Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/14/1995 03:40 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SSTA - 2/14/95
SB 54 ELECTRIC UTIL & SOLID WASTE REMOVAL
CHAIRMAN SHARP calls the Senate State Affairs Committee to order at
3:40 p.m and brings up SB 54 as the first order of business before
the committee. The chairman informs the committee that the
proposed committee substitute for SB 54 corrects a drafting error.
On page 1, line 14, the language to be deleted should be [AND
PRESENTLY OR FORMERLY SERVED BY], and not simply [PRESENTLY OR
FORMERLY], as was specified in the original version of the bill.
The chairman also notes that the committee has received written
testimony from the Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative Association,
Inc. (ARECA) and Commercial Refuse.
CHAIRMAN SHARP states it is his intent to take as much testimony as
possible today to hear input for possible changes to SB 54. The
committee will hold SB 54 in order to work on the bill, and will
hear it again next week. The chairman calls the first witness.
Number 070
DAVE HUTCHENS, Executive Director, Alaska Rural Electric
Cooperative Association, Inc. (ARECA), asserts that utilities are
most efficient when they are monopolies. In lieu of competition,
services and rates are regulated by the APUC (Alaska Public
Utilities Commission), unless the consumers of a particular utility
vote to opt out of regulation. Mr. Hutchens repeats information
already submitted to the committee in his written statement. Mr.
Hutchens states ARECA supports SB 54.
Number 165
CHAIRMAN SHARP asks Mr. Hutchens if he thinks the wording change in
the proposed committee substitute is required.
MR. HUTCHENS thinks it is required.
Number 170
JIM ARNESON, Commercial Refuse, testifying from Anchorage via
teleconference, states he has already provided written copy of his
comments to the committee. Mr. Arneson would like to see either
full or partial deregulation of the refuse industry. He does not
think the refuse industry possesses the characteristics of a
natural monopoly. Mr. Arneson repeats the information already
submitted to the committee in writing.
Number 228
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asks Mr. Arneson how many certificates have
been issued for refuse hauling in the Anchorage area.
MR. ARNESON lists four companies with certification.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asks Mr. Arneson if he is asking for
deregulation of the certificates.
MR. ARNESON responds he is asking for some sort of deregulation,
either partial or total. He is cautious about asking for total
deregulation.
Number 257
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asks Mr. Arneson if he is currently only
serving commercial operations.
MR. ARNESON replies that is correct.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asks if the other operations are serving
commercial and residential operations.
MR. ARNESON replies that is correct.
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asks Mr. Arneson if he thinks the other
companies would object to his suggestion of deregulation.
MR. ARNESON responds the other companies would object, mainly
because they do not want any competition.
Number 295
SENATOR LEMAN comments he philosophically agrees with Mr. Arneson.
Senator Leman is interested in taking a look possibly implementing
some of Mr. Arneson's suggestions.
CHAIRMAN SHARP reminds the committee that SB 54 will be held in
order to consider suggestions.
Number 307
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asks Mr. Arneson how he heard about SB 54.
MR. ARNESON answers he tries to stay informed. He came across SB
54 while doing some research at the Anchorage Legislative
Information Office.
Number 320
JIMMY JACKSON, Attorney for GCI, states that, though GCI is not
directly affected by SB 54, maintaining the possibility of
competition in all utility markets is in the best interest of the
public. Therefore, GCI opposes SB 54, and particularly section 1.
Mr. Jackson thinks SB 54 is unnecessary. The APUC already has
ample authority to prevent harmful competition. He also thinks SB
54 would be harmful. Mr. Jackson says the trend in many places is
towards competition, not towards protecting service areas. The
affect of SB 54 may very well be to deny Alaska's citizens the
benefits of competition.
Number 355
SENATOR LEMAN says he was instrumental in passing legislation
allowing intrastate telephone competition. At the time, the
company that had the monopoly on intrastate telephone service said
allowing competition would not work. Time has shown that
competition is good for telephone companies and consumers. Senator
Leman asks Mr. Jackson if GCI's revenues have increased.
MR. JACKSON says GCI's revenues have increased. He is not sure if
Alascom's revenues have increased though. On the national level,
Mr. Jackson says both MCI and AT&T's revenues have increased with
competition. Mr. Jackson states monopolists will always assert
that competition cannot work. He does not think people will demand
that an extra set of wires be put down the street.
Number 385
CHAIRMAN SHARP comments, wires were put down both sides of the
street in some areas of Anchorage, until exclusive service areas
were established. So he has a problem allowing competition to come
in and "cherry-pick" the large, profitable loads. He is a strong
supporter of deregulating the whole system.
Number 405
SENATOR RANDY PHILLIPS asks Mr. Hutchens if the CEA (Chugach
Electric) or MEA (Matanuska Electric) has a position on SB 54.
MR. HUTCHENS does not think that CEA and MEA are opposed to SB 54.
He thinks MEA supports SB 54, but does not think there is an
official position from CEA.
Number 420
CHAIRMAN SHARP asks if anyone else wishes to testify on SB 54.
Hearing none, he announces that SB 54 will be held for future
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|