HB 363-BROADBAND: OFFICE, GRANTS, PARITY  3:18:58 PM CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 363, "An Act establishing the office of broadband; creating the broadband parity adjustment fund; establishing the Statewide Broadband Advisory Board; and providing for an effective date." CO-CHAIR FIELDS said the committee would begin with invited testimony. 3:19:43 PM DIANE KAPLAN, President/CEO, Rasmuson Foundation, provided invited testimony on HB 363. She said broadband impacts many of the areas important to the Rasmuson Foundation's mission of promoting a better life for Alaskans. The foundation wants this effort to succeed, she stated, and is prepared to offer resources as a convener and a grant-maker to ensure it happens. Over the next five years Rasmuson Foundation will have about $100 million of unrestricted revenue to invest in new opportunities in Alaska. The board has selected broadband as its first new area of investment because the foundation's goals around education and workforce development, along with people being able to participate in the global world and as citizens, relies on broadband that is both accessible and affordable. 3:21:23 PM The committee took a brief at-ease due to a sound system technical difficulty. 3:21:33 PM MS. KAPLAN continued her testimony. She said bringing people together to discuss solutions has always been the core part of the Rasmuson Foundation's grantmaking philosophy. As the foundation researched how it could assist with broadband, it convened numerous stakeholder groups, including tribal leaders, nonprofits, members of the telecom industry, members of the legislature, the administration, and prominent citizens. Some of these meetings have evolved into advisory groups to assist with information and coordination. MS. KAPLAN advised that the Rasmuson Foundation is prepared to assist this effort financially, with two immediate areas being the setup of the state's broadband office and coordination between the state and tribes. A concern has been heard that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) money designated for the setup of broadband offices may be delayed. If this is the case and given its crucial role, the foundation is prepared to offer resources to the state or directly to start building the state's [Office of Broadband]. Additionally, it has been repeatedly heard that strong coordination between tribal broadband efforts and the state is desperately needed for Alaska to take full advantage of this opportunity. To that end, the foundation could support the cost of a coordinator position to assist with communication and coordination between the tribes that are eligible to receive broadband funds and the State of Alaska. 3:23:07 PM MS. KAPLAN specified that the Rasmuson Foundation can engage in grantmaking with particular emphasis on workforce development, technology training for organizations and residents, and even support specific projects. It will be important that Alaska build a workforce that can install, maintain, and service broadband infrastructure, as well as provide training and resources that will allow Alaskans, particularly those in rural Alaska, to access jobs that can be done remotely. Ms. Kaplan further specified that the foundation is building up its own resources in preparation for assisting applicants. The foundation has identified organizations that can provide technical assistance like engineering and regulatory support along with grant writers to assist with applications, particularly for tribal partners. Given this is all coming together very quickly, perhaps greater needs will emerge, such as assistance with required mapping. MS. KAPLAN concluded by stressing that the Rasmuson Foundation is invested in seeing affordable and high-speed broadband deployment succeed in Alaska and is open to discussions on how that happens. She noted that Anand Vadapalli is the Rasmuson Foundation's chief consultant for helping to determine the foundation's proper role. For this effort the board has allocated $3 million of startup funds to be deployed in the way most useful to the state. 3:24:52 PM ANAND VADAPALLI, Consultant, Rasmuson Foundation, provided invited testimony during the hearing on HB 363. He noted that the funding decisions under these various federal funding programs will extend into 2023 and deployment of the infrastructure thereof will extend forward for 40 years. He urged that first and foremost the State of Alaska take a long- term perspective in setting forth the structure, governance, charter, and organization of the Office of Broadband to ensure policy and operational continuity that will span changes in the legislature and the administration over the life of these programs. Strong and shared leadership between the governor's office and the legislature, he said, is critical for good governance and long-term success. Second, he continued, as the eligible entity under the Broadband Equity Access Deployment Act (BEAD Act) program, the State of Alaska has significant responsibilities, including coordination, communication, planning, governance, and oversight. To adequately address these needs, he advised, the legislature must provide adequate resources and operating budget for this broadband office, funding digital capacity and equity planning as well as grantmaking and management capabilities. A well-resourced broadband office is critical in allowing Alaska to compete effectively for the funding available and subsequently to provide appropriate governance and oversight for the funding received. Mr. Vadapalli said the foundation's written comments provide more detail, including best practices from other states for the committee's reference. 3:26:52 PM MIKE NAVARRE, Member, Board of Directors, Rasmuson Foundation, provided invited testimony during the hearing on HB 363. He stated that the Rasmuson Foundation has been tracking the broadband topic and multiple funding opportunities for several years. The foundation recognized that it did not have the resources to build out the infrastructure, he continued, but if the opportunity presented itself the foundation would be interested in helping to coordinate and bring people together, convene them, and offer monetary resources to help achieve success. He said the Rasmuson Foundation is here to help in any way it can to ensure the rollout of this once-in-a-generation opportunity to provide all Alaskans with critical infrastructure necessary to fully participate in the digital world. The Rasmuson board has met to specifically discuss this topic and wants to assure success in Alaska, he added. 3:28:29 PM CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 363, labeled 32-LS1527\I.6, Klein, 3/14/22, which read: Page 1, line 12, following "federal": Insert ", tribal," CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for discussion purposes. CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ stated that the amendments being considered by the committee today are in response to last week's public testimony urging the addition of tribal members to government; that in the government-to-government relationship tribes are government as well. Adding tribes to this legislation is what Amendment 1 seeks to do, she explained. REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGMON, Alaska State Legislature, as the prime sponsor of HB 363, spoke to proposed amendments to the bill. He stated he is in total support of Amendment 1. CO-CHAIR FIELDS removed his objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. 3:29:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER moved to adopt Amendment 2 to HB 363, labeled 32-LS1527\I.7, Klein, 3/14/22, which read: Page 4, line 18, following "governor": Insert "to three-year terms" CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for discussion purposes. REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER explained that Amendment 2 specifies the length of a term on the board. REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON stated he has no objection to Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE NELSON inquired about the reasoning behind three years for a term. REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER replied that it isn't a specific rationale but rather a typical range found in advisory boards. Sometimes the range is two, sometimes three, other times four, and three seemed like a reasonable selection. 3:30:37 PM The committee took a brief at-ease at 3:30 p.m. 3:31:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER moved Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 2. CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for purposes of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER explained that the conceptual amendment would correct an error by changing "line '18'" to "line '19'". Therefore, Amendment 1, as amended, would read: Page 4, line 19, following "governor": Insert "to three-year terms" 3:31:45 PM CO-CHAIR FIELDS removed his objection to Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 2. There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 was adopted. 3:32:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY noted the Office of Broadband would go about eight years, until the year 2030, which would be two three-year cycles and a final two-year cycle. He suggested making it [two four-year cycles] or [one eight-year cycle] so the term would expire when the office expires. REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER responded that having a term length is valuable for a variety of reasons for not wanting someone to serve the entire time, such as the range of expertise that might be needed, or the dynamics on each specific board. She said this was done in collaboration with the co-chairs and in consultation with the bill sponsor, and three was the number that was landed on. REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY stated that historical knowledge is of value, but this knowledge would be lost every three years when all the people come off the board and a fresh board begins. CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that in looking at the amendment he assumed the members did not have to be bumped off the board after their terms ended, they could be reappointed. REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER confirmed that the members could be reappointed. She said there is no limit on the term being renewed because there is no language in that aspect. CO-CHAIR FIELDS added that a three-year term would come after the next governor, allowing that governor the benefit of gaining familiarity with the board and the ability to make an informed decision about whom he or she wants on that board. 3:34:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE surmised there could be an opportunity for this advisory board to be extended beyond the 2030 sunset date if there were to be continued federal investment or the state decided to continue investing in this area. REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON answered "exactly." Looking forward, he said, is always of arbitrary nature and a 10-year term for the [Statewide Broadband Advisory Board] was picked because clearly it would have a lifespan of five or ten years depending on how long this work takes place. Regarding a term of three years for board members, he pointed out that the term for Board of Fisheries members is three years, after which many board members are reappointed because they did a great job and have broad support. A three-year term therefore seemed in consort with being a good period of time. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked whether the governor would have discretion to end someone's three-year term early. He further asked whether a three-year term could mean the state could become stuck with someone who doesn't show up at meetings or some other thing. REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER replied that there is an endless number of sideboards and guidelines on how a board should look, operate, and be adjusted over time. In trying to strike a balance between giving some direction while allowing some flexibility, this falls within a moderate ground and is in consultation with the sponsor. REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON responded that generally appointees serve at the pleasure of the governor. 3:36:52 PM CO-CHAIR FIELDS removed his objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 2, as amended, was adopted. 3:37:02 PM CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ moved to adopt Amendment 3 to HB 363, labeled 32-LS1527\I.8, Klein, 3/14/22, which read: Page 4, line 18: Delete "and" Insert "(3) two members from the legislature, serving as ex officio nonvoting members, one of whom shall be appointed by the president of the senate and one by the speaker of the house of representatives; and" Renumber the following paragraph accordingly. Page 4, line 30: Delete "(c)" Insert "(c)(1), (2), or (4)" 3:37:04 PM CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for discussion purposes. 3:37:05 PM CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ explained Amendment 3 would add two members of the legislature as ex officio, nonvoting, members of the board. One would be appointed by the Senate President and the other by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. She said good, close communication between this group and the legislature is wanted in the event the legislature needs to come back and make changes to the Office of Broadband or appropriations are needed to match. The legislature would be well informed and engaged in the process but would not have the ability to vote and change the direction. REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON responded that he supports Amendment 3 because it is a standard practice and a good check and balance to have a member from each chamber attending the meetings and reporting back and being a conduit between the legislature, the board, and the Office of Broadband. 3:38:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE conveyed that he supports Amendment 3. He asked whether a term should be included in this amendment like in Amendment 2. CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ answered that this would be sitting legislators, not legislators that were termed off because they weren't reelected. The incoming Senate President or House Speaker would then fill the spot of a legislator that was not reelected. REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON responded that as a former presiding officer, his assumption is that Amendment 2 is for the nine members appointed by the governor. Under [Amendment 3], the presiding officer at the start of each new legislative session would appoint two members. For example, the thirty-third legislature would appoint two members and then the thirty-fourth legislature would appoint two members, and, theoretically, it could be the same legislators. REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN added that if a legislator is no longer in office he or she can't be there, so it will solve itself. 3:39:49 PM. CO-CHAIR FIELDS removed his objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 3 was adopted. 3:39:58 PM CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ moved to adopt Amendment 4 to HB 363, labeled 32-LS1527\I.10, Klein, 3/15/22, which read: Page 2, line 31: Delete "(1)" Page 3, line 4: Delete ";" Insert "." Page 3, lines 5 - 11: Delete all material. Page 4, line 19, following "members": Insert ", at least two of whom live in an unserved or underserved area," Page 5, following line 1: Insert a new section to read: "Sec. 44.33.930. Definitions. In AS 44.33.910 - 44.33.930, (1) "unserved area" means an area that does not have broadband speeds of at least 25 Megabits per second downstream and at least 3 Megabits per second upstream with a latency sufficient to support real- time interactive applications; and (2) "underserved area" means an area that does not have broadband speeds of at least 100 Megabits per second downstream and at least 20 Megabits per second upstream with a latency sufficient to support real-time interactive applications." Page 5, line 2: Delete "and 44.33.920" Insert "44.33.920, and 44.33.930" 3:40:00 PM CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for discussion purposes. 3:40:01 PM CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ explained that Amendment 4 was crafted in partnership with the sponsor and in response to the public testimony urging that members of the unserved and underserved communities be represented. It was heard in testimony that plenty of the people in unserved and underserved communities are experts in these subject matters. It is important to have those voices sitting at the table when those conversations are happening. Definitions [of "unserved area" and "underserved area"] are included in Amendment 3 and are the definitions found in the federal legislation. REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON said he supports Amendment 4 because it strengthens the bill by stating what is intended and it is in full alignment with the federal [Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act] (IIJA) and recommendations from the Governor's Task Force on Broadband. 3:41:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked about the provision in Amendment 4 on page 1, lines 1-2, that would in the bill on page 2, line 31, delete "(1)". 3:41:51 PM The committee took an at-ease from 3:41 p.m. to 3:42 p.m. 3:42:50 PM CO-CHAIR FIELDS responded that no content is being deleted, only the numbers one, two, and three are being deleted. CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ stated that Amendment 4 adds the two members who live in unserved or underserved areas and moves the definitions of unserved and underserved to a section further down in the bill, thereby removing the requirement for numbers one, two, and three on page 2 of the bill, beginning on line 31. So, they are conforming changes reflected in the reorganization posed by Amendment 4. 3:43:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY inquired about whether this whole section defines "anchor institution" and what it means regarding bandwidth and unserved and underserved, and therefore it would be deleting the definitions thereof and it is somewhere else. CO-CHAIR FIELDS answered that it only deletes the number one, not any of the text on anchor institutions. The language [in the bill on page 3, lines 5-11,] defining "unserved area" and "underserved area" is being deleted and these terms defined elsewhere. Therefore, "anchor institution" is on its own and doesn't need a number in front of it; it's purely organizational and the substance of "anchor institution" isn't being changed. 3:45:00 PM CO-CHAIR FIELDS removed his objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 4 was adopted. 3:45:09 PM CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ moved to adopt Amendment 5 to HB 363, labeled 32-LS1527\I.13, Klein, 3/15/22, which read: Page 4, following line 28: Insert a new subsection to read: "(d) The advisory board shall establish a broadband technical working group to provide technical recommendations to the advisory board. The advisory board shall appoint individuals to the technical working group who collectively have expertise in the different technologies that provide broadband service in the state. The broadband industry representative on the advisory board shall also serve on the broadband technical working group." Reletter the following subsections accordingly. 3:45:11 PM CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for discussion purposes. 3:45:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 5. 3:45:17 PM CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for discussion purposes. 3:45:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN explained that Conceptual Amendment 1 would, on line 6 of Amendment 5, following the word "service", add the words "and manage and deliver projects". The idea, he said, is to ensure that there are technical-aware people as well as project-aware people because good project management and project management awareness are wanted. CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ related that she and Representative Kaufman had two separate amendments, both of which achieved the underlying objective of Amendment 5. She said adopting Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 5 would consolidate the two amendments into one. REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON stated that since it appears to be a friendly amendment he has no objection. 3:46:49 PM CO-CHAIR FIELDS withdrew his objection. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 5 was adopted. 3:47:04 PM CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ explained that Amendment 5, as amended, establishes a technical working group which would, in essence, be a subcommittee of the [advisory] board. The idea, she said, was to mirror in the board what was in the task force, which was a technical subcommittee that included subject matter experts in broadband and internet access in rural Alaska and now also in project management associated with these broadband projects. This ensures that the board itself stays broad, is technology neutral, and capitalizes on all the expertise that is out there and that this technical working group will be able to provide information to the full board. The broadband industry representative on the advisory board will serve on the broadband technical working group and ideally that person will be the representative to the board as a whole and represent the working group to the broader advisory board. REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON spoke in support of Amendment 5, as amended. He stated that when putting an advisory board together as the bill proposes to do, one must be cognizant of not making the board too big yet at the same time the board must wrap its arms around all the various players as best as possible. Industry is an integral part of all of this, and industry's expertise is needed at the table. Having a technical subgroup seems to accomplish the objective of industry having a seat at the table and being an important part of the decision-making process but at the same time not expanding the advisory board to a point that it gets too big and makes it hard to chase people down to have meetings. 3:49:15 PM CO-CHAIR FIELDS removed his objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 5, as amended, was adopted. 3:49:25 PM CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ moved to adopt Amendment 6 to HB 363, labeled 32-LS1527\I.15, Klein, 3/15/22, which read: Page 2, line 25, following "partners": Insert "through the University of Alaska, technical, vocational, or trade schools, and apprenticeship programs" 3:49:28 PM CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for discussion purposes. 3:49:29 PM CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ explained that Amendment 6, on page 2, line 25 of the bill, further defines the workforce development in- state partners by stating that these partners should include the University of Alaska, technical, vocational, or trade schools, and apprenticeship programs. This ensures that while building out this infrastructure, Alaska's capacity to be able to build and maintain the infrastructure is also being built. This is a great way to get Alaskans jobs and make sure that the investment in this effort is maintained and protected. REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON expressed his support of Amendment 6. He said this also comports with the broadband task force's recommendations. 3:50:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY stated that he reads the amendment as the University of Alaska being the overseer of the workforce. He asked whether other industry individuals or organizations could partner into this. CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ replied that the intention is not for the University of Alaska to have oversight of all these areas, but that the University of Alaska is one of the stakeholders that would be involved in workforce development. She said it would also include technical, vocational, or trade schools and could include high school level programs, programs that are outside of public institutions in the state, as well as apprenticeship programs. It is not to put the University of Alaska over other workforce development, but rather to include it in a list of program types that would be consulted in terms of workforce development. REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY stated he is concerned that the wording seems to imply that the University of Alaska is overseeing the technical, vocational, or trade schools, and apprenticeship programs. CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ responded, "Absolutely not, it's just first in the list." 3:52:10 PM CO-CHAIR FIELDS removed his objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 6 was adopted. 3:52:18 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN moved to adopt Amendment 7 to HB 363, labeled 32-LS1527\I.2, Klein, 3/14/22, which read: Page 1, following line 12: Insert a new paragraph to read: "(2) develop short- and long-term strategies for deploying affordable broadband to communities statewide, based on the effects on consumer costs, the timeline for deployment, the breadth of coverage, sustainability of the broadband without further subsidy, broadband reliability and speed, whether multiple technologies are necessary, technological neutrality, and preventing duplication of federal programs;" Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly. Page 2, line 13, following "infrastructure": Insert "that supports the short- and long-term strategies developed under (b)(2) of this section" 3:52:20 PM CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for discussion purposes. 3:52:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN explained Amendment 7 by reading it aloud to the committee members. REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON responded that the amendment is well intentioned, and he thinks he knows what it is intended to accomplish, but his first reaction is that the way the bill is presented to the committee, and as amended, accomplishes the goals that are wanted to be accomplished. He said the terms in Amendment 7, such as breadth of coverage, sustainability of the broadband without further subsidy, go outside the scope of the broadband task force. CO-CHAIR FIELDS requested Ms. O'Connor to speak to Amendment 7. 3:54:24 PM CHRISTINE O'CONNOR, Representative of the Telecommunications Industry, Governor's Task Force on Broadband, Executive Director, Alaska Telecom Association (ATA), stated that Amendment 7 is quite detailed and has several concepts that aren't defined here and are not areas where the task force made recommendations. She said her concern is it could conflict with NTIA's detailed rules which will be issued in the Notice of Funding Opportunity which is due in mid-May. Her other concern, she continued, is that this could have unintended consequences on existing federal programs that are supporting schools, telemedicine, and a variety of the telecommunication ecosystem. 3:55:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY inquired about what is not being done that the amendment is attempting to address. REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN responded that it is to get clarity that [the state] will operate on short- and long-term strategic plans, which will avoid some of the conflicts or problems that typically crop up when doing potentially overlapping work or work in an arena where there are not only technological selections to make but also the compatibility of those. It's to make it more explicit within the framework of a short-term and long-term strategy. 3:56:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked what Ms. O'Connor sees that is different in the language of the amendment from the intent of the task force. MS. O'CONNOR answered that she sees some duplication here of what is already in the bill language. Affordable broadband is addressed in the task force and throughout the [federal] Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), she continued. Sustainability without further subsidy is not something that the task force delved into and is a concept that needs to be carefully addressed with coordination from the federal agencies. Interagency coordination and looking at duplication of programs is happening at the federal level via an interagency working group between the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), US Department of Agriculture (USDA), and NTIA. There could be an unintended consequence of eliminating programs that are essential to Alaska's broadband infrastructure. The task force did talk about reliability in-state, but those metrics are addressed elsewhere in the bill. The amendment is not adding to the bill and in some areas it is well outside what the task force recommended. 3:58:40 PM CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ stated that the intention of Amendment 7 is good and noble. She said she is a fan of doing things right but is concerned with the issue of sustainability of broadband without further subsidy conflicting with the bipartisan IIJA's stated objective of meeting first unserved communities and then underserved communities. Alaskans are trying to educate the NTIA about what rural and what unserved in Alaska means and how important this is. Access to broadband and high-speed internet is like a utility these days - business cannot be conducted, healthcare and education cannot be received. She suggested that this could be revisited in the next year and refined with the broadband advisory group once there is a more robust understanding of what the federal guidance is going to be and how the State of Alaska can comply with the spirit and letter of the law and regulation coming from the federal government. 4:00:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN withdrew Amendment 7. He offered his appreciation for the comments and said he is relentless about well managed projects. He said he concurs with some of the points that were made although he still thinks there are good things that could be fit in now. CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ stated that HB 363 is an important piece of the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that will be a game changer for the state of Alaska. She said HB 363 is an important building block for Alaska as it moves forward. 4:01:31 PM CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ moved to report HB 363, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 363(L&C) was moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.