if there was a competing utility. MS. HAMILTON HEESE noted her agreement. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG related his further understanding that nothing in the legislation would prohibit the establishment of this authority when a regulated certificate of convenience was already issued in a jurisdiction. MS. HAMILTON HEESE said that she didn't know the answer. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG surmised that there is regulatory authority over a collection service, not a landfill, that operates privately in a municipal jurisdiction. Therefore, he stressed the importance of determining whether this legislation would authorize the establishment of a regional authority notwithstanding an existing certificate of public convenience and necessity. MS. HAMILTON-HESSE offered her understanding that this legislation would freely allow municipalities to come together and operate, even in the presence of an existing facility. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to what would happen if the municipality had already agreed to exclusivity or a franchise. MS. HAMILTON HEESE opined that contract law would come into play and perhaps prevent the municipality from becoming wayward of a preexisting obligation. She further opined that it would depend on the facts. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed concern that if the legislation doesn't recognize that there is a regulated utility operating that could be private. He related his belief that a municipality could use an authority to run a company out of business. He pointed out that the legislation indicates that if there is competition, it would be regulated. However, the legislation doesn't prohibit the authority from entering the territory [of an existing operator], which seems to mean that the authority wouldn't need a certificate to operate. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON reiterated that the legislation allows municipalities to join together to start an authority to provide for unmet needs. She highlighted that each municipality that enters the agreement would have to conduct a vote of its residents regarding whether they want to enter the authority. 4:57:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG opined that the aforementioned doesn't address his question. He inquired as to whether sideboards need to be included such that other businesses are protected. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said that she didn't object to such an amendment. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that Anchorage is a regional authority already, and related his understanding that it would have to go through the process outlined in HB 392. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON reiterated that this legislation allows several municipalities to come together rather than just one. She said this legislation wouldn't pertain a municipality that was going to deal with its solid waste on its own. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG discussed the garbage wars in Anchorage and the cherry picking that occurs. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON specified that this legislation doesn't deal with companies at all. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that sometimes municipalities don't like companies. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if any companies in the [Southeast] area are perceived to be a regional authority and operate under a certificate of convenience. MR. POOL related that [Southeast Conference] has spoken with both of the private landfill owners in Southeast Alaska, both of which are interested in participating at some point. Furthermore, the operator of the Juneau landfill could be the operator of a regional landfill. Mr. Pool noted that the Southeast Conference believes in commerce as well as obtaining the best price for this service. He said that the Southeast Conference really doesn't care who provides the service. In fact, if a private company had come forward during the last 10 years and built a regional landfill, this legislation wouldn't be before the committee. However, he said he understood the concerns, and suggested that perhaps the legislation could be redrafted to exclude areas of the state that so desired. 5:01:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if any solid waste company is regulated in the area, including collection services. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG informed the committee that to be regulated a company must have over $300,000 in gross receipts. 5:02:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON referred to page 2, line 7, which specifies: "the governing body of a municipality may, by ordinance, create a regional solid waste management authority as a public corporation of the municipality". She noted that she is open to language that would prevent the concerns stated. ACTING CHAIR KOTT, upon determining there were no further questions or witnesses to testify, closed public testimony. He then inquired as to whether Representative Rokeberg had an amendment to address his concerns. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he wasn't interested in excluding other parts of state. He restated his concern with regard to regulation when there is already an existing regulated utility, but said that he doesn't know that he has the answer. However, he maintained that [the authority] could be utilized as a tool to get rid of a bad operator by a municipality. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if the same statements and arguments apply to any municipal landfills under the current system. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that per today's testimony, landfills aren't regulated, only collection services are. The landfills merely obtain a permit from DEC. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if language could be inserted to specify that this legislation doesn't apply to collection services, if that's the intent of the sponsor. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON emphasized that she didn't want to put into place too many limits because [it might limit] the authority's ability to organize and develop in a manner that's best for the area, even if it includes an existing collection company. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted his agreement, but maintained his concern with regard to possible difficulties with competing utilities. ACTING CHAIR KOTT said that Representative Rokeberg could work with the sponsor between now and when the legislation goes to the House floor. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there is any common law or defense that an existing regulated utility could put forward to defend against a predatory practice, were it to occur. MS. HAMILTON HEESE replied that she cannot answer that, but offered to take the question back to the appropriate person in the Department of Law. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG commented that Southeast Alaska is an appropriate place for a regional authority, and therefore he supported the [legislation]. He further commented that Southeast Alaska should establish a regional port authority as well. 5:10:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to report CSHB 392, Version 24- LS1227\X, Bullock, 3/2/06, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying three zero fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 392(L&C) was reported out the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee. 5:11:21 PM The committee took a brief at-ease.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|