HB 183 - ALASKA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION [Contains discussion relevant to SB 133.] Number 0055 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's first order of business is HB 183, "An Act relating to the powers and duties of the chair of the Alaska Public Utilities Commission; relating to membership on the Alaska Public Utilities Commission; and relating to the annual report of the Alaska Public Utilities Commission." The chairman commented it was not his intention to move the legislation at this hearing. He wishes to take some initial testimony and noted that some amendments have been distributed, welcoming Representative Hudson to the committee as a former committee member. Number 0084 REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON, Alaska State Legislature, came forward as the chairman of the House Special Committee on Utility Restructuring (URS). He informed the committee that URS had worked on the legislation for a couple of weeks, attempting to satisfy many of the professional interests involved. He noted the special committee thinks the legislation contains some good provisions and he is aware of Chairman Rokeberg's proposed amendments. Representative Hudson requested that Mr. Wilcox, aide to the special committee, provide the current committee with a brief overview on a sectional basis. Number 0187 WALT WILCOX, Legislative Assistant to Representative Bill Hudson, Alaska State Legislature, came forward as aide to the House Special Committee on Utility Restructuring. He noted the committee has the committee substitute (CS) for HB 183(URS) before it. Mr. Wilcox mentioned the sponsor statement and stated that the committee [URS] would like to create a responsible and accountable public utilities commission. The method chosen by the special committee to accomplish this is to allow the chair more power over the hiring and termination of employees and the hiring of outside legal consultants. Currently, a commissioner must be terminated by the governor; that termination is then subject to the legislature's review. The legislative review clause was removed by the special committee. Currently, the commissioners must represent one attorney, one engineer, one accountant and two public seats. This requirement has been deleted to essentially allow five at-large seats. CSHB 183(URS) does not allow more than two commissioners from the same political party; ethics standards have been added. The legislation requires the Alaska Public Utilities Commission (APUC) to report February 1 of every year to the legislature regarding commission activities, including the timeliness of docket activity. The legislation has an immediate effective date and a zero fiscal note. Mr. Wilcox noted that was the sponsor statement. Number 0319 MR. WILCOX referred to the sectional analysis on page 2 of the committee members' bill packets. He reviewed it briefly. Section 1: Makes a gender correction from "chairman" to "chair"; makes the chair responsible for the administration of the commission and commission employees. Section 2: Removal of a commissioner. The governor will be able to remove a commissioner for cause, without legislative approval. Section 3: No more than two members of the commission may be from the same political party. Commissioners may not change parties during the year prior to appointment or reappointment. A commission member may not participate in political campaigns or fund-raising, or lobbying activities outside the scope of those charged to that commissioner in the role as a commissioner. Section 4: The chair, rather than the commission, may establish the offices for the APUC. Section 5: The chair, rather than the commission, may employ temporary legal counsel. Section 6: The chair, rather than the commission, may hire outside consultants and experts with the approval of the commission. Section 7: In addition to the annual report, the APUC will present to the legislature the commission activities and timeliness of docket activity for the previous year. Section 8: Removes the employee/public category requirements. Section 9: Defines the rights of sitting commissioners impacted by Section 2. Section 10: Immediate effective date. Number 0440 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked for background regarding why the chair, versus the whole commission, is being given so much power. MR. WILCOX indicated the special committee concluded, from the testimony it received, that the APUC was not functioning to its highest capacity; there seemed to be a lack of responsibility and accountability. Mr. Wilcox thought the words, "There's nobody in charge," were frequently used. It was represented to the special committee that someone needs to be in charge of an entity regulating over $2 billion per year of goods and services delivered to the people of Alaska. Mr. Wilcox commented that a strong chair seemed to be a reasonable way to create that accountability and responsibility. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked Mr. Wilcox to speak to the apparently greater divide being created between the chair and the commission by giving the chair more power. He expressed one concern he has heard about the current APUC structure: The commission will decide to go one way and the chair ["commissioner" stated on tape] will go another. MR. WILCOX replied that sort of concern would always exist in a politically-appointed group; he does not know if they could realistically address that. The commission's current makeup is five members with one chairman. Number 0550 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG pointed out that the committee would hear other testimony. He referred to the October 1998 "Report on the Alaska Public Utilities Commission" by the National Regulatory Research Institute (NRRI), commissioned by the APUC itself. He asked Mr. Wilcox to briefly describe the report and inform the committee where it came from. MR. WILCOX answered that the APUC retained NRRI for, he believes, $25,000 to essentially perform an internal audit [on the APUC] and see if the APUC's functional problems could be determined. The National Regulatory Research Institute reached many conclusions, basically saying that there were problems with management styles and lines of communication between staff, the utilities and the commission. Mr. Wilcox indicated additional problems that were delineated would, in a business, be considered managerial leadership problems. Mr. Wilcox believes it was mentioned that leadership was lacking in many areas. Number 0630 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated Representative Murkowski, and just subsequently Representative Brice, had joined the committee. The chairman informed the committee that NRRI is affiliated with the National Association of Regulatory Commissioners (NARUC) located at Ohio State University [Columbus, Ohio] and indicated, therefore, that NRRI is very reputable. He commented that the APUC had invited NRRI to make an analysis of the commission's management problems and activities. The chairman commended the members to read a substantial proportion of the very good report and informed them this particular issue would occupy a lot of their time in the next several weeks. He noted it would be relatively controversial and commented that there is a good deal happening on this subject. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA mentioned the two parties, two seats, noting the state's political composition, and asked for the history regarding the political seats. Representative Cissna noted she did not have the advantage of understanding the APUC's history. Number 0758 MR. WILCOX replied that was the political will of the House Special Committee on Utility Restructuring. He believes it was felt that if there were three members of any one political party, they would control the commission one way or the other. Mr. Wilcox indicated that is a policy issue for the special committee and the current committee to determine; as staff, he can just say that there was argument both ways and presumes that the argument will replicate itself here. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the feeling has existed regarding a certain level of politicalization of the commission by appointments and (indisc.) things. He noted one commissioner, Tim Cook, was confirmed by, he believes, the Nineteenth Legislature as an appointee of then-Governor Hickel and there has been a lawsuit over this. The chairman commented, then, there has been kind of an aura of that. He indicated he thinks the special committee's intention was to admit the possibility of partisanship and put some specific restrictions on this by not allowing more than two members of one political party. Chairman Rokeberg pointed out that the commission could have five non-partisans or "independent folks" because they are not members of parties. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented that was the intention of the majority of the special committee. The [House] minority leader [Representative Ethan Berkowitz] made the amendments adding the ethical provisions consistent with legislative conduct. Chairman Rokeberg related the House Special Committee on Utility Restructuring is composed of the Speaker of the House [Representative Brian Porter], the chairman of the House Judiciary Standing Committee [Representative Pete Kott], the chairman of the House Rules Standing Committee [Representative John Cowdery, Vice-Chairman, URS], the House Minority Leader [Representative Berkowitz], Representative John Davies, and Representative Rokeberg himself. Representative Hudson chairs the special committee, the House Majority Leader [Representative Joe Green] is an alternate member. Chairman Rokeberg noted he thinks the House Special Committee on Utility Restructuring is the most important committee in the legislature in terms of the level of authority and experience of its members. He indicated he had offered an unsuccessful amendment to remove the section regarding political party membership, noting he had lost after fair debate on the record and had basically agreed to leave the section in unless this present committee wishes to take other action. Number 0931 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI questioned if the APUC has an executive director. MR. WILCOX confirmed that is correct: Robert Lohr. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked what has happened to the executive director position if the commission's chair will be handling all relations with the staff. She indicated it appears that this legislation turns over the current duties of the executive director to the chair. Representative Murkowski noted she, also, does not know the APUC's political history and why that would be a wise thing to do. MR. WILCOX directed attention to the big picture: Currently, there is the commission at the top of the picture, the executive director somewhere in the middle, and dockets "out here" that are backed up anywhere from recent file to five years or more which have not been dealt with. If the executive director was a very strong position it could mandate the timely decisions of dockets, make sure that the scheduling of the commissioners is done in a reasonable fashion, and they would not be here. Mr. Wilcox commented that that has apparently not happened so they are struggling for a new way to structure the commission so dockets are acted on in a reasonable time frame. Number 1025 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI questioned if the executive director position is being removed. MR. WILCOX answered that the executive director would remain. It would be an executive director with diminished powers; the executive director cannot schedule the commissioners or assign case load. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted, though, if part of the problem is the case load and the backlog, she would think they would want all of the commissioners working on that "instead of wondering whether or not Representative Harris was gonna wear a tie today." Number 1059 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG, on that, commended the legislative audit to the committee as well [audit control number 08-1459-99, 12/23/98]. He indicated the audit had picked up on that. The chairman commented there was a general feeling among the industry members, and so forth, that strengthening some of the leadership would be beneficial. He directed the committee's attention to language on page 3 of CSHB 183(URS) in Section 6, employment of commission personnel, "The chair of the commission may employ engineers, hearing officers, administrative law judges to the extent provided by AS 42.06.140(b), experts, clerks, accountants, and other agents and assistants considered [IT CONSIDERS] necessary by the commission." In other words, Chairman Rokeberg explained, before the chair can make some of these decisions, he would have to have the consent of the commission in general. Therefore, the commission has some modicum of control here on the chair's actions. As Mr. Wilcox points out, they are trying give the chair some more power and perhaps diminish the executive director somewhat. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted this is part of it; it also allows the chair to exercise his responsibility to move the agenda (indisc.). The APUC is under severe criticism regarding its ability to act in a timely manner on the tariffs, dockets and various items before it. There is a real need to attempt some management reforms. Chairman Rokeberg commented this is why the APUC itself commissioned the NRRI study. He added, "[They] have just gotten this study in the last few months and they're just beginning to implement it, and is - (indisc.) I think in the legislature to help to try to correct that." He noted some people even believe the commission should be terminated - the Senate has legislation which does that in part [SB 133]. This legislation [SB 133], proposed by the Senate President [Senator Drue Pearce] extinguishes the commission and reconstitutes it. Chairman Rokeberg indicated communication is occurring regarding these two propositions. The committee proceeded to take testimony. [Much of the testimony relates to the following amendments which were distributed to the committee but not formally taken up at this hearing.] The suggested amendments to CSHB 183(URS) distributed to the committee for discussion read as follows: Amendment H.2, labeled 1-LS0764\H.2, Cramer, 4/21/99: Page 1, line 5, following ";": Insert "relating to a management information system;" Page 4, following line 1: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 9. MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM. The legislature encourages the Alaska Public Utilities Commission to continue to develop its management information system and to make the system available to utilities and to the public." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. [amendment formatting per provided copy] Amendment H.3, labeled 1-LS0764\H.3, Cramer, 4/21/99: Page 1, line 5, following ";": Insert "relating to provisions for the resolution of consumer complaints;" Page 3, following line 19: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 7. AS 42.05 is amended by adding a new section to read: Sec. 42.05.165. Consumer complaints. The commission shall by regulation provide for (1) the expedited hearing and resolution of consumer complaints; and (2) penalties against a party to a complaint who causes unjustified delays in a consumer complaint proceeding." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Amendment H.4, labeled 1-LS0764\H.4, Cramer, 4/23/99: Page 2, line 13, following "(a)": Insert "Members shall be qualified as follows: (1) three members shall be at least one of the following: (A) a graduate of an accredited school of law; (B) a graduate of an accredited university with a major in engineering; or (C) a graduate of an accredited university with a major in finance, accounting, or business administration; and (2) two members shall be consumers. (b)" Reletter the following subsection accordingly. Amendment H.5, labeled 1-LS0764\H.5, Cramer, 4/23/99: Page 1, line 4, following ";": Insert "relating to hearings held by the Alaska Public Utilities Commission;" Page 3, following line 19: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 7. AS 42.05.141 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: (d) On the filing of a petition, application, or complaint concerning a matter within the jurisdiction of the commission under this chapter, the chair of the commission shall promptly fix a date for hearing. The hearing shall be held without undue delay. The hearing may not be scheduled to begin later than five months after the petition, application, or complaint was filed unless the commission approves an extension of time for good cause. After the conclusion of the hearing, the commission shall enter its order within 30 days." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Page 4, following line 5: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 11. The provisions of AS 42.05.141(d), enacted by sec. 7 of this Act, apply to petitions, applications, and complaints first filed with the commission on or after the effective date of this Act." Renumber the following bill section accordingly. Amendment H.6, labeled 1-LS0764\H.6, Cramer, 4/23/99: Page 1, line 4, following ";": Insert "relating to procedural motions of the Alaska Public Utilities Commission;" Page 3, following line 19: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 7. AS 42.05.151(b) is amended to read: (b) The commission shall adopt regulations governing practice and procedure, consistent with due process of law, including the conduct of formal and informal investigations, prehearing [PRE-HEARING] conferences, hearings, and proceedings, and the handling of procedural motions by a single commissioner. The commission, or an assigned commissioner, shall enter an order on procedural motions within 10 days after the close of the applicable briefing period. Technical rules of evidence need not apply to investigations, prehearing [PRE-HEARING] conferences, hearings, and proceedings before the commission. The commission shall provide for representation by out-of-state attorneys substantially in accordance with Rule 81, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Amendment H.7, labeled 1-LS0764\H.7, Cramer, 4/23/99: Page 1, line 4, following ";": Insert "permitting arbitrators to conduct formal hearings before the Alaska Public Utilities Commission;" Page 3, following line 19: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Sec. 7. AS 42.05.171 is amended to read: Sec. 42.05.171. Formal hearings. A formal hearing that the commission has power to hold may be held by or before three or more commissioners, a hearing officer, or an administrative law judge designated for the purpose by the commission. In appropriate cases, a formal hearing may be held before an arbitrator designated for the purpose by the commission. The testimony and evidence in a formal hearing may be taken by the commissioners, by the hearing officer, [OR] by the administrative law judge, or by the arbitrator to whom the hearing has been assigned. A commissioner who has not heard or read the testimony, including the argument, may not participate in making a decision of the commission. In determining the place of a hearing, the commission shall give preference to holding the hearing at a place most convenient for those interested in the subject of the hearing." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. Number 1221 JUDY WARWICK, Regional Manager of External Affairs, General Communications, Incorporated (GCI), testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. Ms. Warwick noted GCI has four recommended amendments to HB 183; she will provide an overview of, and rationale for, those recommendations. Afterwards, Don Schroer, former [APUC] commissioner, could provide his testimony from Anchorage addressing those specific changes and could answer questions from a former commissioner's perspective. Ms. Warwick provided the following testimony: "The first amendment [Amendment H.4] addresses commission candidate qualifications. Currently the requirements, other than for the two consumer seats are: one in the field of law, one an engineer, and one from the fields of finance, business administration or accounting. "Due to the changing scope of utilities regulation, and the transition to competitive provision of services, rather than have one seat for each of the three specific professions, we recommend those three seats being eligible to be filled from any of the already specified professions in addition to professionals in the public policy field or the economics field. Adding these two professions to the mix of qualifications would provide expanded expertise and a larger pool of appropriately qualified individuals. "The second amendment [Amendment H.5] requires setting dates and adhering to them. For the benefit of the consumers of this state as well as the utilities, this amendment would clearly state the statutory obligation of the commission to schedule matters before it for timely resolution and to render decisions in a timely manner." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG interjected. It was clarified that the first amendment Ms. Warwick had referred to is Amendment H.4 and the second is Amendment H.5. Number 1336 MS. WARWICK repeated part of her statement at the chairman's request. She noted she thinks the next recommendation varies a small amount from what is before the committee, although she noted she has not had a lot of time to read this one. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed she was referring to the (indisc.) order of procedure (indisc.). He commented that is Amendment H.6 [as Ms. Warwick's testimony proceeded, Chairman Rokeberg corrected this to Amendment H.7]. MS. WARWICK continued: "This addresses arbitration, we recommend adding arbitration to it of course. ... It recognizes delegation of mediation and arbitration responsibilities under the '96 Telecommunications Act, and the strong Alaska state policy in favor of Alternate Dispute Resolution techniques. Legislative guidance as to the general applicability of Alaska's Uniform Arbitration Act is expressed. We [GCI] favor strongly the prompt procedural decisions to guide parties before the commission. "And then the last one I wanted to mention is Alaska Statute 42.05.171, which includes an arbitrator as an additional option, again recognizing the delegation of arbitration responsibilities under the '96 Act [Telecommunications Act of 1996] and the strong state policy in favor of Alternate Dispute Resolution techniques. These amendments which you have before you are virtually -- well they're very similar, in most cases, with what we recommend. I think there are a couple of changes or differences, which perhaps Mr. Schroer can cover during his testimony ...." Ms. Warwick indicated that concluded her remarks. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned if the committee had followed Ms. Warwick's testimony. He noted she had spoke of Amendments H.4, H.5 and H.7. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE requested Ms. Warwick fax a copy of her written testimony. MS. WARWICK agreed. Number 1493 DON SCHROER, Lobbyist for General Communications, Incorporated; Former Chairman, Alaska Public Utilities Commission, testified next via teleconference from Anchorage. Mr. Schroer commented Ms. Warwick had covered the points GCI would like to have as part of this statute. He indicated he had a few comments, especially on suggested Amendment H.6. He suggested the inclusion of "mediations and arbitrations" following "hearings" on line 8, Amendment H.6 [line 8 of the printed amendment]. If the amendment would be adopted with Mr. Schroer's suggested change, this sentence in Amendment H.6 would read: "The commission shall adopt regulations governing practice and procedure, consistent with due process of law, including the conduct of formal and informal investigations, prehearing conferences, hearings, mediations and arbitrations, and proceedings, and the handling of procedural motions by a single commissioner." Mr. Schroer noted that if the APUC is going to adopt regulations regarding mediations and arbitrations, these two words should be in there and "H.7" [Amendment H.7] would fit better. MR. SCHROER then referred to suggested Amendment H.4. He noted GCI's position, as Ms. Warwick mentioned, is to "loosen it up a bit and include economics and public policy, and not have to have one from each area, but make those the five areas of expertise from which three people can be drawn." He indicated, as Ms. Warwick had commented, that this would provide a larger pool of qualified individuals. Number 1589 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted this was because previously there was a chair stipulated for law, engineering, and he questioned what the third one was. MR. SCHROER added the present statute includes finance, accounting or business administration. He stated they would like to add economics and public policy to those lists, but not require one from each area. Instead, allow the choice of three people from within those five areas: engineering; law; finance, accounting or business administration; economics; and public policy. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he would make a note of this proposed addition to suggested Amendment H.4. MR. SCHROER commented that otherwise the suggested amendments follow GCI's thinking; the company does not disagree except for the change he has suggested to Amendment H.6. Mr. Schroer offered to answer any questions the committee might have. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Schroer had had a chance to look over CSHB 183(URS). The chairman requested Mr. Schroer provide his opinions on the concept of strengthening the chair discussed earlier. Number 1686 MR. SCHROER answered he thinks it is very important. He is not sure if he agrees with the exact verbiage of the legislation but believes it is fine as far as strengthening the chair. He indicated strengthening the chair would eliminate much of the chaos occurring at the APUC. Mr. Schroer noted someone has to be it, and have the responsibility to be it. Currently, with five people, there are nothing but arguments. He indicated the amendments to AS 42.05.121 in Section 6 of CSHB 183(URS) assures quite well that most of the decisions the chair should carry out are still rendered by the full commission. Mr. Schroer commented he thinks what is in CSHB 183(URS) regarding the chair's authority would work quite well. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted, indicating that Ms. Warwick should participate if she wished, it is obvious GCI's attitude toward mediation and arbitration is fully favorable. He asked if GCI uses these techniques much and how they see it working with the APUC. MR. SCHROER replied that presently very little mediation and arbitration occurs - it all goes to hearing. He thinks allowing arbitration would shorten decision time in many cases. This is, after all, what businesses are seeking. Mr. Schroer indicated businesses would prefer to see these government decisions, right or wrong, issued in a shorter time period. He noted he thinks an arbitrator would "shorten up a lot of the areas (indisc.) and it wouldn't have to go to a formal hearing." REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if Mr. Schroer is speaking of "just straight out and out advisory arbitration, or binding arbitration." MR. SCHROER answered at this stage advisory arbitration. He noted GCI has suggested they follow the Uniform Arbitration Act, AS 09.43.010-180. That would not be binding arbitration. Number 1792 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI commented that Mr. Schroer had mentioned the qualifications for the commissioners. With CSHB 183(URS), all those qualifications have been eliminated and the only qualifications are with regards to political affiliations. She questioned if GCI is suggesting in the amendment that the qualifications [of the commissioners] return to the professional qualifications and have no reference to the political qualifications, or if he is suggesting that there be both. MR. SCHROER said he had wanted to comment on that although it had not been part of his agenda. He personally thinks that entire section, qualifications of members regarding politics, should be removed. Although there had been some very great differences between commissioners, as there are currently, during his six years of experience he never saw party politics ever get involved in any decision made in the adjudicatory room. He noted it just is not a problem, unless it has changed, and he does not believe it has. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI indicated she was glad to hear Mr. Schroer's response, noting she had been thinking she was not really following the issue. She commented, "Because I couldn't decide whether garbage regulation should be a Republican or a Democrat thing, and I just didn't know where to go, so I'm glad to hear you make that comment." MR. SCHROER noted he has always had that same problem. His thought would be that "040" in the present bill should be deleted [CSHB 183(URS), Section 3, the repeal and reenactment of AS 42.05.040, read: * Sec. 3. AS 42.05.040 is repealed and reenacted to read: Sec. 42.05.040. Qualifications of members. (a) No more than two members of the commission may be members of the same political party. A person may not be appointed or reappointed to the commission for one year after changing political party membership. (b) A member of the commission may not participate in (1) political management or in a political campaign for a candidate for election to federal, state, or local office regardless of whether the campaign is partisan or nonpartisan or for passage or defeat of a ballot measure of any type; (2) the campaign of, or attend campaign fund-raising events for, a candidate for governor or the legislature; (3) a fund-raising event held on behalf of a political party or attend a political party fund-raising event; or (4) lobbying activities that would require a person to register as a lobbyist.] Number 1874 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked about the restrictions of the commissioners to participate in politic activities: How important is it for an APUC commissioner to basically steer clear of any political activity? MR. SCHROER answered that, again, he personally thinks the entire section should be removed, noting he is obviously not an absolute expert on this. He possibly questioned if some of the limits on the commissioners' activities were constitutional. Mr. Schroer reiterated his opinion that the entire section "040" should go out. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO questioned when Mr. Schroer had been commissioner of the APUC. MR. SCHROER responded he was chairman from his appointment in 1991 until August of 1996 when Mr. Cotten [Sam Cotten] became chair. Mr. Schroer noted he left the commission in January of 1997. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG thanked Mr. Schroer for his testimony, commenting that the committee would be taking these amendments up on Monday [April 26]. MR. SCHROER indicated the committee should contact him if anything specific is needed. Number 1955 JIM CARTER testified next via teleconference from Kenai on his own behalf. Mr. Carter informed the committee he had served on the APUC at the time Mr. Schroer was the chairman, noting it was nice to hear Mr. Schroer involved here today. Mr. Carter stated the questions he had intended to bring up have been answered. He agrees with Mr. Schroer that "42.05.040" should "absolutely go out" [CSHB 183(URS)]. Mr. Carter commented, "I think that it brings in conflicts and could also possibly if you just do that for the commission and do it for other commissions that you're - you, know there might be some complications in the future. And of course the Hatch Act - the federal Hatch Act could be used as an example ... in which it permits certain political activities." Additionally, Mr. Carter noted he wished to comment on how a governor can remove a commissioner. He asked for confirmation that the legislature has to concur with the removal. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG answered that is not correct; Version H of HB 183 [CSHB 183(URS) is Version H of HB 183] has a provision in Section 2, the repeal and reenactment of AS 42.05.035, "which provides that the governor for cause can remove (indisc.)." [CSHB 183(URS), Section 2, read: * Sec. 2. AS 42.05.035 is repealed and reenacted to read: Sec. 42.05.035. Removal of commissioners. The governor may remove a commissioner from office only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct in office, or because the member, while serving on the commission, is convicted of a misdemeanor for violating a statute or regulation related to public utilities or is convicted of a felony. The governor shall deliver to the commissioner a copy of the charges against the commissioner. The commissioner shall have an opportunity to present a defense in person or through counsel at a public hearing before the governor or the governor's designee. The commissioner shall be informed of the hearing by registered mail at least 10 days before the hearing date. At the hearing, the commissioner may confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. Upon removal of the commissioner, the findings and a complete statement of all charges made against the commissioner shall be filed in the Office of the Lieutenant Governor.] MR. CARTER noted, then, it does not require concurrence by the legislature. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated this is correct. He stated this was a significant policy change made by the special committee - deleting legislative concurrence in the removal. MR. CARTER highly recommended that it be left as it had been, with concurrence required by the legislature. He did not know that there would be a check and balance otherwise. Mr. Carter noted the new language allowed removal for inefficiency, neglect of duty, et cetera, and he mentioned a situation of four Republicans on the commission with one Democrat as chair, and a Democrat governor. Mr. Carter questioned what constitutes inefficiency or neglect of duty; he thinks "you (indisc.) yourself over to extreme circumstances in compliance with that." Mr. Carter indicated that concluded his remarks and reiterated his agreement with Mr. Schroer that "040" should be removed. Number 2113 TERESA WILLIAMS, Assistant Attorney General, Fair Business Practices Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, testified next via teleconference from Anchorage. Ms. Williams said she is online to answer questions about the role of the Office of the Attorney General as legal counsel for the commission. She referred to Chairman Rokeberg's April 14, 1999, memorandum to Representative Hudson and the other members of the House Special Committee on Utility Restructuring. Ms. Williams noted this memorandum discussed the topic of the commission hiring its own in-house legal counsel. She would offer her comments on this, if the timing is appropriate. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the timing is fine. The issue discussed in the memorandum had been brought forward because of certain recommendations from various people; the chairman noted he believes "it's commented on in the NRRI report that there's been some suggestions that might be (indisc.)." He further indicated there are two elements and that one of the issues is that all of the APUC's legal counsel are employed by the Department of Law - they work for the attorney general - but work at the commission. He questioned Ms. Williams if she could answer that: Does she have an opinion or is there an Administration opinion? MS. WILLIAMS responded she supervises the two attorneys who represent the APUC. These attorneys work in the attorney general's office but also have quarters at the commission to use when they are there. The Office of the Attorney General opposes the concept of counsel going out to the individual agencies and working solely for those agencies; there are a number of concerns when that happens. First, there would be persons within an agency who feel constrained in giving independent and sound legal advice that might be unwelcome to the agency. If the agency feels that good legal advice is too inhibiting, it might want to get rid of that attorney. Another consideration is that the legal advice given to state agencies needs to be consistent. There are certain issues that every agency must address; examples are public records, open meetings, personnel issues and the drafting of regulations. Those issues cut across state agencies, and, for that reason, it is important that the advice given to the agencies is consistent. The Office of the Attorney General needs to know what is going on at the various agencies to provide a "heads-up" when there are problems that might be going toward the agencies. There are issues that cut across lines of [legal] expertise; examples are personnel, anti-trust and torts. All sorts of different legal issues arise that attorneys in other portions of the attorney general's office are consulted on to make sure agencies are receiving consistent, good legal advice. Therefore, they are opposed to the concept of "basically Balkanizing" the state agencies so that the agencies would have separate legal counsel not supervised by a central person responsible for the large picture regarding the position of state government on legal matters. Number 2266 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Williams if she had said the counsel has premises at the AG's [Attorney General's] office and at the commission's office. MS. WILLIAMS answered that the counsels' offices are at the attorney general's office where they have secretaries, computers, et cetera. The counsels spend most of their time at the attorney general's office, but have also been given a room at the APUC for use when over there. Ms. Williams noted the attorneys can certainly borrow secretaries and so forth. She commented this is probably the most accommodation any agency has given to a member of the attorney general's office; sometimes the attorneys just have to find an empty corner if they are over at their agencies. Ms. Williams added, "But I'd say as far as their location - their (indisc.) location is in the Attorney General's Office." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Ms. Williams feels the attorneys spending most of their time in the attorney general's office is a positive, so that they will not be pestered or bothered by the commission members. MS. WILLIAMS replied that is always an advantage, commenting it is kind of like having one's phone turned off - sometimes that is a real blessing. She noted another advantage is that when the attorneys have questions regarding statutory interpretation, meetings, torts, et cetera, they can walk and speak to that person. Ms. Williams said the attorney general's office has legal resources, including a good law library, that would not be readily available if the attorneys were at the commission. She indicated it also maintains the attorneys' independence - having the sense that they can provide impartial and good legal advice without feeling that their jobs are in jeopardy. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted he somewhat takes the opposite view, indicating he thinks being closer to one's clientele allows one to provide better service. Number 2334 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Ms. Williams to explain "inefficiency", referring to the language allowing a governor to remove a commissioner for "inefficiency". MS. WILLIAMS responded she believes Jim Baldwin [Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law] is present to speak to question of removal of commissioners; he would be better suited to answer that question. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE indicated he would address the question to Mr. Baldwin. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG recognized the attendance of Representative John Cowdery, who joined the committee at the table. The chairman confirmed there were no further questions for Ms. Williams and asked her if she had anything in writing regarding her testimony. MS. WILLIAMS responded she had nothing in writing but would be glad to do so if it is the chairman's preference. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted he would appreciate that but indicated she should not spend too much time on it. Number 2398 JIM ROWE, Executive Director, Alaska Telephone Association (ATA), testified next via teleconference from Anchorage. Mr. Rowe noted he would like to comment first on Amendment H.4 concerning the qualifications of commissioners. It is one of the amendments suggested by Ms. Warwick and Mr. Schroer [of GCI]. Mr Rowe said, "As, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned earlier, the utilities restructuring committee was pretty well stacked with power in the House and the people who have quite a bit of interest and expertise, I think, in utilities matters, and I think they wisely at the time took a section out that had very similar qualifications." Mr. Rowe indicated part of this decision resulted from the historic basis for these qualifications. With fewer staff, it was felt that there needed to be commissioners skilled in the fields of law, engineering and finance to address those problems with a degree of knowledge. However, Mr. Rowe further indicated he thinks there is currently enough staff to address these issues. Noting the proposed amendment does not limit it to one commissioner from each area, he commented they could end up with three attorneys, three engineers, et cetera. This leads him to think they do not necessarily need all of these skills; they could have three in any one of the areas. MR. ROWE thought the special committee very wisely recognized that if the Administration appoints a person and the legislature confirms that person, the person would hopefully be very capable. He mentioned the qualities of being able to work hard, bring leadership and make good decisions. Mr. Rowe thinks they ought to have that trust and he hopes the committee will consider leaving that portion of the legislation the way it is. A lot of effort has been put into Version H, many amendments were offered, some adopted, some removed. One amendment inserted into the legislation, now appearing on page 2, line 1, which Mr. Carter had addressed, regards "inefficiency". Mr. Rowe thought one of the previous bill versions in the special committee contained that section with "inefficiency" deleted. He commented, "And I think at the time it was discussed that it was pretty hard..." [TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED BY AUTOMATIC TAPE CHANGE] [From tape log notes: 'had to' 'Mr. Wilcox' 'my mem[ory?]' 'I think better w/o [without] ineffic[iency]'] TAPE 99-44, SIDE B Number 0001 MR. ROWE continued, "...section without the word 'inefficiency' in there. That's all I have to offer at this time, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for the opportunity and I hold for questions." REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if Mr. Rowe has been experiencing a significant wait in action on his docket when he files with the APUC to change his rates. MR. ROWE answered that he represents a trade association made up of local members that do file tariffs; he does not. He indicated that, yes, these members do experience significant delays, noting, "Some of them feel like they've gone down to some hole and they wonder where they are. ... Some of them are fairly simple matters and some of them do come back, but I do sit across lunch tables with these people on occasion and they vent frustrations, so I think you're exactly right." REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked Mr. Rowe to explain the process: Once one of his members files, it just sits in "some black hole, as you call it." Representative Halcro questioned how one checked on that. He wondered if one called up the commission asking when the issue was going to be addressed. He questioned if there is some kind of regularly scheduled meeting where everything on the docket is reviewed and where it is in the process. MR. ROWE noted, first, not all go into "that dark hole." They seem to see the exceptions, he is sure. He indicated these exceptions are the source of irritation, the ones that are remembered and being discussed today. He finds the APUC very approachable; they do telephone the commission and ask what happens on a particular issue. Mr. Rowe thinks they receive answers most of the time. Number 0077 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted she is looking at the April 22 [1999] letter Mr. Rowe cosigned with Eric Yould [Executive Director, Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Incorporated (ARECA)], specifically relating to the timeliness issue and the inefficiencies or problems in receiving decisions from the commission. She understands he is in support of a management information system, referring to the language in the letter, "Timeliness is probably our greatest complaint, but it would be wrong to put the same specific time line on each item that comes before the commission. Some issues are not controversial and can be done almost by rote, while others are complex, ground-breaking policy issues that need much more input, research and discussion." Representative Murkowski asked if Mr. Rowe is in support of Amendment H.5 which basically puts a time frame on when a hearing is to be scheduled and when the commission should enter its order after the hearing's conclusion. MR. ROWE commented that, having just seen the amendment very recently, he is comfortable with it, generally speaking. He indicated their feeling is that the legislation probably would not be before the committee if timeliness was not a major concern. They are afraid to put a certain time line - 30 or 90 days, six months - on every issue. Some of the issues probably shouldn't take that long; some are very complex and might take longer. However, Mr. Rowe indicated he thinks the amendment would allow items that need further study to be addressed in that manner. Number 0164 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed there were no further questions for Mr. Rowe. He indicated the current informational nature of the amendments, that the amendments originated from various parts of the industry, that further discussion with the special committee and others would occur on these possible amendments, and that the intention is to not move the legislation at this hearing. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to the previous question regarding removal [of a commissioner] for cause, asking if that would be addressed today and mentioning Mr. Baldwin. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the committee did have one more witness. The chairman recognized that Mr. Wilcox wished to add something. MR. WILCOX indicated, regarding clarification on the removal, a previous witness mentioned "inefficiency" had been removed at one time. Mr. Wilcox commented that, indeed, that whole section had been removed and that word removed at one time. Subsequent to that, a motion was made to reinsert, he believes, "G.3" or one of the amendments which contained the word "[in]efficiency". CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated a lot of other words had been reinserted with "inefficiency". MR. WILCOX agreed, but noted it might be appropriate to remove that if the original intent is to be followed. Number 0225 ERIC YOULD, Executive Director, Alaska Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Incorporated (ARECA), came forward in Juneau to testify. He noted ARECA is the trade association for the electric utility industry in Alaska. His industry generates roughly 95 percent of the power throughout the state. They have a very keen interest in this particular bill and, ultimately, in the efficient operation of the APUC. Their interest is to get dockets and decisions made as timely, efficiently and accurately as possible. In many respects, sometimes they are more interested in getting the decision rather than getting the right decision because at least this lets them know where they are headed. Obviously, they would like to have the right decision but he noted there are two sides to every issue. ARECA has testified in the House Special Committee on Utility Restructuring regarding this legislation. Mr. Yould drew the committee's attention to the April 22 letter in the committee members' packets cosigned by himself and Mr. Rowe. [Mr. Yould's and Mr. Rowe's 4/22/99 letter read: RE: HB 183, APUC Dear Representative Rokeberg: Thank you for bringing before the Utilities Restructuring Committee the issues raised in your memorandum of April 14. We appreciate the effort the committee members devoted to HB 183 and the very significant amount of time that industry was permitted to offer its thoughts. We are satisfied that the bill is addressing some of our concerns with the APUC and that its passage would be beneficial, however, as you noted, there is more to do. Ex Parte Communication and Advocacy In practice, a staff person is concurrently party (public advocate) on one docket and professional staff (counsel) to the commissioners on another docket. Rules prohibit ex parte communications so that one party before a judicial panel is not disadvantaged relative to an opposing party. The current practice, at best, strains the natural human inclinations for incidental (or less incidental) conversation. Some separation is appropriate without degrading the quality of the public advocacy staff or the staff who provides research and analytical assistance to the commissioners. If the presently allocated staff positions at the commission are filled, we think the chair could achieve the proposed separation now without the need for specific legislation. Timeliness: Speed and Quality Timeliness is probably our greatest complaint, but it would be wrong to put the same specific timeline on each item that comes before the commission. Some issues are not controversial and can be done almost by rote, while others are complex, groundbreaking policy issues that need much input, research and discussion. With sufficient staffing, the burden of timeliness (efficiency) should fall on the shoulders of the chair. Three-member panels should be encouraged, used much more often, but not mandated. The chair should appoint three-member panels to all but the most complex and controversial dockets; however, each member should retain the opportunity to join in any docket. Although we are aware that the APUC is developing a Management Information System for their dockets, we think a legislative directive would assure the successful completion of this project. Therefore we think that it would be appropriate to establish in statute this method to manage dockets with the following language. "The commission shall establish a Management Information System, accessible by the general public through the Internet, for the purpose of tracking, scheduling and managing all dockets within the commission." Decision-making delays are a major problem that must be rectified! Legal Advice The commission should have the authority to seek outside counsel, but would generally use the Office of the Attorney General for normal workload. Consumer Complaints We are not aware of consumer complaints that languish. Summaries of consumer complaints are presented monthly at a public meeting and upon occasion a particular complaint is reviewed. We believe staff resolves most consumer complaints without need for referral to the commissioners. Statutory Construction: Liberally Construed This issue has been addressed previously. It is moot. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. We look forward to participating as this process continues and we are available for any assistance we might be able to provide.] MR. YOULD noted the items in the letter are ones that his and Mr. Rowe's two industries could pretty much agree on as they relate to the APUC. He commented that, as a general rule, they see this legislation as doing two things: 1) It attempts to clarify and give the chair more authority to act on and carry out the policy of the commissioners themselves. This is an important distinction. Mr. Yould stated, "Right now you have a commission that sometimes wonder[s] to what extent they have input to the execution of certain things by the chairman, and I thinks sometimes the chairman is not sure what his authority is either." Mr. Yould thinks this legislation does a pretty good job of clarifying that distinction. 2) The other thing this legislation does, and the amendments - if adopted - will attempt to do, is to provide more resources and tools for the commission to act in a timely manner. ARECA strongly endorses this. Currently, they often see all five commissioners feeling compelled to hear and adjudicate on virtually any docket which comes before them. In ARECA's opinion, this is a waste of the commissioners' time; it would like see many of the management techniques being discussed today actually implemented and he commended the committee for considering some of these management changes. MR. YOULD said he had some additional comments in terms of the bill itself. He stated, "First of all, as it relates to the one section having to do with requiring X number of people from various parties and that sort of thing, quite frankly we think that if anything that polarizes the commission even more and we question the need for that. I think we would like to see that element struck. The portion that has to do with lobbying and so forth ... I guess we don't see a problem with that, I think that's good public policy." Mr. Yould noted ARECA also questions the need for specifically stating qualifications of the individual members. Like Mr. Rowe, ARECA generally feels a governor is going to try to put the best possible people on the commission and it is up to the legislature to decide whether these people have the ability to act on behalf of the general public. ARECA doesn't really see the need for an attorney and an accountant, although Mr. Yould joked it might be okay to have an engineer since he is one. Number 0374 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the intention, and mentioned the testimony designating other fields, is not to assign a particular seat to a particular professional area; it is intended to assure that the people appointed have some fundamental qualifications, academic and otherwise. He asked Mr. Yould if his concern is that it is too close to the other model. MR. YOULD answered that he does not have a problem with the other model; it is simply that, as a general rule, he would have to say they have not seen the exercise of that expertise on the present commission anyway. Mr. Yould emphasized this is not a negative; it is because the commissioners are not called to make those kind of determinations, and, therefore, ARECA questions whether there is really a need for that sort of thing. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG recognized the presence of Representative Sanders. Number 0420 MR. YOULD continued his testimony. He noted there had been a question on an amendment concerning a management information system (MIS) and whether or not they agree with that. Mr. Yould stated ARECA strongly agrees; he does not think the language in Amendment H.2 goes quite far enough or is strong enough. He would almost mandate that a management information system be put in place. Mr. Yould indicated his and Mr. Rowe's joint letter contains suggested language. Whether or not the committee uses the amendment's current language or ARECA's and ATA's suggested language, Mr. Yould noted they would like to indicate that the management information system should be accessible electronically through the Internet. He explained the Internet is becoming a medium that is very accessible to the utilities and the general public; the dockets should be available on the Internet through a MIS system of some type. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated that had been the intention with the amendment but it may not have been reflected in the drafting. MR. YOULD said those were the basic comments he had regarding the current bill and the amendments. He would like to offer another amendment which is not available to him today. However, he described the situation his industry would like to see rectified. Currently, APUC's funding comes from the RCC, the regulatory cost charge. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG pointed out this is on everyone's utility bill. MR. YOULD explained the way the formula is written, the electric utility industry is basically paying between 25 and 30 percent of the APUC's budget. The electric utility industry has no quarrel with paying for the APUC's services; it does have a problem with not receiving a level of effort commensurate with that payment. In 1996, when deregulation came to the telecommunications industry, the number of telecommunications dockets virtually tripled. Mr. Yould said only 10 percent of the APUC's dockets are actually electric utility dockets and yet the industry is paying between 25 and 30 percent of the total budget. The electric utility industry would like to see some sort of cost tracking system within the APUC ensuring that each individual utility industry pays based on the level of effort going into its individual dockets. Number 0542 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned if Mr. Yould knew of any other states with a similar model, or if there is software or anything like that available. MR. YOULD answered he did not know but could certainly find out. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated Mr. Yould should pursue this. He confirmed that concluded Mr. Yould's testimony. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to Mr. Yould's earlier statement that sometimes they want to get the decisions soon just to get a decision made even if the decisions are not necessarily the right ones. She noted this is somewhat disconcerting, indicating that efficiency and expediency without sacrificing quality is the hoped for result. Representative Murkowski commented one of the reports in the bill packet mentioned APUC rulings are very seldom overturned at the court level: Maybe the commission is doing one thing right although it is spending a lot of time doing it. Representative Murkowski indicated she thinks the amendments which somewhat mandate a schedule order or tracking system is the right direction to be going in. However, she questioned if Mr. Yould is still suggesting they want the order sooner than later, at the expense of good deliberative decision making, in some of these more complex cases where it is truly not reasonable to expect an order within 30 days. MR. YOULD replied absolutely not. Referring to his and Mr. Rowe's joint letter, he noted they had equivocated on that very question. They were asked if they would like to see time lines dictated in statute. Because of the complexity of the various types of dockets, as Representative Murkowski has said, they felt it would be hard to delineate what should or shouldn't be on an immediate time line. Mr. Yould stated he would agree with Representative Murkowski; they do not want to see a decision made on a docket just for the sake of expediency. However, he noted there are some dockets affecting business decisions of the utilities that have been out there so long that they would have rather have had a "no" even though they wanted a "yes" so that they could move forward. Number 0651 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE questioned if they would find use of arbitration helpful in APUC deliberation. MR. YOULD thought Don Schroer had addressed this and done a good job. It is an advisory decision. One could also say that of an administrative law judge. The agency is not bound by the recommendation of the administrative law judge, and Mr. Yould agrees with that. He noted in a previous life he had gone against an administrative law judge and had it upheld in court. He likes the advisory approach even if one was to go in to some sort of arbitration, but not necessarily binding arbitration. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to Mr. Yould's mention of the realignment of the chair's duties. He asked for Mr. Yould's input regarding having the chair be responsible for the administration of the commission and commission employees. MR. YOULD answered he thinks it really means that the chair is responsible and will basically have the overall responsibility to act on the policy decisions of the commission in management, communications, issues and that sort of thing. He commented that perhaps administration is not the best word, but he thinks it is an appropriate intent. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE indicated he wondered if the description of strengthening the chair and removing a bit of responsibility from the executive director would be correct. MR. YOULD answered in the affirmative. Number 0743 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO noted Mr. Yould had mentioned use of the Internet. He referred to the legislature's Bill Action and Status Inquiry System (BASIS) and questioned if Mr. Yould had envisioned something similar - where someone could go online and see where an order is and its position in the process. MR. YOULD said yes, very much so. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO mentioned the repeated concerns raised about timeliness, whether due to the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, or because the process is so cumbersome. He questioned the process of having five commissioners hear every docket, noting the NRRI report speaks of other states sometimes having only one commissioner sit or having some kind of a system. Representative Halcro indicated it seems that embracing the concept of allowing fewer than all five commissioners to hear a case would reduce the backlog a bit more. MR. YOULD indicated that some cases could be heard and recorded by a hearing officer, then brought to the individual commissioners for their review and ultimate decision. That does not require five commissioners. He thinks the same could be said of the commission chairman possibly only appointing three commissioners to hear a docket. Mr. Yould said he wouldn't go below three; if it is important enough to be heard, they would probably want at least a majority. Another option would be to have the chair and the commissioners periodically review the dockets before them to determine, in advance, the relative importance of the dockets. He indicated this would allow the commission to determine which dockets might require all of the commissioners and which could possibly be handled by a hearing officer or something along those lines. Mr. Yould guessed they are saying that they would like to see a more flexible use of the commissioners' time, even to the extent that a commissioner is not sitting there listening to two parties try make their case, if it could be done with a hearing officer. Number 0848 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned if Mr. Yould thinks there is any way the dockets could be categorized so that there would be a natural break to assign them to a more fast-track system. The chairman asked if there is some indicia, or some style or type of docket that would lend itself to categorization. MR. YOULD thinks there is but would not want to be the one to try to determine what that break is. For instance, quite often there are dockets having to do with power cost equalization. Mr. Yould noted he thinks that is very rote in many respects. Possibly that might lend itself to a category of dockets which could be time-lined. He reiterated, however, that he would not want to be the one to tell them where that break should be regarding the various categories. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO referred to Sam Cotten's [APUC Chairman] March 4, 1999, letter attached to the December 23, 1998, legislative audit. Representative Halcro noted a portion of the letter: "For example, recently we directed staff to analyze the backlog by utility type and case type and expect a report back next week." He asked Mr. Yould if they had received a copy of that report. MR. YOULD answered in the negative, adding that is not to say that it is not there. However, he has not seen the report. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were further questions for Mr. Yould, commenting that there are five people online waiting to testify on the next bill [HB 167]. The chairman stated the committee would not be moving HB 183 at this hearing and that he would like to speak to Mr. Yould before he left the building. The chairman indicated he thought Representative Murkowski had had a question for Mr. Baldwin. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI indicated her question could wait until the next hearing on April 26 if Mr. Baldwin would be available then. Number 0937 JIM BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, said he was at the chairman's pleasure. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated Representative Murkowski's question would wait until Monday and thanked Mr. Baldwin for his patience. He confirmed no one else wished to testify on HB 183. The chairman requested input on the legislation. The public hearing was recessed and HB 183 was held over.