Insurance & Commerce - Senate

We'll get started Senator Dismang we'll start with you. Two nine seven. SPT ninety seven. The members just for quick we do have an amendment need to pass that on to ninety seven it was some changes brought for by the PSC. I'll be happy to explain it when you have addition this. I did it in just for a quick the PSC does not have a position on the bill that's not what this is related to the thing was more technical corrections that suggested that was to address gene then also do some updates because of fed changes in numbers. I have a motion to adopt the amendment the second all in favor say aye opposed same sign. Your manifest company here the end table with me I don't have quite as much time prepares I thought I was going to have before committee today so if I if I hit a rut then I thinking step in but with that just if the bill is fairly simple we got an issue in Arkansas with hits that we're having in our eight one one program this is to try to get ahead of what some fed changes might be if we don't improve what's happening here lease eternal debt or change Attorney General in place as far as enforcement but I think the the vast majority the bill and what it does starts on page four section two. And that is kind of lays out a streamlined process for violations the first violation a twelve month period require someone to undergo training the second sets out a civil penalty with a maximum of up to five thousand dollars if you do it again in a twelve month period it has a civil penalty to increases to ten thousand you'll see in up underneath Hey we're it limits the maximum penalty for your fifty thousand dollars there's no known opposition to the bill at this time it's been vetted among stakeholders and again something that when you take action on so that the feds don't do it for us and if I misspoke and I mean that I would Charlie step in. Thank you like to add Mister spex. Nope Charlie six black hills energy hit it pretty much on the head what why this bill come to for you is last session we we look at creating a board to handle these this enforcement The New A. G. has asked that he has I have a chance to enforce as it's already under fire under him so well. We are going to leave it we try statements or leave it under him but we're trying to make it easier for his office to do that without having to go to circuit court for every violation. Questions for the committee Senator Johnson. Thank you Mr chairman of Senate is mine I had a issue fairly recently and actually in my old district but you know how mayors and county judges are they keep calling you This was had to do with the broadband project and the contractor I mean this wasn't like a one time deal gosh we made a mistake I mean he was every time you that putting in new conduit he was hit a water line and it was I think it happened four five times in the same city of this is what this would address right so if he keeps doing it he's really gonna be sanction is that. Hopefully creating the kind of disincentive that and I was told that he had liquidated damages deadlines in its contract to complete certain work by a certain time so you've got you've got to counter the economic. Of cost of heating a line when you are exposed to versus maybe having to pay a little extra because your life with this address that we sure hope so and and you'll see that a lot with gas pipelines and water pipelines where the amount the amount to fix our pipelines are not as high as a fiber or or some of those I mean on average out our natural. Gas pipeline fixes are around a thousand dollars so sometimes a bad actor see that as a cost of doing business and just don't call so we hope we hope that in changes behavior a little bit and then that makes it a very good bill thank you Charlie thank you Senate is my thank you Hickey. Just not have issue I just guess I won't understand why on the amendment we went to an odd number like a two fifty seven is is that some multiple are of something that that's all federal code it's just updating the federal number to exactly what they have currently. Fair enough they just seem seem odd that you would just have that as a. Okay sep number but that that's explains yeah that that was an amendment to PC thought would be helpful and we want to make sure we come date for that. Any other questions. The one here in the audience to speak for against the bill. You saying none center you may close. I'm close. Do pass as amended. The sky motion as second all those in favor say aye. Opposing sign. Senator your bill is passed. About that. Go ahead that okay while you're there all right members this is Senate bill two ninety five again there's another amendment to hand out to that. I think we are re grandfathering the grandfather just to make sure that there's not any outstanding issues or some other folks that were involved in that discussion that will come speak to that I think we were even able to reach some accommodations and maybe ease some concerns that were in the bill you know as written. And that's the end and then it was also some language regarding the AC and DC that was in the wrong spot and that was technical actions that were made also with this amendment. We are we just couple ministry through the absolutely this means that we just receive that. Okay. Yeah that that way they can. Would you like me to work through the amendment in the bill yeah that be good okay Sir all right so if we go to page five and we also again if you like to hear from anyone else that was involved I think she can she can speak for the eighty eight probably not other folks but as far as the amendment so in general let's go to page five line nineteen is going to add language unless an individual net metering customers net metering facility with a greater amount is included in the standard in connection agreement executed on or before December thirty first two thousand twenty two again just making sure that those we're trying to grandfather in are grandfathered in Page six line one. Yes that I mean that we had some out there that were higher than the one the one that was in the statute originally now. Now. I would say does Senator Hickey lot of these amendments proposed in I don't think it's substantially change the bill but it eased concerns that maybe there's a trap door or a boogeyman lurking around a word or two that what might catch someone a project had a current project. So. Page six line one. It's going to delete including for any net metering facilities. Can just clarification. Just make sure there's not something that's misunderstood or misconstrued later on Page line Page nine line seventeen. The late pays the cost in in and substitute with pays the either the entire cost. And so the thing to fear is on that when we get to the page. And. It pays the costume changes to phase either the entire cost of the electric utilities facilities associate expense is required to provide service net metering customer any committee and I think it's clarification that was being sought just make sure there wasn't something I stand. In nineteen expenses delete expenses and change for expenses or appropriate for a portion of the cost is an associate expenses as determined at the rate schedule approved by the commission. Clarification just to make sure again that there's not some misunderstanding in the future. Page thirteen line thirty three allow. Okay and substitute allow a net metering facility of an individual. Again I'm just I keep saying the same thing over and over again that the man that's what the bill is doing is just making sure there's not any confusion as folks work through an the grand for the portion of the bill. Page thirteen delete lines thirty four thirty five at the rate structure terms conditions in effect for December thirty first twenty twenty two there are some discussions that a three G. language was different than what's current statute rather than getting the weeds on that debate we just added this additional language. page fourteen account with electric utility after presentation by the electric utility to the net metering customer the facilities agreement or the equivalent document and the required cost of construction the facilities necessary to interconnect the memory metering facility on or before September thirtieth two thousand twenty four you just clarification making sure that everyone is grandfathered in. Senate is made I think Senator Irvin had a question on it. Thanks and I think you address that but with that I just want to verify I mean one of the banks in my district have called about if as it was written as a customer and if that customer defaulted on the current project that they are financing that the facility was if it was passed down or bought purchased by a new customer that they would be also available for the grandfather clause such This amendment does fix that and address that because we're talking about the facility in the project verses the customer right yeah and I had a hard time understanding exactly what the concern was from that if it was related to this or for was more related to the protections are being put in place for solar customers but again I'm if the grandfather in their grandfathered in and I I don't really know where to go beyond that I'm seen and seen as a second had back there with Mr about the law and and I think he's familiar with the thank you thank you for making the the card change in the eight. And I don't want to test so that was a change that was made because but again at because I'm not familiar with how that inter played but maybe someone else could speak to that I mean I'll I'll follow up just because it was first service bank I called with the concerned that if one of their current projects that their financing with a customer for closes they wanted to make sure that that customer I mean that project will continue to be grandfathered in if it switch from the current customer that their financing under to the new customer that would be purchasing that so that that was their concern about language in the bill and I are. Let's let's bring if we can John built into G. two tables he stood up so I think yes Sir they can possibly help please of center. And in this state so I think you are I think this can be satisfied but I'd I'd rather be on accent the introduce yourself for the record you're recognized yes Sir Mr chairman members of the committee I'm John Bethel director of public affairs for energy Arkansas and centers your concern is addressed in the than the one of the amendment is on page fourteen my land on the yes I am not that one yeah makes it clear that is the facility and they have that instance yes thank you very much yes ma'am. Thank you. You may proceed. I think that gets through it unless you want to go through directing changing out alternating. Okay so we have a motion to adopt the amendment we have any questions Assiniboia. Second my six and Boyd any questions from the committee on the amendment. No questions are there is there any comment from anyone in the audience for against. are you for or against. Four four four. Please identify yourself and you're recognized. Thank you my name's line alter by an executive director for the Arkansas advanced energy association would just extend our gratitude to Senator Dismang for entertaining another meeting specifically regarding these amendments to provide some clarification and we certainly have lots of enquiries from our folks and really appreciate the time that he spent to do that so we would say that this is a good amendment and with support approving this amendment. Thank you have any questions. Okay Is thank you so much anybody to speak against the amendment. For the amendment. Okay of course will of committee. I guess it's been done I'm sorry so this go to the question all in favor say aye. Those opposed. Motion I mean amendment passes now you're recognized to present the bill as amended thank you members we went generally through the amendment the background on that is just provide clarification without like was needed does not substantially change the bill you know there were you know very minor minor in I think that the tree policy with this committees already voted out once and never to be fair to make sure there was nothing Mr that's why we're here today I think you know that I'm committed to that fact or some other provisions that were some of the questions raised for instance on in this section on the consumer protection that was the question of even if you could get a bond or some other type of you know financial document to up hold to make sure that the customers may hold the end of the day at this time there's there that that may not exist in one of my response was I still believe that protection needs to be in place so that doesn't exist bring me something else that we could utilize in place but as it stands I think that needs to be to remain in the bill as we look forward to maybe some updates there but again I think you know largely this is this is what we've already considered with some improvements for clarity and I would appreciate a good vote. Okay what we have some audience participation so we have someone signed up to there's no questions from the committee we have someone signed up to speak against J. Jordan to flee. If I pronounce that correctly with eight EEC. Please introduce yourself you're recognized. Thank you senator Murdock my name is Jordan Tinsley I was here at a previous meeting I want to belabor all the issues that we raised I do want to remind the members that my organization or the organization I represent Arkansas electric energy consumers incorporated. Continues to oppose the bill based on various concerns I'll give three examples the first is the prohibition on net metering for interruptible customers the second is the size limits which is being reduced considerably and the third is the provision that allows the utility to collect announcmenet that it pays to net metering customers for net excess generation through its fuel Reiter on the interruptible provision you know I testified I think about that last time you know that's a good program we want to incentivize that program it's worked really well for over twenty five years and I think that the concern about cost shifting with the customers that are allowed to interrupt is misplaced I don't have any questions about the senator's intentions in terms of You know anything nefarious but I do think as at a policy level as we've attempted to explain you know large customers like the customers they can avail themselves of interruptible rates are not the primary drivers of the cost shifting problem and again we want to incentivize the kind of load modifications that interruptible customers provide to the system the second issue is on the size limit. You know if the rate is right which this committee seems to think it's getting the rate right then it shouldn't matter how large the facility is right if the facility is over five megabytes it's still paying its fair share of the fixed costs associated with serving a facility that large and so that's why one of the points that I've tried to make throughout this process is that this bill goes way beyond what is necessary to address the issue that it purports to address the third example that I want to highlight that I think is just bad policy in the bill with all due respect to the bill's sponsors is the provision that allows the utilities to collect the net excess generation that they paid a net metering customers in their fuel raider in their fuel surcharge which would be applied to all customers and in my opinion authorizing the utilities to do that actually is going to result in rate increases across the board as a result of this bill and frankly those rate increases will be more punitive to the customers that I represent because they Hey. For more kilowatt hours than any other customer and the fuel writer is build on a volumetric basis or on the basis of the kilowatt hours that are consumed there's one other issue that I would like to address and it relates to what happened in twenty nineteen. And it's it's been explained several times that a lot of members think this bill is necessary to make good on a promise that former chairman Ted Thomas made in two thousand nineteen when that law was enacted. You know I wanna make it clear the twenty nineteen the law. Did not authorize the commission to change the net metering rate structure for large customers with demand rate components so frankly I wasn't present for the committee meetings in which chairman Thomas addressed the General Assembly written regarding the twenty nineteen law but it's impossible in my mind for any promise that he made to of encompassed changes to the rate structure for large customers because the law that was before the General Assembly at that time didn't even authorize a change in rate structure for customers with demand rates and so all I can absolutely understand. Consternation or disapproval of of government employee who made a promise to the General Assembly and didn't keep it but I do not see how a change to the rate structure for customers with demand rate components could have been encompassed within the promise that some have alleged that chairman Thomas broke and so again you know my group that I represent large customers that purchase vast amounts of electricity employee over five thousand our Kansans We don't disagree with the need to make modifications regarding smaller customers that only have volumetric rates we strongly disapprove of this bill because it goes far beyond what is necessary to address cost shifting and instead is is disruptive to economic development in the state and we think that a better policy and you know a better path forward would be to address the cost shift in the smaller rate classes while allowing the economic development projects to continue which is going to be necessary to to bring more industry to the state to expand existing industry and I think all of you come from districts where you've seen hemorrhages an industrial jobs you know a big part of our state's economy has been hollowed out because of jobs going overseas jobs going to other jurisdictions and so many people in government devote themselves every day to try to reverse that trend trying to retract industry trying to retain industry trying to expand industry and I just think that this bill is counterproductive to that effort and it doesn't have to be you know you can fix this problem without the unintended consequences and with all due respect to the bill's sponsors I will I lamented the fact that we weren't able to have conversations about this earlier in the process I really hoped that we could have achieved that and you know we would love to be able to support a bill to address a cost shifting problem but it this bill in its current form is not the right policy for the state of Arkansas and so we would ask you to please vote no on the bill send a message to the sponsors that we need to address some of our concerns I understand the cake maybe baked but you know I'm here to hopefully kala tension. To some of these issues again and again very respectful of all of your time certainly respectful of your service to the state I just think on this issue we're going way beyond what's necessary and we're gonna have some ramifications that haven't been fully thought through thank you. Thank you any questions from committee. So as it relates to collaborations want to be issued so. The young ladies that spoke in favor she's with the same entity if I'm reading these eight easy is it the same all that the letters I'm getting confusing the letters so what's what was what was those letters after them senator Murdock it is confusing you know in the regulatory industry we use a lot of acronyms and and frankly it's hard for me to follow sometimes but I represent an entity called Arkansas electric energy consumers incorporated. We referred to that with the acronym of the eighty E. C. right miss Waltrip represents the Arkansas advanced energy association which is referred to with the acronym eighty eight EA okay they are not affiliated entities thank you that's that's. Okay no questions there's no questions from committee thank you so much thank you is there anyone else in the audience to speak for the bill. Against skews me. Someone else speak for. Introduce yourself when you're recognized. Again my name's Marin Waltrip and I'm the executive director of the Arkansas advanced energy association in honoring our agreement with with the bill sponsor we certainly have no opposition to the bill. Any questions from committee. For her thank you ma'am once again thank. Against. Okay we like to close the bill Senator Dismang close. What's the will of committee. Motion do pass as. However motion do pass as amended second Senate depend so All the favor say aye. As opposed. Dies at. Wish you pastor bill. Senator Hammer. As indicated on Senate bill one seventy eight. he's gonna be the members on and have been engrossed and want to come back to us it'll be ready for a. It will be amended with all the changes in it so that's. That's what's Nicks See what we have the listed as Hammer H. B. thirteen sixty is representing the group here. Are you by to run H. B. thirteen sixty. S. the three twenty four it will reduce the. As we three twenty four Senator Dismang you read that say. Okay we've done to ninety five and eighty three thirteen thirteen that I'll be running for. Representative Hudson is being amended and it's not ready we'll get it taken care of so. Is there any other business before the committee. Seeing none thank you will adjourn.