Legislature(2019 - 2020)BARNES 124
05/01/2019 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
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 | |
| SB83 | |
| SB16 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 83 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 16 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 83-TELECOMMUNICATIONS REGULATION/EXEMPTIONS
3:20:43 PM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the first order of business would
be SENATE BILL NO. 83, "An Act relating to the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska; relating to the public utility regulatory
cost charge; relating to the regulation of telecommunications;
relating to exemptions, charges, and rates applicable to
telecommunications utilities; relating to regulation of
telephone services; and relating to alternate operator
services."
3:22:49 PM
KIM SKIPPER, Staff, Senator Chris Birch, Alaska State
Legislature, presented SB 83 on behalf of Senator Birch, prime
sponsor. She paraphrased parts of the sponsor statement
[included in the committee packet], which read in its entirety
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Senate Bill 83 seeks to encourage investment and
innovation in the telecommunication industry by
updating the telecommunication statutes. Rapid changes
in technology and in the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) regulations, render portions of the
existing statutes obsolete and/or inefficient in the
modern telecommunications world.
All of Alaska's telecommunications providers worked
together through the Alaska Telecom Association to
offer the suggested changes made in Senate Bill 83.
The goal of was to maintain important consumer
protections, appropriate Regulatory Commission of
Alaska (RCA) jurisdiction, and consistency with FCC
regulations while at the same time allowing for
greater flexibility to more rapidly take advantage of
new technology.
Some existing RCA regulations are over 25 years old
and focused on landline and traditional long-distance
service. As customers continue to prefer broadband and
mobile services and the demand for landline decreases,
the outdated regulations are largely obsolete. Carrier
of last resort regulations needlessly duplicate
existing statutory requirements and alternative
operator services are no longer used. SB83 places
service providers on a more level playing field and
will encourage deployment of advanced technologies and
more efficient network design.
SB 83 creates new protections in statute for rural
areas by requiring landline and long-distance rates,
terms and conditions be the same as in larger towns.
SB 83 requires that the Regulatory Cost Charge (RCC)
be assessed and submitted to the RCA by all
telecommunication utilities. Currently the RCC is not
being paid by utilities that are municipally owned or
are cooperatives. All members of the Alaska Telecom
Association support this change.
I would appreciate your support for SB 83.
3:24:32 PM
CHRISTINE O' CONNOR, Executive Director, Alaska Telecom
Association, provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled, "SB
83: Telecommunications Statutes." Ms. O'Connor noted that the
statutes in the presentation only relate to landline service -
either local calling or long distance. She stated that, as a
baseline, SB 83 is unanimously supported by all Alaska Telecom
Association (ATA) members, which are the landline, long
distance, wireless, and broadband providers that serve Alaska
(slide 2). All members also agree that many telecommunication
statutes in Alaska are obsolete and impose regulatory burdens on
companies and regulators. She continued by explaining how
telecommunications has transformed since many of Alaska's
telecom statutes were adopted in the 1970s, adding that the
federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 changed the marketplace
and started an evolution toward light-touch oversight (slide 3).
As of 2017, she said, 41 states have reduced or eliminated
telecommunication regulation, which generally means that telecom
companies manage their owns rates as cooperative and municipal
telecom companies on Alaska already do today. Updating state
statutes would allow Alaska's companies to take advantage of the
flexibility that most other states allow, while still
maintaining the regulators important role of overseeing the
fitness of providers and mandating the continuance of landline
and long-distance service. She emphasized that this is not a
deregulation bill, "it is simply pulling away some obsolete
statutes and getting rid of some pointless paper shuffle that's
happening."
3:27:39 PM
CO-CHAIR WOOL noted that the Regulatory Commission of Alaska
(RCA) seems to think that this is a deregulation bill, based on
a memorandum they sent to the legislature [included in the
committee packet].
MS. O' CONNOR opined that it's not deregulation because the
regulatory commission will continue to have authority over all
telecom providers. The regulators would determine that
providers are fit, willing, and able to serve; and designate
areas where their service is mandatory. She added that in those
designated areas, only the RCA has the authority to allow the
discontinuation of service if the company can demonstrate it's
in the public's interest. "This is strong regulation of the
continuation of landline service," she said.
3:29:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES, referencing slide 4, asked what the white
colored states represent.
MS. O' CONNOR said those states have not taken any action on
updating their telecommunication statutes and still maintain
traditional monopoly-style regulation over their telecom
entities.
3:29:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES sought clarification on the map's legend.
MS. O' CONNOR explained that the map is from the National
Regulatory Research Institute, which studies regulation across
the United States. She said that the legend represents the
largest land provider in each state with color coding.
3:30:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS questioned the historic balance between
subsidies and regulation in the telecommunication industry.
MS. O' CONNOR said that every subsidy has its corresponding
obligations.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked who pays each subsidy and how much
they receive annually.
MS. O' CONNOR said the state fund is through a line item on
landline and wireless telephone bills, which is distributed
through regulation that the RCA has authority over. She noted
that SB 83 doesn't affect that authority. She further noted
that the state fund is approximately 19 million annually.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS questioned whether the all 19 million goes
towards supporting RCA functions.
MS. O' CONNOR explained that the funding is dispersed to the
providers to support the landline networks in Alaska. She noted
that the RCA is funded through a separate line item on landline
phone bills called the "regulatory costs charge."
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS questioned whether SB 83 contemplates
reducing subsidies to the industry in exchange for less
regulation.
MS. O' CONNOR answered no. She said that subsidies, the Alaska
Universal Service fund, is a separate issue. The RCA made
dramatic changes to the fund and will conduct a sunset review of
the fund is 2021.
3:34:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN sought to clarify that SB 83 does not
affect RCA's authority over the Alaska Universal Services fund.
MS. O' CONNOR replied that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN questioned whether the bill affects the
civil penalties that the RCA has authority over for a profit
negative service.
MS. O' CONNOR said the civil penalties that are currently in
statute would continue to apply to any sections that still apply
to telecommunication. She added that if a company was in
violation of those statutes then the RCA could assess civil
penalties.
3:35:09 PM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked for the purpose of the subsidies and why
they are needed.
3:35:25 PM
MS. O' CONNOR said each funding mechanism has a different
purpose. The AUS, for example, is for the support of intrastate
communication while federal funds have different purposes. The
High Cost Fund is to help deploy and operate broadband networks.
The E-Rate program supports schools and libraries; the Rural
Healthcare Fund supports medical facilities connectivity. She
pointed out that we need them because infrastructure is
immensely expensive, and Alaska is vast, adding that Alaska
would not have the networks we have today without these support
funds.
3:36:35 PM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX sought clarification on where the subsidies are
used.
3:36:44 PM
MS. O' CONNOR reemphasized that each program is different - with
the E-Rate program the funds go for a certain school and the
school district applies - same with the Rural Healthcare Fund.
The High Cost Fund is different, in that they give a set amount
of money to a company and in return the company deploys
broadband or upgrades the speed of broadband at a defined number
of locations.
3:38:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked Ms. Skipper for Senator Birch's
perspective on eliminating carrier of last resort protections
versus continuing to use the status quo of addressing on a case
by case basis through the commission.
MS. SKIPPER offered her understanding that carrier of last
resort would not be eliminated under SB 83.
MS. O' CONNOR, in response to Representative Fields, maintained
that the bill would not eliminate the obligation to provide
service in all the same areas - that obligation exists in
statute. She said the certificate of public convenience and
necessity carries that obligation and the corresponding
regulations. What is being eliminated, she said, is a
duplicates layer of regulation that is separate from that
certificate. She added that ATA will still have the obligation
to serve and to request permission before discontinuing service.
3:40:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS inquired as to the perspective in crafting
the bill in such a way that, according to the staff, a
substantial elimination of carrier of last resort is being made.
MS. O' CONNOR noted she spend several months in the public
process at the commission, discussing modernizing statutes. She
further noted that the commissioners adopted this bill as their
recommendation for modernization. She said that the staff memo
was presented to the commission and was never adopted. The
staff memo in many places calls for more regulation of items
that are out of the jurisdiction of the state. She assured the
committee that it was a well-vetted conversation and the
commission ultimately adopted SB 83.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked which carriers of last resort
protections are being eliminated.
3:43:28 PM
MS. O' CONNOR said "there is a section of regulation - again not
statute - that defines some details about service in a more
granular level than statute; but again they are duplicative of
the certificates statutes, which require continuing service, RCA
approval to serve."
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS suggested that Ms. O'Connor was saying,
"this particular regulation is gone, but the RCA could decide,
as a nuclear option, to revoke someone's certificate, but they
would be left with more of just a nuclear option versus a more
refined tool." He asked if that accurately summarized her last
statement.
MS. O'CONNOR answered no, the certificate is not all or nothing.
She clarified that the RCA had certificate authority through the
certificate of public convenience and necessity for decades,
adding that "they have multiple options." For example, she
said, they have had concerns about certain areas that were
served by an old radio telephone technology and in those cases,
they have called the companies to the commission, opened a
monitoring docket, which requires the company to regularly
report back to the commission.
3:44:29 PM
MS. O'CONNOR turned attention to slide 5. She stated that SB 83
is structured to exempt telecommunication companies from rate
regulation in AS 42.05 [Alaska Public Utilities Regulatory Act];
nonetheless, many important sections would be retained. She
noted that statutes in AS 42.05 that generally apply to the
functions of the commission and are not specific to
telecommunications will still apply.
3:47:14 PM
REPRSENTATIVE HANNAN questioned the kind of situation that would
incline the federal FCC to allow a discontinuation of service.
3:47:28 PM
MS. O' CONNOR stated that the most recent application for
discontinuation of service was an area in Healy Lake where there
were two residents left. She explained that the telecom
equipment was being run on backup generations due to lack of
commercial power. She noted that the RCA denied the application
and allowed the service to continue. She restated that in order
to discontinue service it must be in the public's best interest,
which is a high bar to meet.
CO-CHAIR WOOL asked for an example of the distorted fee that
will be fixed under SB 83.
MS. O'CONNOR explained that the regulatory cost charge is set up
in statute and funds the commission. Any exempt utility, like a
cooperative, does not assess that charge on consumers' bills;
however privately-owned companies do not have that option. The
amount being assessed is a percentage from adding all the
activity related to telecommunications at the commission. She
pointed out that by statute, only have of the companies'
consumers are funding the RCA's telecommunications activity. SB
83 would level the playing field by assessing that charge over
all telecommunications providers.
3:50:01 PM
CO-CHAIR WOOL asked why cooperative companies that aren't
regulated by the RCA would still have to pay the regulatory cost
charge to the commission.
MS. O'CONNER offered her belief that all cooperatives support
this change. She pointed out that all telecom companies,
including cooperatives, generate activity at the RCA. The
statute allowed cooperatives to economically deregulate and it
was originally adopted, the belief was that they would not
generate activity at the RCA. Since that time, she said,
federal funding programs have delegated oversite to the RCA,
which every company participates in. Dockets such as the AUSF
docket, which is reopening in 2021, will affect every company
even though only half of them are funding that activity.
CO-CHAIR WOOL questioned whether this change will result in more
money for the RCA or lower rates for customers because the
charge would be spread over all providers.
MS. O' CONNOR shared her understanding that the charge should
decrease; however, it varies depending on how much activity
there is. Nonetheless, she said, it is still a very small
charge.
3:53:26 PM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX pointed out that most entities don't accept
increased charges based on fairness. She asked to hear from the
cooperative (co-op) telecom companies to explain their rational
and what they would be getting out of SB 83.
MS. O' CONNOR opined that the alternative to paying into a
predictable sustainable regulatory cost charge is that the
commission also has the authority to assess on a per-use basis
and figure out the cost. Last year, when this piece of
legislation was introduced in the senate the statute was
unchanged, leaving the RCA with the authority to bill for their
time used and their cost. She noted that they realized it's
hard to have a predictable revenue stream when assessing on
whatever may arise. She said that was the incentive to sustain
the RCC across everyone to insure predictability to both the ATA
and the RCA.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS offered his belief that under SB 83 the
industry will profit from deregulation. He suggested having a
concomitant reduction in subsidies from consumers to
conceptually match that. He asked how much additional money the
industry anticipates making from consumers as a result of the
elimination of economic regulation.
MS. O' CONNOR said this bill is not about pulling in extra
revenue. On the contrary it's about efficiency and eliminating
what a commissioner has called "a blizzard of paper that is not
being used for any value." She noted the federal rate cap on
local rates, adding that it could conceivably go up to a maximum
of 15 dollars. She stated that they are putting resources into
building broadband networks in attempt to gain efficiency, while
continuing to serve their landline customers.
3:57:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked if that is 15 dollars per month.
MS. O' CONNOR answered yes. She explained that the RCA
acknowledged that new section 381-L, which requires uniform
rates, terms, and conditions across service areas for every
company, is pivotal. By placing that in statute, she said, that
gives extra assurance that more high-cost rural areas won't be
disadvantaged.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX questioned whether the RCA regulates cell phone
service.
MS. O'CONNOR affirmed that.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX questioned the point of regulating landlines.
3:59:03 PM
MS. O' CONNOR countered that by point out that 48 percent of
Alaskans have landlines, adding that they are resilient in an
emergency and an important service that the ATA will continue to
provide.
3:59:4 PM
MS. O' CONNOR returned attention to slide 7. She shared that
there are protections against dramatic increases in local rates
and that federal rules limit local [landline] rates. She noted
that SB 83 also adds a new layer of protection in the new
subsection AS 42.05.38(l), which requires rates, terms, and
conditions of service to be the same across defined service
areas. Thus, making it statewide for large providers, like GCI.
It would also extend the benefits of lower rates through
competition in urban areas and ensure that those lower rates
continue in the more remote areas.
4:00:31 PM
CO-CHAIR WOOL pointed out that most brick-and-mortar businesses
use landlines. He asked if this change would affect business
equally the same as residential.
MS. O' CONNOR acknowledged that all landline services would be
affected equally.
CO-CHAIR WOOL sought clarification on whether the ability to
change rates would no longer go through the RCA.
MS. O' CONNOR noted that 90 percent of Alaskans are currently
served by a company that can change its rates without approval.
She explained the process as an "informational filing" made to
the regulatory commission, which is approved automatically.
4:02:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS inquired as to the "no municipal
regulation" section of the bill.
MS. O' CONNOR stated that the RCA regulates telecommunications;
therefore, while structuring the bill they didn't want to open
the door to asking for regulatory relief from a municipality.
4:03:39 PM
MS. O' CONNOR continued with her presentation. She stated that
rate regulation and the filing process with the commissions
authority depends on who you are. Under existing regulation and
statutory timelines, tariff authority, review, and approval
process vary. A filing could be an informational filing, where
the company notifies the commission that a landline rate or
service has changed, and the commission must then review and
then automatically accept it. In some cases, the filing could
be more traditional, which requires the company to provide more
detail and the statutory timeline is 45 days. It could even be
a change that requires an extended, in-depth monopoly utility-
type review with a timeline as long as 420 days (slide 8).
4:04:32 PM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked where the telecom companies can raise
rates without permission and where they cannot.
MS. O' CONNOR replied that they must do the extended filings and
get permission in the most remote areas where there isn't
another provider. She said that lead them to the new section AS
381(l), asking what is the protection for those areas if a
company can just change its rates, so guaranteeing that the
rates, terns, and conditions will be uniform across remote and
across the large service areas protects those areas and provides
relief.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX questioned whether people in the large service
areas will see an increase in their rates.
MS. O'CONNOR stated that she did not expect that, as the
companies have been able to change their rates for years now.
Some rates have been adjusted while others haven't changed in 20
years.
4:06:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS inquired as to the reason for requesting
deregulation if there is no anticipation of raising rates.
MS. O' CONNOR stated that the impetus for SB 83 is efficiency,
adding that there was an average of 80 filings per year at the
commission of various informational rate filings. She pointed
out that each filing takes a lot of resources and is time
consuming for both the ATA and the commission.
4:09:11 PM
CO-CHAIR WOOL questioned whether any of the informational
filings would be necessary under SB 83.
MS. O' CONNOR said they would all be eliminated.
4:09:34 PM
MS. O' CONNOR returned attention to slide 9. She related that
Alaska Communications is one of Alaska's largest companies that
expend significant resources managing five tariffs. This is
thousands of detailed tariff pages that are incredibly complex
and full of telecommunication industry jargon that consumers
don't look at. Rate regulation consumes resources from both the
company and regulators that could be better spent on other
matters. SB 83 allows the RCA to designate providers as
Eligible Telecommunications Carriers (ETCs). ETC designation
qualifies a telecommunications provider to participate in
federal Universal Service Fund programs, which is then monitored
by the RCA. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has
delegated this authority to the RCA and SB 83 would put this
authority in statute making their oversite of those programs
explicit (slide 10). COLR regulations were implemented in 2010
with the intention of ensuring that landline service remains in
an area by offering explicit financial support to one provider
in the service area. That explicit funding for COLR duties
ended January 1, 2019. Now, the COLR regulations remain as a
duplicate layer of regulation, which SB 83 would eliminate.
However, longstanding state and federal protections remain
making COLA redundant. Before the COLA regulations were
adopted, the RCA relied on the powers of the Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity (CPNC) defined in statute and
demonstrated the effectiveness of that authority in requiring
companies to serve certain locations. This authority is
unchanged by SB 83. Oversight of the Eligible
Telecommunications Carrier designation remains and is added to
statute, and federal obligations still require permission before
discontinuing service (slide 11).
4:12:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS inquired as to the difference between an
RCA-based regulatory process for COLR versus a federal process.
MS. SKIPPER offered her understanding that the two work in
tandem.
MS. O' CONNOR, in response to Representative Fields, said that
they are different with the two different entities, adding that
both have a public process. She said she did not know the
details of each process and offered to follow up with the
requested information.
CO-CHAIR WOOL sought clarification on the reason for eliminating
the duplicate layer of COLR regulation.
4:13:57 PM
MS. O' CONNOR said the COLR regulations are not in statute,
whereas the CPNC and all of the processes and powers that go
with it are. The COLR regulations enacted in 2010 were tied to
explicit funding, making a duplicate set of regulations. The
funding has since been eliminated. The concept is to remove the
potential confusion and uncertainty of having an "orphan" set of
regulations and leave the longstanding statute that has always
been operated under requiring service to continue.
4:14:42 PM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked if the funding that ended on January 1,
2019 was state funding.
MS. O' CONNOR stated that it was a part of the Alaska Universal
Service Fund, which was reformed over the last two years.
4:15:51 PM
MS. O' CONNOR returned to the presentation. She stated that SB
83 removes COLR designation in regulation; however, the
requirement to provide landline service remains in statute. SB
83 also maintains strong consumer protections: the CPNC, ETC,
new AS 42.05.381(l) rate protection, Regulatory Affairs and
Public Advocacy (RAPA), Attorney General Consumer Protection
Unit, and the FCC Consumer Complaint Center (slide 13). SB 83
also benefits consumers by mandating rates in remote areas match
rates in larger areas; allowing companies to respond more
quickly to consumer preferences; focusing resources on consumer
services; and correcting existing distorted assessment of the
regulatory cost charge (slide 14). In summary, SB 83 peels away
obsolete statutes related to landline service and allows
companies and regulators to operate more efficiently. It will
allow companies to focus on better service for Alaskans. In
February 2019 the RCA voted to support SB 83 as the means of
modernizing Alaska's telecommunications statutes (slide 15).
4:19:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked how SB 83 compares to other states'
deregulation proposals. He expressed interest in hearing about
what happened after deregulation from the equivalent of RCA in
other states.
MS. O'CONNOR said she would provide the requested information.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS referenced the staff memo and asked why
the staff recommended continued COLR protections.
4:20:59 PM
DAVID PARRISH, Common Carrier Specialist, Regulatory Commission
of Alaska, disclosed that he is the author of the aforementioned
staff memo. He explained that with COLR, generally the
protection exists in markets that have recently been declared
competitive where one carrier generally owns the majority of the
facilities that are used to provide service in the area. The
concept was not to let competition erode the incentive for
carriers to keep their networks up to date and in good working
order; there was a subsidy that went along with another added
layer of regulations. While there was an explicit
discontinuation of COLR support, there is frozen COLR support
that does get folded into the essential network support that is
continuing. He expressed concern that there is a disconnect
between what the continued subsidy is and what is proposed in SB
83 with regard to the obligations that currently designated COLR
would have going forward. He added that COLR does give some
certainty in situations where the commission must choose between
two carriers that both no longer want to serve. Having a
designated COLR adds efficiency, which was the intent when the
commission adopted it years ago.
4:24:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS questioned whether there is enough insight
into finances and costs of these programs to estimate how much
money companies might save through this deregulation; therefore,
how much subsidies might be reduced to save consumers money.
MR. PARRISH replied that there's multiple services that go
across these networks - some are regulated some are not. There
is very little in terms of cost specifics and revenue that these
networks generate. He related that carriers have noted their
use of subsidies to build out broadband networks. He noted that
it's a supplement to the federal support they are receiving,
which is exclusively targeted towards broadband networks.
4:26:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked if the companies must report to the
RCA to demonstrate that they are using the subsidies for
investments that are for public benefit in terms of
infrastructure.
STEPHEN MCALPINE, Commissioner, Regulatory Commission of Alaska,
replied that the investigation over the subsidies of the Alaska
Universal Service Fund came about as a result of the companies
being unable to account for how these funds were expended. He
added that there's no specificity in the amount of subsidy
that's awarded to a utility and how they spend the money. He
acknowledged that there's expenditures being made for broadband
that can't be sourced. He said they don't know for certain
whether they are AUSF funds but if they comingled all their
funds and built broadband then some of those funds probably are
being used for that purpose.
4:27:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS noted that if deregulation occurs there
should be additional transparency over where the money is going
if it potentially guarantees that the additional money the
companies save go back into publicly benefitting infrastructure.
MR. MCALPINE said that point has been made many times. He
acknowledged that if the RCA is going to approve the award of
the subsidies they should at least know where the money is being
spent.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS requested that Mr. McAlpine send the
appropriate language to require that transparency in an
amendment.
MR. MCALPINE agreed to provide the requested information.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS sought explanation from Mr. Parrish on a
section of the staff memo, "other statutory exemptions for
telecommunications carriers proposed by ATA are problematic."
MR. PARRISH explained that the way SB 83 is structured exempts
everything except what's retained, adding these are all statutes
that would be exempted.
4:32:11 PM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked how often the commission arbitrates a
complaint that comes out in favor of the utility or the
consumer.
4:32:44 PM
MR. MCALPINE replied that there had been a misunderstanding that
stemmed from GCI putting multiple services on a single bill.
Instead of receiving multiple services on multiple bills,
consumers received all their services on a single bill. He
noted that the reduced level of complaints is evidence that the
miscommunication "worked out."
4:34:17 PM
MR. PARRISH added that their consumer protection acts as a "go
between," it can facilitate a resolution without any kind of
formal or informal complaint. Consumers can call with a problem
or issue and the commission acts as a liaison.
4:35:05 PM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked they negotiate complaints under the RCA's
authority.
MR. MCALPINE explained that there is a statutory process. He
established a scenario in which a consumer from a regulated
utility calls with a problem. The first step is sending them
back to the utility to resolve it one on one. If it's not
resolved they can return with an informal complaint that the
consumer affairs department will mediate. He noted one of the
problems that results in outages is costly equipment repair in
rural areas. He referenced an outage that lasted over 40 days
in Kodiak, adding that the utility did not follow statute and
notify the commission when the outage occurred. He stated that
the statutory provision that allows the RCA to fine a utility is
100 per day, which is not significant. He opined that the cost
of enforcement exceeds any penalty that can be leveled.
Consequently, he said, problems are ignored knowing that the
statute won't be enforced and even if it is the fine is cheaper
than dealing with the actual problem. He offered his belief
that the commission has always worked well to resolve these
matters.
4:39:06 PM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked if customer complaints wouldn't be handled
by the RCA if SB 83 were to pass.
MR. PARRISH offered his understanding that the commission's role
would continue, adding that it might be hampered by the
elimination of tariffs. He stated that rates or conditions of
service are the first things that consumer protection goes to.
They look to the tariff to see whether the carrier or utility is
operating within the bounds of the tariff.
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX asked who goes to the tariff.
MR. PARRISH clarified that the consumer protection section
within the commission relies on the tariff language to resolve
disputes over regulated service, adding that this bill would
eliminate tariffs. He pointed out that there are tariffs that
will still be required on the federal level, regardless of if
there were no longer state tariffs for intrastate service.
4:41:52 PM
CO-CHAIR WOOL asked why Mr. McAlpine voted against SB 83 and if
the bill has been changed since.
4:43:08 PM
MR. ACALPINE explained that his concern has always been the
elimination of the designation of COLR, which could impact rural
Alaska.
4:45:43 PM
MR. PARRISH opined that the bill isn't necessarily in the
public's best interest. He added that is has improved since the
addition of section 381 (l) and (n), which provide some state
level protection against rate escalation, noting that it only
protects basic residential local telephone service. He said
that if you look at a carrier's tariff there are a multitude of
business commercial services that would not be protected under
that provision.
CO-CHAIR WOOL sought clarification the business protection and
whether this is a deregulation bill.
MR. PARRISH replied that in order to receive federal universal
service support, basic residential rates must be kept below a
maximum that gets adjusted based on a nation-wide average. He
reiterated that the new provision in SB 83 would only protect
basic residential local telephone service, while the others
would not have rate protections. He added that deregulation is
a bit of a semantics game and it's not full deregulation by any
stretch.
4:49:51 PM
CO-CHAIR LEDOUX announced that SB 83 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 83.Sponsor.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 83 |
| SB 83.Bill Version M.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 83 |
| SB 83.Sectional.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 83 |
| SB 83.Fiscal DCCED.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 83 |
| SB 83.Backup Support TelAlaska.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 83 |
| SB 83.Backup Support APT.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 83 |
| SB 83.Backup Support Alaska Telecommunications.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 83 |
| SB 83.Backup Support ASTAC.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 83 |
| SB 83.Backup Support ATA.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 83 |
| SB 83.Backup Support ATT.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 83 |
| SB 83.Backup Support CVTC.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 83 |
| SB 83.Backup Support MTA.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 83 |
| SB 83.Backup Support GCI.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 83 |
| SB 83.Backup Support OTZ.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 83 |
| SB 83.Backup Support Presentation for HLC.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 83 |
| SB 83.Backup Support Rural Coalition.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 83 |
| SB 83 Letter of Support ACS.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 83 |
| SB 83.Backup Support ACS.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 83 |
| SB 83.Backup Support Myth vs Fact.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 83 |
| SB 83.Backup Support RCA.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 83 |
| SB 83.Backup Opposition David Parrish.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 83 |
| SB 16.Sponsor.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Bill Version G.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Sectional.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Summary of Changes to Version G.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Fiscal REV.PDF |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Fiscal DCCED AMCO.PDF |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Backup Leg Audit 2014.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Backup Leg Audit.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Backup Letter from CHARR.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Backup Support ADN Article.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Backup Support ADN Article2.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Backup Support ADN Article3.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Backup Support Alaska Club.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Backup Support AP Article.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Backup Support ATA.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Backup Support CER STAR.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Backup Support CER STAR2.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Backup Support Eaglecrest.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Backup Support Frontiersman Article.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Backup Support Gilmore.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Backup Support Herrington.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Backup Support KINY Article.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Backup Support KTOO.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Backup Letter ATA2.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Backup Support KTOO2.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Backup Support KTUU.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Backup Support KTVA Article.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Backup Support PAC.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Backup Support Price.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Backup Support State Fair.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |
| SB 16.Backup Supporting Doc AMCO.pdf |
HL&C 5/1/2019 3:15:00 PM |
SB 16 |