SB 257-ELECTRIC UTILITY REGULATION  [Contains discussion of SB 117 and SB 123] 2:41:35 PM CHAIR BJORKMAN reconvened the meeting and announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 257 "An Act relating to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska; relating to public utilities; relating to electric reliability organizations; relating to the Alaska Energy Authority; relating to the Rail belt Transmission Organization; and providing for an effective date." 2:41:58 PM SENATOR CATHY GIESSEL, District E, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, Sponsor of SB 257; gave a brief overview of SB 257. She said SB 257 creates a unified transmission system with the goal of expediting the lowest cost energy access and movement. It creates a Rail belt Transmission Organization (RTO), which will work in collaboration with the Rail belt Reliability Council. They will manage transmission, planning, possibly construction of transmission in the future and applying for grants to fund and upgrade Alaska's transmission system. They will work under the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) oversight related to tariffs. 2:42:42 PM CHAIR BJORKMAN announced invited testimony for SB 257. 2:43:00 PM JENNIFER MILLER, CEO/Manager, Renewable Independent Power Producers, Anchorage, Alaska, introduced herself and said Renewable Independent Power Producers (RIPP) develops, builds and operates utility-scale solar farms in Alaska, for example the Willow and Houston Solar Farm projects. She said RIPP's mission is to diversify Alaska's energy generation mix and to suppress energy prices for Alaskans through cost-competitive renewable energy projects. MS. MILLER said she was speaking as an Independent Power Producer (IPP) and that she recently had the honor of serving on the Governor's Energy Security Task Force and was the co-chair for the railbelt subcommittee. She described the Task Force as diverse, yet with significant areas of agreement. She said they were able to align and define a common goal: Alaska's future energy would be more reliable, more diverse and more affordable. She said SB 257 is the enabler for that long-term future. 2:44:54 PM MS. MILLER described the current energy transmission system. She said there is a diverse group of owners such as the Homer Electric Association, Alaska Energy Authority, Chugach Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association, etc. The system is broken up and regionally managed by those owners which creates inefficient oversight. She said SB 257 forms the Rail belt Transmission Organization (RTO), which will create a common unifying oversight structure, allowing wholistic management of the grid and will facilitate the reliable, diverse and affordable future envisioned by the Task Force. The goal is to move energy from wherever it is most efficiently generated to the user base. Wholistic management will open opportunities to apply for and leverage federal grant money to upgrade infrastructure, improving energy access for all. MS. MILLER said SB 257 would also eliminate wheeling charges. She explained that wheeling charges are fees paid to move energy from one management area to another. She said the fees are sometimes called "pancake" wheeling charges, [because they stack up, like pancakes] charging each time energy is moved through. These charges drive up the energy cost and create uncertainty when developing new projects because the rates and cost base are difficult to forecast. MS. MILLER mentioned SB 217 which also eliminates wheeling charges and equalizes the tax treatment for IPPs with utilities. She expressed her support for both SB 257 and SB 217 and her hope they would pass quickly. 2:48:10 PM CHAIR BJORKMAN asked whether policies under consideration in SB 257 and SB 217 add or subtract barriers for the permitting and process to start a new renewable energy project. He asked whether the bills get rid of red tape or add more steps to the process for IPPs. 2:48:38 PM MS. MILLER said the current project approval process for IPPs that would tie into the transmission [grid] is facilitated through the Electric Reliability Organization (ERO). The project approval step is part of the integrated resource planning process. SB 257 would move that approval and planning under the RTO. That approval step should only be in one place, the ERO or the RTO and because that step is related to energy generation, there would only be one project approval required. She clarified that it would not be an additional step, but would remain a single step. 2:49:38 PM CHAIR BJORKMAN asked whether Ms. Miller had a preference for where that planning step would be [with the ERO or the RTO]. 2:49:47 PM MS. MILLER said the ERO has had a slow start. She said there is a diverse stakeholder set and that diversity sometimes requires more time to iron out processes. She said the ERO is hiring a CEO to facilitate efficiency. She opined the integrated resource planning process should remain with the ERO and transmission planning should be with the RTO. She said her organization does both planning and execution [of projects] which allows efficiency; so, if the RTO is constructing transmission upgrades, she advocated for keeping the planning work with the RTO as well, because planning is tightly tied to financing. She said, especially when pursuing federal grants, it makes sense for the transmission planning to stay with the RTO. She proposed that, because the ERO has already done so much legwork, allow them to continue with the generation planning and keep the integrated resource planning with the ERO. 2:51:08 PM CHAIR BJORKMAN asked what the expected timeline is for the ERO to create an integrated resource plan. He noted that it had been four years since the group was created and opined that was a long time. 2:51:31 PM MS. MILLER said she was not part of the ERO group and is only familiar with it on the periphery. She deferred the question to the ERO and observed that there was a lesson to be learned from SB 123 and timelines. She advocated for firm timelines and accountability. She suggested adding a timeline to SB 257, specifying a date for forming the RTO and eliminating transmission wheeling charges. She offered to follow up with a firm date for the integrated resource plan. 2:52:46 PM TONY M. IZZO, CEO, Matanuska Electric Association, Palmer, Alaska said he brings 40 years of experience in the energy industry with the last eight years as the CEO of the Matanuska Electric Association. He said he strongly supports SB 257. He said he co-chaired the rail belt subcommittee of the Governor's Energy Security Task Force with Ms. Miller. The Task Force was formed to develop a statewide comprehensive energy plan that would evaluate energy generation, distribution and transmission for the many communities of the State of Alaska. He said the duty and responsibility of the task force was to identify solutions for meeting Alaska's energy needs now and for the future with a focus on affordability, reliability and energy security. He said at the very first meeting of the task force, the governor described a goal of achieving $.10 per kilowatt hour by the year 2030, a moonshot goal the task force took seriously. He said after dozens of meetings, including public meetings, presentations and considerable discussion by the task force, they concluded lower rates were not achievable in the near term, especially not with the Cook Inlet natural gas situation. They chose to focus on building a foundation for the future of Alaska to achieve lower energy costs and facilitate economic development. He said the task force unanimously came together around three goals. He said the third goal was to "grow the load" and he explained growing the load spreads the cost across more consumers. The second goal was to diversify fuel supply, specifically for energy security purposes, especially away from natural gas in Southcentral Alaska. He said the task force was charged with review and recommendation of a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) versus a Clean Energy Standard (CES). He said the task force learned that cooperatives are not subject to penalties because they are passed directly to consumers, but investor-owned utilities pass penalties to shareholders rather than raising rates. 2:56:14 PM MR. IZZO said the number one goal of the task force was [energy] transmission unification. He said the task force determined that, as a foundation for the future, Alaska needs a single backbone for the transmission of energy. He suggested a single road from the Kenai Peninsula to Fairbanks as a metaphor to describe the Railbelt Transmission Organization (RTO). He said [currently] there are parts of the road that are dirt, parts are gravel, parts are two-lane highway and it's owned by four different parties with four different boards and four communities. He opined the single most important step to take today, for our future, no matter what kind of [energy source], whether it is renewable, wind, solar, nuclear, sequestered carbon from coal, etc., is the formation of the RTO. 2:57:26 PM MR. IZZO expressed appreciation to the governor and the Senate Resources Committee for crafting SB 257 and SB 217. He said they eliminate the wheeling charges or the "toll" to get energy through the four different service areas, removing an obstruction for bringing on alternate sources of power, especially at the economy of scale that makes it affordable for 75-80 percent of the population across the rail belt. He said SB 217 brings parity to IPPs and their private sector investors. He said it reduces risk to ratepayers and he said that is good. He said the downside in SB 217 is the need for clarity in its language regarding the wheeling charges and the "transmission association" that was identified. MR. IZZO said SB 257 clarifies a path forward and fills in important gaps. He said SB 257 is aligned with the governor's task force recommendation and with the governor's press release on SB 217. He expressed support for merging SB 217 and SB 257. He said SB 257 focuses the scope on a larger public interest, with the focus on the backbone of energy transmission that is beneficial to the entire system, not just localized needs. He said Alaska has grown beyond the current system which is localized. He compared the energy system to a highway and said the state's role is to develop infrastructure for the common good as well as to open up opportunities for economic development. He said the transmission system and the RTO as described in SB 257 will accomplish that. He said SB 257 will eliminate wheeling tariffs, which will work in Alaska and has been proven to work in other places. He said SB 257 creates a transmission organization that can own part and operate the system for the common good and not just localized interests. He said people have asked whether [forming the RTO] is necessary and proposed that it be included in the Railroad Reliability Council (RRC). He pointed out that having the RRC manage transmission assets would be a direct conflict of interest and as a CEO that has worked for investor-owned utilities in and outside Alaska, he said he is keenly aware of the view of lenders when turning over control of assets that are mortgaged. He said he would have great difficulty approaching a lender to say the transmission assets that are managed by fiduciaries and a board of directors, and a CEO will now be managed by someone else. He said the qualifications of fiduciaries are very specific and that specific core competence is not present throughout the RRC. 3:01:42 PM MR. IZZO said SB 257, with the RTO, creates a place to put the new grid assets; it consolidates about one third of the transmission the state owns along the rail belt and that will grow to over 50 percent, along with utility transmission assets that are specific to the backbone. He said SB 257 creates a structure for decisions to resolve conflicts without legal action. He noted discussion about using a BP or Bradley Project management committee-like structure. He said the Bradley Lake Project Management Committee (BPMC), with 24 years in the rail belt, is the highest functioning organization that he has seen with operating costs around $1 million or less per year. He opined that was because it was managed by the asset owners, essentially with in-kind labor. He said he was a member of the BPMC and they do not charge their time to the state. He said BPMC believes that the project brings benefit to the members, so he considers his time to be "in-kind." He said there are long- standing agreement in place to avoid conflicts and pointed out that over the past 27 years, tens of millions of dollars of disputes in the past have been over transmission. He said SB 257 would eliminate the possibility of those expensive disputes in the future. He said SB 257 increases the accountability to ratepayers versus being an Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)-only, by creating a management committee like the Bradley Project. He said regulation is necessary, as identified in SB 257, which was a task force recommendation. He said SB 257 also allows for governance of the transmission system which has been proven to work, insures accountability and the public is open to management-committee type meetings and can provide comment online or in person in that type of structure. 3:04:06 PM MR. IZZO recommended improvements to SB 257, such as leaving the integration resource or generation planning process with the RRC. He acknowledged the frustration with the four years it has taken to get started but said he would like to give it more time. He said he would remove from the ERO the transmission, planning and tariff function. He said that was critical for the RTO to succeed. He said clarity, intent and rate-recovery language would be helpful; uploading the backbone, only costs through the utilities to the end-user is critical. He again compared the transmission system to a highway and said, if you drive from point A to point B, that's all you pay for, but with the transmission system, if you drive any part of the "road," you will pay for the whole system. He said the task force suggests distinguishing the backbone to set up infrastructure for future development that provides a foundation for a much better and lower cost energy future; and we have outgrown the current structure. He said SB 257 would eliminate inequities between IPPS and utility-based projects and by being regulated insures the RCA has a lead role. 3:06:31 PM MR. IZZO concluded by saying now is clearly a time to send a signal to investors, developers and federal funders like the U.S. Department of Energy that Alaska is ready to put skin in the game and create a transmission system for the future that will bring in industry and lower rates for all. He said the current situation is the result of our existing system and structures and he did not believe anything will improve without legislative intervention. 3:07:11 PM MR. IZZO said there is a lot of talk about collaboration in the rail belt and he commended the true collaboration of the people who keep the lights on and repair outages, however he thinks there is more attention focused on insuring a perception of collaboration. He suggested that if the utilities were investor- owned there would be a strategic alliance. He said, though the individual distribution utility would still exist, there would be a unified message about goals, keeping rates low, providing infrastructure for new consumers and reliability. He suggested if there are inconsistent messages coming from utilities that supported SB 257 and now don't support it, that should be more of a reason for the legislature to take action. MR. IZZO said this moment requires bold visionary action, visionary leadership from elected officials. He said Alaskans have entrusted the leadership with these decisions. He said this is a moment in history when [leaders] will be judged, not so much on what is done as on what is not done. 3:09:02 PM CHAIR BJORKMAN noted the mention that the scope of knowledge needed for the ERO board to be effective and their ability to produce a work product in a timely manner may be lacking. He also noted the desire to maintain the generation planning with the ERO and asked whether there should be "side boards" or guidelines for members of that board or timelines for work products or limits to the amount of cost-recovery that the ERO is able to undertake as they hire their own consultants and duplicate efforts that utilities have already done. 3:09:56 PM MR. IZZO said it was important to clearly state expectations and consequences are important when it comes to work performance. He said the RRC has had an unintentional slow start. He expressed concern over what could be a $10 million per year organization to adopt and enforce reliability standards and conduct integrated resource plans every few years. He said, if costs reached that level, it would exceed Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) costs for the entire state. He said he is concerned about costs and, as a business leader is more focused on value propositions. He said it was very frustrating to Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) to experience hard push-back when they asked the Railroad Reliability Council (RRC) to provide a report on some relative frequency around their results, because one of the intents of SB 123, 2020 was high functioning of the rail belt utilities. He described the RRC as a one-stop shop with independent voices conducting integrated resource plans as the right thing for consumers. He explained that it is important for the RRC to be able and willing to demonstrate and communicate its results and fulfilling its purpose. 3:12:56 PM CHAIR BJORKMAN said as the RRC goes forward, issuing reports, etc., he said it would be important to gauge the cost to individual ratepayers. He noted there are many line items on a utility bill and he wondered if MEA includes a line item that explains the cost of the RRC over the past four years to ratepayers, for a report that has yet to be produced. 3:13:30 PM MR. IZZO said the line item has been added as recently as 2023. He said MEA provided communication to members of the RRC cost and intent. He urged setting expectations and consequences, but also advocated allowing RRC adequate time to produce a work product and he opined that four years is getting pretty close. He proposed asking the RRC to tell when they could be expected to adopt reliability standards, explain how the standards will be enforced, a timeline for enforcement and what the associated costs are, in other words when there would be an integrated resource plan. He said the RRC may have determined and communicated some of those things, but not yet the most important aspects. He said that, in business, if a product isn't meeting expectations, the business must determine what revisions are necessary to deliver the expected product. 3:15:06 PM CHAIR BJORKMAN referred to the Bradley Project Management Group (BPMG) and asked what elements of the RTO as described by SB 257 and SB 217 differ from the BPMG 3:15:37 PM MR.IZZO said the development of the RTO in SB 217 is very unclear. He said it was not aligned with the recommendations of the task force and he did not think it was aligned with the governor's press release. He said there was a lot yet to flesh out and regulations would have to follow approved legislation. He said the intent of the task force was that the RTO would be similar to the Bradley Project Management Group in structure. He described that structure, explaining that the co-ops which take power from Bradley are the governance body along with the Alaska Energy Authority, which is the owner of the generation asset. He compared that with the RTO and said the intent was that the AEA would be the owner of much of the transmission infrastructure. He described parts of the transmission system and how they currently connect to one another. He said the state owns parts of the system now and will own any assets built by the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships Program (GRIP) funding, which are anticipated at first to be the High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) line from somewhere on the Kenai Peninsula and the Homer system over to Southcentral Alaska. He said the application had also been made to extend the line to Healy which is needed to double-circuit. He said the RTO would be made up of the state and the asset owners and would have very structured voting rights, public meetings and public input and the state would have final veto rights. 3:19:10 PM CHAIR BJORKMAN asked whether Mr. Izzo would support language in SB 257 to protect utilities if they become disconnected from the rest of the grid or "islanded". He further asked what could be done to protect utilities from costs associated with the RTO if the utilities will be islanded as scheduled by another utility. 3:19:38 PM MR. IZZO compared the current system with the ideal system, which he described as a first-world system because it would have two transmission lines. He pointed out line losses occur with the current system, such as the Swan Lake fire and shutdowns for other emergencies or regular scheduled maintenance. The line losses cause higher costs for the utilities than would be the case if a second line were available to carry power from other sources. He said when the two-line system is built there will be benefits and savings for costs that will no longer be experienced. He also said the new system will set Alaska up for economic opportunity of larger scale, lower cost power from renewable sources, nuclear, etc. than is now available. 3:21:00 PM MR. IZZO acknowledged a significant step between the current system and the ideal. He noted that wheeling charges could be eliminated now and said there was an appropriate way to do that so no one utility or its members are harmed. He proposed an immediate rate structure that would provide for building the second line from the Kenai Peninsula to Healey. Until that second line was built, some utility members would be subsidizing other utility members because those utilities would be islanded, or without access because of constraints on the system to the lowest cost power necessary. He opined that the change could be done in a stepped fashion, beginning with eliminating wheeling charges now, getting rid of those constraints for the Independent Power Producers (IPPs). As the system is de- constrained a shift would be made to a standard rate. MR. IZZO said, if a utility becomes islanded, once the new system is built out, that utility should be exempt from paying the costs of the overall system since their members would not be able to take advantage of the overall system. He opined that there was a way to do that where no one is harmed. 3:23:00 PM CHAIR BJORKMAN referred to the scheduling of power movement up and down the rail belt and asked whether utilities are able to schedule power in such a way that it would disadvantage other utilities in their ability to move power. 3:23:53 PM MR. IZZO said there are ways that can happen and he has seen it happen. He said the BPMC is effective in addressing that kind of action immediately. He urged that creating an RTO structure takes out the parochial politics, because with the GRIP funding the state will own 50 percent or more of the rail belt transmission. The state is not in any way involved in transmission assets and he said that "an adult" is needed on the rail belt. He said once the state has that much ownership and having an RTO with bylaws and a formal structure versus individual regulated utilities, will eliminate a lot of the problems experience in the past. He mentioned that the state does oversee transmission wheeling revenues now, but it is done on through the RCA on an individual utility basis, not on a macro level with a "backbone" perspective. He reiterated that moving to that structure will eliminate a lot of the drama and problems experienced in the past. 3:25:49 PM CHAIR BJORKMAN asked whether the open access language of SB 257 would allow one utility or one IPP to sell power directly to a large consumer (such as a mine or a refinery) in another utility's area. 3:26:32 PM MR. IZZO suggested that there may be a need for clarifying language. He said this does happen through economy energy sales and without specifics due to non-disclosure agreements he said there are currently two utilities meeting with another regarding a renewable project that is of a scale that is more than any utility could take. He said there would be no obstruction to doing that and when there are two lines and there are no constraints on transmission and there is good reliability, it would be possible for an entity to access competitively priced power. He said that would be a positive situation because of job creation, increased residential meters, and emerging service industries that a utility would benefit from. He said he could not think of a situation where a utility would disagree and try to intervene, but he said he did not know. 3:28:37 PM CHAIR BJORKMAN appreciated Mr. Izzo's testimony and sought to determine whether there was a need for clarifying language regarding open access that would prevent cannibalization of customers from one utility service area to another. 3:28:59 PM MR. IZZO said language to obstruct [one utility selling power outside its region] could be needed and he would look into it. He said his vision and the task force's vision for the rail belt was that, unifying transmission and building out the grids from the Kenai Peninsula to Healy using the GRIP [federal] funding would level the playing field. He said the state would automatically go to an economic dispatch in which the lowest cost energy generation would benefit every entity in the system. He said, with that as the ultimate goal, he did not see where there is a problem. He said there might be a utility that might have a concern and it would be prudent to see that there isn't something in a regulation or a statute or a tariff that would interfere with doing what would be best for the state's economy. 3:30:32 PM JOHN ESPINDOLA, Commissioner, Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA), Anchorage, Alaska, read the following statement: [Original punctuation provided.] Good afternoon and thank you for allowing me this opportunity to provide public testimony. For the record, my name is John Espindola, Commissioner with the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. This afternoon I am here to testify on behalf of the RCA regarding some of the general powers of the Commission, set forth in statutes and regulations, as it relates to regulating utilities while protecting the public interest. • Statute AS 42.05.141 speaks specifically to the "general powers and duties of the commission". Two subsections I will be highlighting today are subsections (a) and (d). • Subsection (a) reads, The Regulatory Commission of Alaska may do all things necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and exercise the powers expressly granted or reasonably implied in this chapter including: 1. regulate every public utility engaged or proposing to engage in a utility business inside the state, except to the extent exempted in AS 42.05.711 2. investigate, upon complaint or upon its own motion, the rates, classifications, rules, regulations, practices, services, and facilities of a public utility and hold hearings on them; and 3. make or require just, fair, and reasonable rates, classifications, regulations, practices, services, and facilities for a public utility 3:32:07 PM MR. ESPINDOLA continued: Now, I will speak to the Commission's methodology in determining just and reasonable rates and how the Commission regulates the cost of energy for consumers. The overall cost of energy for consumers is comprised of non-fuel costs which are established through a revenue requirement including fuel and purchased power costs which are recovered through the Cost of Power Adjustment also known as the COPA. • Statute AS 42.05.381 states: Rates to be just and reasonable, subsection (a) reads, all rates demanded or received by a public utility, or by any two or more public utilities jointly, for a service furnished or to be furnished shall be just and reasonable. • We are charged by this statute to ensure that rates are just and reasonable. To determine just and reasonable rates the Commission reviews a utility's proposed total annual required earnings, known as the revenue requirement. At a high level, the revenue requirement is the sum of the utility's prudently incurred allowable expenses such as taxes, interest on debt incurred by the utility, operating expenses, annual depreciation, and a fair return on investment. 3:33:23 PM MR. ESPINDOLA continued: • To determine the revenue requirement, we utilize a "normalized test year" which is defined in regulation 3 AAC 48.820 (42) • In addition, regulation 3 AAC 48.540 requires an electric utility to file a cost of service study with a revenue requirement if their annual kWh sales exceed 100,000,000; for an electric utility that has less than 100,000,000 kWh in annual sales, a cost of service study is required if the utility proposes a new rate design. In this instance when a utility proposes a new rate design, once the revenue requirement has been determined, we review the "cost of service study" defined in regulation 3 AAC 48.820 (40) • This component of the ratemaking process allocates the revenue requirement among customer classes. Also, when verifying pricing objectives, the Commission refers to 3 AAC 48.510 which reads, "the cost causer should be the cost payer". The results of the cost of service study are used as the basis to develop rates for specific customer classes. 3:34:43 PM MR. ESPINDOLA continued: • Regulation 3 AAC 52.502(a) establishes the criteria for adjustment clauses (i.e the COPA), where a utility recovers fuel and purchased power costs outside of the revenue requirement. In order to be allowed to recover the costs through the adjustment clause, cost elements must be approved by the Commission. These cost elements must meet the following criteria: 1. Subject to change at a rate that would cause financial harm to the utility if the costs were recovered through base rates; I note this is the rate established in the revenue requirement 2. Beyond the control of the utility; and 3. Easily verifiable. • Lastly, regulation 3 AAC 52.503 establishes the formula and entries for the COPA, and 3 AAC 52.504 establishes the filing requirements for COPAs. These filing requirements include invoices to verify the costs as well as reports on generation and sales. Next, I will speak to a recent example of the Commission approving a filing using factors other than cost. In March, the Commission approved a gas contract between a gas supplier and an electric Railbelt utility. Although the cost of gas in this filing was higher than what other Railbelt utilities are currently paying, the commission approved the contract to ensure the electric utility was able to continue to provide reliable service to its customers. • Statute AS 42.05.141 subsection (d) states, when considering whether the approval of a rate or a gas supply contract proposed by a utility to provide a reliable supply of gas for a reasonable price is in the public interest, the commission shall: 1. recognize the public benefits of allowing a utility to negotiate different pricing mechanisms with different gas suppliers and to maintain a diversified portfolio of gas supply contracts to protect customers from the risks of inadequate supply or excessive cost that may arise from a single pricing mechanism; and 2. consider whether a utility could meet its responsibility to the public in a timely manner and without undue risk to the public if the commission fails to approve a rate or a gas supply contract proposed by the utility. 3:37:05 PM MR. ESPINDOLA concluded his statement: In closing, it is important to note that as the Commission fulfills its statutory mandates while protecting the public interest, ensuring public utilities are solvent, that they provide safe and adequate services with just and reasonable rates, and terms & conditions, are all factors we use in our decision making process. This afternoon I will not be taking questions. However, the Commission is willing to come back at a later date to allow this committee an opportunity for questions. Thank you and this concludes my testimony. 3:38:10 PM MR. ESPINDOLA confirmed he was unable to answer questions at this time. 3:38:33 PM CHAIR BJORKMAN postponed public testimony, summarized heard testimony and made closing remarks. 3:42:05 PM CHAIR BJORKMAN held SB 257 in committee.