Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/03/1994 03:00 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE AND SENATE LABOR AND COMMERCE
STANDING COMMITTEES
JOINT MEETING
March 3, 1994
3:00 p.m.
HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Bill Hudson, Chairman
Rep. Joe Green, Vice Chair
Rep. Eldon Mulder
Rep. Bill Williams
Rep. Joe Sitton
Rep. Brian Porter
HOUSE MEMBERS ABSENT
Rep. Jerry Mackie
SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT
Sen. Steve Rieger
Sen. Judith E. Salo
SENATE MEMBERS ABSENT
Sen. Tim Kelly, Chairman
Sen. Steve Rieger, Vice-Chairman
Sen. Bert Sharp
Sen. Georgianna Lincoln
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Rep. Gary Davis
Rep. Carl E. Moses
Rep. Tom Brice
Rep. Jeannette JAmes
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HSCR 3: Disapproving Executive Order No. 89.
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 295: "An Act relating to a citizens' utility board; and
amending Alaska Rule of Civil Procedure 24."
HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE
*HB 509 "An Act relating to the tax on transfers or
consumption of motor fuel, and to the proceeds
from the tax; and providing for an effective
date."
NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing.)
WITNESS REGISTER
REP. GAIL PHILLIPS
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 465-4931
Position Statement: Prime Sponsor of HSCR 3
JACK SLAMA
Teamster's Union
PO Box 102092
Phone: (907) 269-4101
Position Statement: Testified in opposition to EO 89
HELVI K. SANDVIK, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Transportation
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801-7898
Phone: (907) 465-6973
Position Statement: Testified in opposition to HSCR 3
ROBERT EAKMAN
Alaska Independent Trucking Association
200 W. 34th, Suite 863
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone: Not available
Position Statement: Testified in favor of HSCR 3
(testified via teleconference)
PAUL FUHS, Commissioner
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110800
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0800
Phone: (907) 465-2500
Position Statement: Testified in support of EO 89
REP. KAY BROWN
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 465-4998
Position Statement: Prime Sponsor of HB 295
STEVE CONN, Executive Director
Alaska Public Interest Research Group
601 W. 18th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Phone: (907) 258-5523
Position Statement: Testified in support of HB 295
BOB JENKS, Executive Director
Oregon Citizen's Utility
(address not given)
Phone: (503) 227-1984
Position Statement: Testified in favor of HB 295
(testified via teleconference)
PHYLLIS TURNER, Director
Citizen's Utility Board Organizing Project
(address not given)
Washington, D.C.
Phone: (202) 387-8030
Position Statement: Testified in favor of HB 295
(testified via teleconference)
THOMAS C. WILLIAMS, Director
Permanent Fund Dividend Division
Department of Revenue
P.O. Box 110460
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0460
Phone: (907) 465-2323
Position Statement: Testified in favor of HB 295, with
considerations
MARK FOSTER
611 Gold St., Unit D
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 586-2827
Position Statement: Testified in favor of HB 295
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HSCR 3
SHORT TITLE: DISAPPROVING EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 89
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) PHILLIPS,Vezey,G.Davis,Barnes,
Brice,Sitton,Mulder,Finkelstein
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/02/94 2217 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/02/94 2217 (H) RULES
02/28/94 2549 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE
INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
02/28/94 2550 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE
03/02/94 2588 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FINKELSTEIN
03/03/94 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/03/94 (S) L&C AT 03:30 PM
BILL: HB 295
SHORT TITLE: CREATE CITIZENS' UTILITY BOARD, INC.
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BROWN,B.Davis,Sitton,Nordlund,
Davies,Finkelstein
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/26/93 1529 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
04/26/93 1529 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, STATE AFFAIRS,
FINANCE
02/28/94 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM
205
03/03/94 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 509
SHORT TITLE: INCREASE MOTOR FUEL TAX
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/18/94 2458 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/18/94 2458 (H) L&C, STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
02/18/94 2458 (H) -FISCAL NOTE (REV) 2/18/94
02/18/94 2458 (H) -2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DEC, DOT)
2/18/94
02/18/94 2458 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/03/94 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-18, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN HUDSON called the meeting to order at 3:13 p.m.,
stated there was a quorum present, and announced the
calendar. He said the committee would be joined by the
Senate to address the Sponsor Substitute for House Special
Concurrent Resolution Number 3 (SSHSCR 3), and the committee
would then hear HB 295, followed by HB 509.
HSCR 3 - DISAPPROVING EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 89
Number 019
REP. GAIL PHILLIPS, Prime Sponsor of HSCR 3, read the
following sponsor statement:
"Executive Order 89 by Governor Hickel recommends that
Weights and Measures (W&M) be transferred from the
Department of Commerce and Economic Development (DCED) to
the Department of Transportation (DOT). After reviewing
this Order, the House Transportation's Weights and Measures
Subcommittee failed to find sufficient reasoning for this
transfer. House Special Concurrent Resolution 3 disapproves
of the transfer and reflects the findings of the W&M
Subcommittee.
"Hearings held in the fall of 1993 by the Weights and
Measures Subcommittee found that some regulations were not
being properly enforced, but these problems were mostly due
to a lack of enforcement by the Department of Public Safety
(Alaska State Troopers). Most of these problems have since
been corrected, but at no time during these hearings was any
criticism directed at DCED.
"What the Subcommittee did find was that W&M has been
consistently underfunded by the legislature. Due to this
underfunding W&M has not had the weigh stations as often as
desired. This situation will only be changed when the
legislature appropriates more funds to W&M, not by
transferring it to DOT.
"Finally, we have been told that the State is in a position
to lose $20 million in federal funding if W&M is not
transferred to DOT. This is not true. In your packets you
will find a copy of the FHWA Office of Motor Carrier
evaluation report. After reviewing this report carefully I
could not find any real concerns or major problems in our
state's size and weight enforcement program. I reviewed the
information provided on Oregon and Idaho's trucking
enforcement programs and I feel that Alaska's program better
complies with federal standards. It is important to note
that it is rare that any state meets all of the requirements
set out by US DOT. According to Mr. Max Piper, Director,
Office of Motor Carrier in Washington, D.C., our W&M program
has been approved by the US DOT. He stated that Alaska is
NOT in any danger of losing any ISTEA funding. He also went
on to say that Alaska complies to federal standards better
than most other states. I feel the information provided to
you will back up this statement. I do not see any need or
reason to transfer this program to DOT. HSCR 3 will keep
W&M under the supervision of DCED where it continues to work
efficiently and up to federal requirements."
Number 054
REP. WILLIAMS asked Chairman Hudson to explain the
memorandum from Rep. Carl Moses, Chairman of the House Rules
Committee.
Number 057
CHAIRMAN HUDSON said Rep. Moses indicated that this joint
hearing was in violation of the House rules. He said the
Legislative Affairs Agency provided a legal interpretation
on this matter, and he read a memorandum received from
Tamara Brandt Cook. (The 2/11/94 memorandum is available in
the committee file.) Chairman Hudson pointed out that there
was a serious difference of opinion. He then read paragraph
(3) of Rep. Moses's memorandum: "The violation of Rule
21(b) is that a joint committee has not been formed by means
of the adoption of a concurrent resolution. The Rule reads
in part: `A joint committee may be established only by the
adoption of a concurrent resolution.' There has been no
such resolution introduced to date." (The 3/3/94 memorandum
is available in the committee file.) Chairman Hudson said
he brought the two differing opinions before the leadership
of the House. He said since he believed the committee was
on solid ground he would proceed with the meeting.
Number 115
JACK SLAMA, Teamster's Union, testified in opposition to
Executive Order 89. He said, evidently, truckers are not
represented in this issue, and it is not because they are
apathetic. He said he spoke with a trucker, one of the
largest in the state, who said concerning the bureaucracy he
"was tired of being treated like a dog." He said this is
not a union issue; trucking is a viable industry, employing
a tremendous amount of people who often make good wages and
have good benefits. Mr. Slama said there needs to be a
process whereby the state can be an advocate of the trucking
industry. He mentioned that Commissioner Campbell is smart,
nice, powerful, and influential and is also part of the
explanation for the trucking industry's minimal
representation. He pointed out that prior administrations
have not always supported this industry. In addition to
this, the trucking industry competes with the Alaska
Railroad, and in many cases the railroad dictates what
truckers are going to be paid. He said the DOT is seeking
to have more control, and there needs to be a system of
checks and balances. He said the enforcement factor is
protection for truckers in a totally deregulated industry.
He said nothing short of enforcement will offer protection
in this arena of deregulation. He asked that instead of
putting a little fix on a big problem, a task force of
industry peers be put together. He said that this
administration has been "poor listeners." He said his
attempt is to make better listeners out of Commissioner
Campbell, the DOT, and hopefully the governor.
Number 206
REP. MULDER stated his appreciation of Mr. Slama's
attendance at the meeting. He said that as part of the
budget subcommittee Rep. Phillips mentioned previously, it
was enlightening to hear the truckers' position on
enforcement. He asked Mr. Slama to highlight the
perspective of teamsters and truckers on enforcement.
MR. SLAMA said it is not a contradiction of terms for the
trucking industry to be in favor of enforcement. He
explained that the legitimate carriers comply with rules,
federal regulations, and ensure proper maintenance of
equipment. He said there is a problem with operators who
are not in compliance because they know how to get around
the system. He affirmed that complying with regulations
costs money and the person who does not comply could care
less about enforcement.
REP. MULDER referred to an insinuation that truckers would
prefer dealing with DCED because there is a lack of
enforcement in commerce. He pointed out that responsible
truckers want adequate enforcement because it encourages a
level playing field. He then asked if the truckers'
position was in favor of this function being transferred to
the DOT.
Number 241
MR. SLAMA said he did not believe the truckers wanted a
transfer because they did not have confidence in the
political system and transferring this to the DOT would make
it more political than it is today. He said he sees this as
a conflict of interest because both the DOT commissioner and
Commissioner Fuhs sit on the board of the railroad.
Number 257
(CHAIRMAN HUDSON noted that SEN. STEVE RIEGER and SEN.
JUDITH SALO from the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee
were at the meeting.)
Number 261
SEN. STEVE RIEGER pointed out that the Senate Labor and
Commerce Committee had previously heard Executive Order 89,
although they had not heard HSCR 3.
Number 268
CHAIRMAN HUDSON mentioned this was his first involvement
with a joint meeting of this nature. Chairman Hudson asked
Mr. Slama to summarize his position on Executive Order 89
and on HSCR 3.
Number 283
MR. SLAMA reiterated that he was asking the state to be an
advocate of the trucking industry; he asked that W&M not be
transferred from the DCED to the DOT. He said the
administration needs to commit to funding W&M and needs to
incorporate participation from people who are working within
the industry. He concluded his comments by repeating that
people need to be better listeners.
Number 294
REP. WILLIAMS referred to Mr. Slama's earlier comment and
said he hoped it was not the case that truckers were being
treated unfairly. He asked for further clarification on Mr.
Slama's reference to the commissioners both sitting on the
board of the Alaska Railroad.
MR. SLAMA explained that the railroad is a direct competitor
of the trucking industry and therein lies a conflict of
interest. He asserted that in the past the trucking
industry's complaints, requests for assistance, and requests
for additional funding for compliance have "fallen on deaf
ears." He acknowledged that the trucking industry is not
the most polished, professional organization. He said it
was his belief that one should not serve the administration
and also sit on the board of directors of the Alaska
Railroad.
REP. WILLIAMS agreed that the Alaska Railroad is in
competition with truckers. He said he did not believe the
state or any government should compete with private
enterprise.
Number 336
HELVI SANDVIK, Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Transportation, apologized for Commissioner Campbell's
inability to attend the meeting. She said he would be
accessible by telephone at approximately 4:00 p.m. to answer
questions. She said the real reason for Executive Order 89
is not to determine whether the program is being run
properly by the DCED, but rather, regardless of who is
running it, to acknowledge that improvements need to be made
because the issue is deterioration of the highway system.
She said the state is responsible for maintaining and
operating the highways and the DOT is the agency that is
directly responsible for that. She explained that the DOT
has been working closely with the DCED as well as the
Department of Public Safety (DPS). She acknowledged that
the program was not perfect, "but was in pretty good shape."
She noted that it was important to improve upon the
enforcement of W&M.
MS. SANDVIK said the issue is a matter of efficiency. She
mentioned that each of the three agencies is responsible for
a particular element. She said the DCED, responsible for
permitting, frequently contacts the DOT to establish the
stipulations and criteria under which permits will be
issued. She explained that this process could be handled
more efficiently within a single agency. She said the
bottom line is that the DCED is not able to catch the
perpetrators, therefore, enforcement is inefficient. She
said data collected from the weigh-in-motion system, a
program the DOT is responsible for, is compared to data
collected by the DCED to determine the effectiveness of the
enforcement program. The preliminary results of the weigh-
in-motion system is that identification of oversize vehicles
at fixed stations has been problematic. She said the third
area is the DPS's utilization of jump scales. She repeated
that the DPS has been underfunded in this area. She
restated that this was not an issue of DOT versus DCED, but
was an issue of the most effective and efficient management
of the problem. She asserted that effective management
would involve consolidation of the permitting and
enforcement operations.
MS. SANDVIK commented on Mr. Slama's testimony and said she
was unsure of specific problems involved with transferring
this function to the DOT. She did not think this was an
issue of the DOT wanting more power and she repeated her
point that the DOT, as the agency directly responsible for
the deterioration of the highways, should deal with the
people driving the overload or oversize vehicles. She
responded to the concern for increased administrative costs
and said there was a zero fiscal note on this item. She
explained that the intent would not be to lay off DCED
employees, as they would be transferred to the DOT. She
said the DOT would be coordinating the programs and
therefore transferring people, not eliminating them.
REP. GREEN asked whether problems with the weigh-in-motion
system were due to the scales being closed or due to a
conflict between what the scales reported and what the
weigh-in-motion systems were indicating.
MS. SANDVIK replied that the problems were caused by both.
She said that the number of reported vehicles going through
the scale houses, compared to the data collected by weigh-
in-motion, indicated that not as many vehicles were
identified at the fixed scale houses. She said perhaps the
scales were closed, or possibly the scales were not picking
up the problems that the weigh-in-motion systems were
picking up.
Number 465
REP. GREEN asked for further clarification about the
mechanics of the system.
Number 470
MS. SANDVIK explained that when a vehicle runs over the
computerized system, it measures the speed, calculates the
distance between axles, and measures the weight of the
vehicle. She said this information is put into a
computerized data base which is generated and collected by
the DOT.
Number 480
REP. GREEN alluded to the assertion that the DCED had
insufficient personnel to keep the scales open long enough
while the DOT had access to sufficient personnel. He asked
if more dollars would be expended for longer scale time.
Number 490
MS. SANDVIK responded that staffing would not necessarily be
increased, but there would be closer coordination between
weigh-in-motion personnel and people directly working the
scale houses. She referred to personnel and funding
resources, and said the DOT currently has more flexibility
than the DCED.
Number 502
REP. GREEN asked her to comment on Mr. Slama's determination
that there was a conflict of interest.
Number 503
MS. SANDVIK said she was not sure where Mr. Slama was coming
from regarding this conflict of interest. She said although
it was true that Commissioner Campbell as well as
Commissioner Fuhs sat on the board of the Alaska Railroad,
it seemed clear that Commissioner Campbell's focus was on
the condition of Alaska's highways. She said any
improvements or enforcement action necessary to manage
oversize loads on trucks would relate directly to his
concern for highway conditions; moreover, from her
understanding, this had nothing to do with the Alaska
Railroad.
Number 509
(Chairman Hudson acknowledged that REP. GARY DAVIS and
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER C.E. SWACKHAMMER were in the audience.
He excused Sen. Steve Rieger from the meeting.)
REP. MULDER commented that Rep. Green's questions about
weigh-in-motion were "smack on the target." He said there
was some misunderstanding "about this whole justification."
He said, according to DOT's commissioner, there is a 12
percent margin of error. He explained that with a 38
thousand pound limit, and a 12 percent margin of error,
there is a four thousand pound margin of error either way,
which is eight thousand pounds. Rep. Mulder pointed out
that the scale houses and weigh-in-motion devices are
stationery, while the biggest offenders of the system are
actually running between locations. He said the way to
catch offenders is through DPS's enforcement on the roads;
therefore, transferring W&M to Commerce would not help the
situation, but DPS enforcement could make a difference.
Rep. Mulder then commented on the irony of Commissioner
Campbell's absence from the meeting.
TAPE 94-18, SIDE B
Number 001
REP. MULDER continued by saying the justification for the
transfer was that the DOT would otherwise lose $20 million.
He asked Ms. Sandvik if this same justification was used in
the past.
Number 009
MS. SANDVIK replied that she was unaware if this was used
but stated that the potential exists for the Federal Highway
Administration to subject the DOT to a 10 percent sanction
if the DOT had an insufficient enforcement program. She
observed that although the potential exists, she did not
believe this enforcement action was imminent.
Number 017
REP. MULDER said Ms. Sandvik was correct and reminded the
committee that when this issue was brought up at the start
of session, Commissioner Campbell said that if the transfer
did not occur, the DOT would be out of compliance and $20
million would be lost. He referred to a letter from the
commissioner, and refuted it based on information he
received from the Federal Highway Administration in Juneau,
the regional office in Portland, and the federal office in
Washington, D.C. Rep. Mulder said he was told that W&M of
Alaska not only met federal guidelines, but was doing better
than most states. He suggested that the current problem was
not actual, but perceptual, and he reminded the committee
that the DOT's argument had changed from that of losing $20
million to an argument for increased efficiency. He
disagreed with this assertion and pointed out that if more
general fund dollars were allocated to the weigh stations,
they would be open longer, and this would hold true even if
under DOT management. He concurred with Mr. Slama that the
DOT wants consolidation and power, and is, in effect saying,
"Trust me, give me more power, let me set all the rules and
all the enforcement mechanisms, and I will be fair, and I
will also be efficient." He concluded by saying he opposed
the transfer because he did not think this was a proper
course of action, and furthermore a proper check and balance
system is currently in existence.
REP. GREEN inquired into utilizing the information from
weigh-in-motion to adjust the time frames for the scales to
be open. He asked if there had been any suggestion to
change the hours so that, for example, the scales would be
open at one o'clock a.m. rather than during mid-day.
MS. SANDVIK said yes, the weigh-in-motion program was
intended to complement the fixed scale program. She said
the full weigh-in-motion program was planned to be operative
as of 1996. She restated that the DCED had limitations,
whereas the DOT felt they had access to other resources
should a significant problem become apparent.
Number 071
REP. GREEN said he had difficulty with what was just said.
He wondered why one organization would do a better job of
enforcement than another given that the DPS would still be
involved with enforcement. He also asked if the weigh-in-
motion data, even with a discrepancy, could be useful in
determining patterns.
Number 082
MS. SANDVIK restated that the difference between the
organizations was the ability to devote resources to the
problem. She pointed out that the DPS was not the sole
entity responsible for enforcement and that enforcement was
a shared responsibility. She said presumably the DOT, the
DCED or the DPS could issue citations.
Number 094
REP. GREEN said he would not belabor the point, but he had
not as yet found a reason for transferring this function.
Number 095
MS. SANDVIK said she must not have clearly articulated the
DOT's problem of being directly responsible for maintaining,
operating, and developing the highway structure, and yet
having to rely on another agency. She said the other agency
has its own issues and this particular problem was not its
primary focus. She added that while it was true that the
DOT has more to focus on than enforcement, it was also true
that this program is very significant to DOT. She said a
lot of overlap exists and DOT feels more managers are
involved in the enforcement program than is necessary for an
efficiently run operation.
Number 110
REP. MULDER asked Ms. Sandvik if she was familiar with an
organization called the Alaska Commercial Truck and
Transportation Advisory Committee. He said it was a well-
intentioned, informal working group comprised of parties
trying to resolve problems. He pointed out that the DOT
pulled out of the organization, because it did not see a
viable purpose for the organization. Rep. Mulder said,
"That is the kind of attitude I am expressing, Mr.
Chairman."
Number 128
(Chairman Hudson indicated that REP. CARL E. MOSES and REP.
TOM BRICE were in the audience.)
CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated that he wanted to go to the network
at this time.
Number 136
ROBERT EAKMAN, Alaska Independent Trucking Association,
testified from Anchorage and referred to a letter dated
1/19/94 which expressed the association's position. He
noted that considering the funding, W&M has done a
commendable job and transferring them to the DOT would not
be the best move. He said in reference to the scales being
open, he has a 1/20/94 letter from W&M saying that the weigh
stations were open approximately 38 percent of the time
during the 1993 fiscal year. He said this was due to a
definite lack of funding. He said that with the additional
funding for the 1994 fiscal year, W&M intends to operate
selected weigh stations for periods of 24 hours, seven days
per week. He remarked that he failed to see how
transferring this to the DOT would change the number of
hours in the day. He said the proposal should be executed
on its merits and should be substantiated by facts. He
mentioned some benefits of not moving the program
(indiscernible). He said the truck size, weight enforcement
program, and W&M share managers and administrative personnel
and there will be costs associated with the transfer. He
said the current program consists of well-trained and well-
managed personnel and the industry has expressed no
dissatisfaction with the conduct of the program, in fact,
just the opposite. He said the only dissatisfaction has
been with underfunding the program and the enforcement
section. He said the Federal Highway Administration has
shown concern for truck size and weight enforcement laws,
but has indicated that Alaska is in compliance. He pointed
out that there are knowledgeable people involved in
measurement and standards with years of experience
pertaining to truck enforcement permit matters. He noted
that DOT has a number of engineers, but he questions their
knowledge of enforcement. He concluded his remarks by
saying there are not enough troopers, inspectors, or workers
to handle enforcement and the real problem exists with
enforcement, or the lack of it.
Number 230
REP. MULDER commented that it would be helpful for the
committee to hear from Commissioner Fuhs.
Number 238
COMMISSIONER PAUL FUHS, Department of Commerce and Economic
Development, said he hoped no one expected him to argue
against the administration's position and he hoped he could
answer questions. He said both the governor and Pat Ryan
gave clear instructions to provide strict enforcement of
highway and weight standards. He said quite a few trucking
companies had approached him because they were concerned
with being undercut. He said until last year only 38
percent of the time was covered in weigh stations and even
though those times were periodically changed, people were
still getting by. He said the department asked for
additional funds last year and received $300,000 for the
weigh station program. He reported that the department
currently provides close to 100 percent coverage of four
areas, at the behest of the Federal Highway Administration.
COMMISSIONER FUHS referred to secondary enforcement and
pointed out that there is not enough coverage in the
commercial vehicle safety instruction program due to a
funding problem. He said more funds need to be allocated to
DPS, as evidenced by last year's inadequate inspection of
approximately 1,600 out of 44,000 commercial vehicles. He
said it is completely a matter of funding, not a matter of
commitment or competency. He also mentioned that the
federal government wants to have programs in communities
such as Valdez and Nome. He said those communities do not
have adequate funds for these programs so there may be
compliance problems down the road, primarily in the
secondary enforcement program.
Number 278
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if any fees cover the operating costs
of weigh stations.
Number 281
COMMISSIONER FUHS said fees collected from applications for
oversize or overweight trucks raises about $130,000 per
year. He said they do not have the statutory authority to
charge fees at weigh stations.
Number 285
SEN. JUDY SALO asked about money collected from fines. Upon
confirmation from Commissioner Fuhs that this went to the
general fund, she asked the amount. Commissioner Fuhs said
he did not know but would check into it.
Number 291
REP. MULDER said the industry is aware of the situation and
is interested in exploring the option of a self-imposed tax,
or advocating one to the legislature because they recognize
the need for adequate enforcement. He asked Commissioner
Fuhs if there was any basis for the insinuation that scale
measurements were inaccurate.
Number 299
COMMISSIONER FUHS said W&M certifies all scales in Alaska,
including scales used for fish, groceries, gas pumps, or
police radar guns. He said the weigh scales have to be
certified twice a year.
Number 307
REP. JEANNETTE JAMES prefaced her comments by saying she
favors truckers and is supportive of their situation. She
said most truckers do not intend to violate the law and the
real offenders are the dirt and gravel haulers; she sees
evidence of this on the roads in her district.
Number 321
COMMISSIONER FUHS said possibly the fines could be increased
for those carrying illegal loads. He emphasized that in
order for the municipalities to have more people weighing
trucks, there needs to be more funding available to DPS.
Number 325
MR. EAKMAN interjected and said he did not mean to imply, in
his earlier comment, that truckers and dirt haulers were
deliberately avoiding scales because they were overweight.
He meant to point out that they did not go to scales due to
positioning.
COMMISSIONER FUHS said generally the gravel trucks were not
long-haul trucks. He explained that there is an attempt to
get the gravel as close to the construction site as possible
without being late. He agreed that they were not
intentionally avoiding the scales.
Number 346
REP. JAMES said she knows truckers and she knows there is an
avoidance that occurs.
Number 350
COMMISSIONER FUHS replied, "If they are driving on one of
these highways, I will guarantee you that we will stop them
and weigh them, 100 percent coverage."
Number 351
REP. WILLIAMS asked for more information about the weigh-in-
motion system.
Number 355
COMMISSIONER FUHS said the equipment is not precise enough
to be used for enforcement as it has a 12 percent error
margin. He said the DCED allows for only 1,000 pounds over
the weight, which is analogous to "getting arrested for
going 55-1/2 m.p.h."
Number 365
REP. WILLIAMS asked if the allowance could be considered as
a helpful measure in enforcement.
COMMISSIONER FUHS said this was possible. He said the
information was useful to the DOT, but could not be used for
enforcement.
REP. WILLIAMS mentioned that even with the 12 percent margin
of error, W&M was keeping the truckers moving and with this
approximation, they could then be directed to a scale.
COMMISSIONER FUHS said this was true in that it was useful
information in identifying trends and patterns.
REP. WILLIAMS asked if the DCED would use the information.
COMMISSIONER FUHS said they would definitely use it.
Commissioner Fuhs added that he wanted to make it clear that
they support Executive Order 89.
Number 389
REP. PORTER asked Commissioner Fuhs to confirm that there
was an inadequate number of inspections executed.
Number 390
COMMISSIONER FUHS answered this was correct. He said the
DCED was required by the Federal Highway Administration to
inspect vehicles for safety considerations. He reiterated
that this was a matter of inadequate funding.
Number 394
REP. PORTER commented that many jurisdictions refer to the
private sector first and then utilize government inspectors
to inspect the inspections.
Number 399
COMMISSIONER FUHS said this may be the case, he did not
know. He suggested that the people running the weigh
stations could also perform inspections.
Number 403
CHAIRMAN HUDSON noted that testimony on HSCR 3 had been
completed. He referred to the signature sheet and read the
following statement from that document: "The House Labor
and Commerce Committee and the Senate Labor and Commerce
Committee have met jointly to consider SS For House Special
Concurrent Resolution 3 Disapproving Executive Order No 89.
The House members have taken action to report the resolution
back to the House with individual recommendations. Senate
members were invited to express their individual
recommendations also."
Number 427
REP. MULDER moved SS for HSCR 3 with individual
recommendations and accompanying zero fiscal note.
Number 429
CHAIRMAN HUDSON hearing no objection, declared it was so
moved.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON, after some discussion of the calendar,
directed the committee's attention to HB 295 and noted that
HB 509 would not be addressed.
HB 295 - CREATE CITIZENS' UTILITY BOARD, INC.
Number 461
REP. KAY BROWN, Prime Sponsor of HB 295, said this bill
would establish a voluntary citizen's utility board (CUB)
for the state that would not cost the state any money. She
said there used to be a program that funded a consumer
advocate to appear before the Public Utilities Commission
(PUC) and represent the viewpoint of consumers. She said
that item was cut from the budget several years ago and
there is no longer a consumer voice routinely looking into
matters before the commission and making comments. She said
this was an important function. She deferred to the public
who had come to testify before the committee. She stated
there were two amendments that she would like to see
addressed.
Number 477
STEVE CONN, Executive Director, Alaska Public Interest
Research Group (AKPIRG), testified in strong support of HB
295. He said the bill adds Alaska to the 43 states that
currently have an independent consumer advocate in matters
of utilities. He said before undertaking this campaign, his
group visited more than 15,000 homes to discuss utility
matters, 3,000 letters of support were received, and in
addition to that, he was overwhelmed and educated by the
telecommunications task force that met last summer at the
behest of Ramona Barnes. He recalled that Ramona Barnes
spoke of the upcoming change in the relationship between
AT&T and Alascom and she said, "While I am not opposed to
increased competition, I believe that the potential impact
of losing the rate subsidy that Alaskans currently benefit
from is tremendous and therefore deserves a policy review
from the legislature." He said this topic was tackled in an
extraordinary manner last summer by the task force and there
were many questions that arose.
MR. CONN said, "All of Alaska awaits the outcome of the
secret negotiations between Alascom and AT&T and there is no
question that whatever the outcome, issues will require
steadfast monitoring by consumers and advocacy, and of
course by the legislature." He posed questions regarding
nationally averaged rates for interstate and intrastate
calls; regulatory rates reflective of both skilled consumer
advocacy as well as market forces; protection of rural
Alaska; and the provision of broad-banned access and
modified satellite technology pertaining to rural areas. He
said the answers to these questions will ultimately
determine if Alaska finds itself on the information highway
or, as the New York Times recently indicated, on the
information dirt road.
MR. CONN said AKPIRG's examination of the current regulatory
process offered by the Alaska Public Utilities Commission
(APUC) suggests that there is no special legal authority to
reach beyond the record to build up a case for consumers.
He said in formal cases, broad classes of consumers need
legal and technical assistance. He emphasized that, unlike
previous utility advocates, there is no contemplation of
state subsidy because this would be membership funded.
TAPE 94-19, SIDE A
Number 001
MR. CONN said when consumers are active participants it
appears from the experience of utilities in Oregon,
Illinois, N.Y. and many other places that the commissioners
are not wondering what new information might be brought to
the record. He mentioned that several out-of-state people
who had worked to establish CUBs had been encouraged to
testify.
Number 019
CHAIRMAN HUDSON interjected and said two such witnesses were
currently on line and out of courtesy, the committee would
hear those witnesses at this time.
Number 021
BOB JENKS, Executive Director, Oregon Citizen's Utility
Board, spoke via offnet from Oregon, and said he grew up in
Alaska and was privileged to testify. He summarized his
written comments, which were available in the packets, and
said this was a way to institutionalize consumer advocacy.
He said when other states, like Oregon, Washington, and
Idaho formed their consumer advocacy programs about a decade
ago, there were two central issues, and those issues are
even more relevant today. He said the first issue is that
utility matters have become increasingly technical and in
resolving these issues it is critical that the residential
customer and the small business customer have access to
experts on technicalities in these proceedings. The second
issue was the increased number of special interests
participating in utility hearings. He explained that as
rates have increased, businesses have found it financially
beneficial to hire attorneys to fight or negotiate the rate
hikes. He said Oregon CUB is unique in that it was set up
by the legislature. He explained that Oregon's initiative
stated the following three reasons to form a CUB: 1) To
create an organization to represent consumers, 2) To give
that organization the right to represent rate payers for the
PUC, the courts and the legislature, and 3) It created a
mechanism to allow for consumers to conveniently and easily
join CUB. He pointed out that they were not trying to
change the PUC process, but to contribute to it by allowing
for the consumer to have a professional and competent
hearing. He explained that if the Oregon PUC made a
decision which was not grounded in the records, that
decision would be overturned in court. Therefore, he said,
the CUB helps build that record by submitting evidence which
the PUC legally needs. He said that in his written
statement there is a quote from the PUC to an Oregon
legislative committee regarding the CUB, and essentially it
says that the CUB has presented thought provoking and
insightful testimony. He noted that he also included a list
of some of the cases CUB has impacted and the results of
those cases.
MR. CONN explained that since 1987, when the CUB was
created, it has been involved in five utility refunds, the
most recent of which was last October. He explained the
refund negotiation process between the Oregon CUB and US
West, which resulted in a refund of $11.00 to every
residential customer and $26.00 per line to every business
customer.
MR. CONN asserted that consumer representation is critical
because the next few years will determine the shape of the
telecommunications systems for the next thirty years. He
said there are different models that could be used such as
the state hiring a consumer representative, or like
Washington has done, funding of consumer participation, but
he believes that CUB is the most sensible approach. He
explained that CUB is directly accountable to citizens who
wish to join it and it is not financed by tax dollars but is
funded by voluntary citizens. He added that there is very
little risk in forming a CUB because if it is not
successful, consumers would not continue to contributing to
it. He said his opinion was that it be successful and
Alaskans would see a considerable savings on their utility
bills.
Number 127
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked abut the membership fee and the
representation in Oregon.
Number 130
MR. JENKS said membership was not a huge percentage of the
total population and was approximately 20,000 members out of
an estimated one million households. He said by law, the
individual membership fee was set at a minimum of $5.00 and
could not exceed $100.00. He stated that the average
contribution received was about $20.00.
Number 146
REP. PORTER asked if Mr. Jenks was familiar with the
legislation under consideration because he wondered if there
was a model statute on CUBs.
Number 151
MR. JENKS said he thought the different approaches were all
fairly similar. He stated that what was most important was
the inclusion of the three fundamental points he mentioned
previously which were: forming the organization, setting up
a funding mechanism so citizens could join the organization,
and authorizing the organization to represent consumers
before the PUC. He said Alaska's legislation addresses
these concerns.
Number 161
PHYLLIS TURNER, Director, Citizen's Utility Board Organizing
Project, testified from Washington, D.C. She acknowledged
that utility companies sometimes spend hundreds of thousands
of dollars of rate payer money to advocate their interests
before PUCs and legislatures. She asserted that residential
consumers, as a group, have a substantial interest in these
issues, but lack the resources, organization, and expertise
to effectively advance their position and to respond to
utility company arguments. She pointed out that while large
industrial companies have their own attorneys and economists
representing their interests, the complexity of the process
often prohibits individuals from participating at all. She
explained that it was actually in the APUC's interest to
have effective advocacy on behalf of the smaller rate payer
rather than an informal and unprofessional approach.
MS. TURNER said that beyond APUC's purview, Alaskans need
expert representation in proceedings that address utility
and telecommunications issues. She said Alaska is one of
only seven states that does not have a utility consumer
advocate within its governmental structure. She relayed
membership and organizational information of consumer
advocacy in other states, such as Oregon, California,
Illinois, and New York. She said, like the APUC, CUB has a
sunset clause, but it is not built in by legislation. She
concurred with Mr. Jenks and said, if a CUB is not doing its
job, people would simply stop funding it.
MS. TURNER then mentioned the importance of the conflict of
interest provision in HB 295 as a protective measure
ensuring that CUB would not be taken over by any special
interest. She pointed out that HB 295 helps to advance
civic democracy and the state does not have to pay a dime.
She confirmed that HB 295 is fairly typical of other CUB
legislation. She said CUBs have been very effective and she
gave the example of the Illinois CUB's landmark billion-
dollar settlement with Commonwealth Edison. In conclusion,
Ms. Turner said a CUB is essential in helping Alaskans to
help themselves.
Number 280
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if representation in other states was
similar to Oregon's estimated membership of one out of 50
consumers.
MS. TURNER said she did not know, but would check into it.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to the amendment providing for the
inclusion of cable television, waste material collection,
waste material disposal, and sewage and manufactured gases,
and he asked if this was typical in other CUBs.
Number 295
MS. TURNER replied that some CUBs were involved with cable
issues and she regarded this as an important inclusion
because cable is a growing concern. She said she believed
involvement with waste materials was a fairly recent
addition, and she remarked that the San Diego CUB, at the
request of their membership, was involved in insurance
issues.
Number 314
REP. PORTER observed that having lived in Chicago for a
year, he would like to think that Alaska does not have the
regulatory problems that exist in Illinois.
Number 320
THOMAS WILLIAMS, Director, Permanent Fund Dividend Division
(PFD), Department of Revenue, testified in support of a CUB.
He said his only concern was the provision in the bill
requiring the division to include an enclosure with PFD
applications. He said they have a zero fiscal note, based
on the assumption that the Department of Revenue would be
reimbursed by the CUB for all associated costs. He said
this obviously assumes that sufficient funds would be
available.
MR. WILLIAMS said one approach would be to stuff an addition
into the booklet. He explained that this would not be
consistent with how the booklets are currently printed, as
they are printed out-of-state and are then mailed directly
from the printer to the various distribution sites. He said
the other approach would be to print something as part of
the booklet, as is currently done with the voter
registration form and the advanced college tuition program.
MR. WILLIAMS said more importantly than the method used,
there is concern with using the dividend mailing booklet as
a vehicle for distributing public information, regardless of
the merits of what is being distributed. He pointed out the
importance of keeping the booklet simple and concise,
thereby avoiding the potential for turning it into a
catalogue. He said the purpose of getting information to
and from dividend applications needs to remain clear.
Number 367
REP. BROWN asserted that CUB was distinguishable from other
non-profits and she did not see who they would be "throwing
the door open to." She asked if there was a particular
group Mr. Williams had in mind.
Number 376
MR. WILLIAMS said he did not have any in mind. He repeated
his concern that this could set a precedent. He said the
division has received numerous inquiries regarding inclusion
of various items and they have historically maintained a
very pointed focus and have not wanted to confuse the
public.
REP. MULDER commented to Ms. Brown that he worked on the
voter registration issue and they did not like that either.
Number 389
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked MArk Foster for comment.
Number 391
MARK FOSTER, Past Commissioner, Alaska Public Utilities
Commission, said he also served as the president of the
Western States Conference of Utility Commissioners which
represented the 13 western states, and also as the chairman
of the Western Conference Telecommunications Committee. He
said that based on his experience in those capacities, it
was his opinion that PUCs and legislators benefit
tremendously from having a CUB because they provide an
excellent point of view, and they bring evidence onto the
record that would otherwise not be available. He pointed
out that when coming before a utilities commission, one
generally finds specialized technical and legal issues, and
a CUB would enable consumers to have a focused point of
view. He concluded his comments by mentioning Chugach
Electrical Association's proposed acquisition of Matanuska
Electrical Association. He said in such a situation, this
kind of board would be very valuable.
Number 421
REP. PORTER asked what responsibility CUB would have that
AKPIRG does not currently provide.
Number 430
MR. CONN replied that AKPIRG is funded differently and has a
particular agenda and works that agenda. He said AKPIRG
lacks the technical expertise to be utility advocates at
this point.
Number 454
REP. PORTER repeated his question and asked what would
prevent AKPIRG or anyone else from forming a nonprofit
organization under existing laws, charging a fee, and then
representing consumers.
Number 457
MR. CONN mentioned that utilization of former state mailings
or mailings of regulated utilities to reach the broadest
number of people needs to be done through a state vehicle.
He said there were a series of technical things, including
the right to appeal, that were also important.
REP. PORTER asked for more information about the
"intervening activity of the CUB" requiring a court rule
change.
MR. CONN said he understood that to obtain standing to
intervene requires a court rule change of 2/3 of the
legislature.
REP. PORTER asked whether this issue was pivotal to the CUB
having power.
MR. CONN replied in the affirmative, and said the potential
to intervene straight up leads to settlements.
Number 473
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked for more information about the
relationship between the utilities and the CUB. He referred
to the incident of APUC acting on behalf of consumers
regarding the cable issue.
Number 491
MR. CONN replied that it was important to offer APUC the
opportunity to achieve its mandate of balancing a number of
factors in a well-argued case.
Number 500
MR. FOSTER added that with respect to the cable rate issue
in Juneau, a considerable number of consumers testified and
were quite clear in their advocacy. He said they did not
have background in the legal language or in the technical
financial issues that were before the commission. He said
it was helpful that consumers testified and said, in effect,
"our rates are too high," but this did not address the
question of setting the rates at $12.00, $10.00, or $8.00 a
month. He said CUBs really help with the details necessary
to the decision making process. He explained that CUBs
accumulate this expertise because they deal regularly with
the commission, thereby learning the language and the
issues. Mr. Foster said, in a broader sense, some utility
commissions come to rely upon CUBs as a valuable form of
outreach.
Number 509
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked what other states do, without a PFD
list.
Number 510
MR. FOSTER said the utility bills are a typical way of
disseminating the information.
Number 511
REP. BROWN said she thought the PFD would be the best list
to use because of its wide distribution in Alaska. She said
it would help to advertise the CUB's existence and would
also invite people to participate.
Number 512
REP. PORTER asked the commission's position on this.
Number 513
MR. FOSTER said it was his understanding that the commission
was scheduled to meet next week to determine their position
on the CUB.
Number 513
REP. BROWN said in the past, they have testified in favor of
the function of a consumer advocate.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON said he would like to hear from the APUC and
would hold HB 295 in committee for another hearing.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON adjourned the meeting at 5:30 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|