Electronic Utility Bill Payment (SHB 1034)

The original bill proposed that when a utility (serving electricity, natural gas, water or sewer) with more than 5,000 customers upgrades, changes or purchases new equipment relating to billing or service, the new equipment must be capable of accepting electronic payment of bills for service provided by the utility. The substitute version of this bill removes the customer threshold and requires that when utilities "substantially" upgrade or replace their billing system, the resulting system must be capable of accepting electronic payment.

"Substantial" is defined as being at least a 25% change in the billing system. Although the bill is currently in the House Rules Committee, there is an amendment prepared to put back in place a customer threshold of less than 10,000 customers (while keeping the "substantial" change language). This could still have large cost implications and therefore AWC strongly opposes this bill.

Crane Safety (ESHB 2171/SSB 5990)

The House bill was amended in the policy committee and again on the House floor before being passed on to the Senate for additional review. The bill calls for the Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) to establish certification, experience, educational, and training requirements for crane inspectors and operators.

According to the bill sponsor, Rep. Deb Eddy (D-Kirkland), a former city elected official, the bill is specifically directed at construction cranes and only cranes above a certain tonnage. The bill exempts powerhouse cranes, tree trimming and removal equipment, utility equipment, and forklifts. Cities will participate in the L&I rulemaking process to ensure that city utility equipment that is only used occasionally will not be impacted by the stringent standards that will be applied to large construction cranes.

PUD Retail Telecom Authority (SB 6102)

This bill originally would have allowed the public utility districts to provide retail telecommunications services in their utility service area, which is an expansion of their current authority to provide wholesale telecommunications services.

While AWC did not weigh in on the discussion, some cities have been in favor of this expanded PUD authority, and some cities have expressed concern about the new ability for PUDs to provide services within city limits. However, the bill has been amended and is now a pilot project that would affect only Pend Oreille PUD in eastern Washington. Pend Oreille is already operating a wholesale fiber optic backbone, and is located in a county considered to be very rural and without many telecommunications choices. The pilot project expires at the end of seven years and the PUD must submit annual progress reports to the legislature. The bill is in the Senate Rules Committee awaiting further action.

Pole Attachment Fees (SHB 1857)

The substitute bill moves responsibility for hearing disputes over pole attachments from the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission to the American Arbitration Association. In addition, it removes the requirement that the rate be determined on a per pole basis rather than per attachment basis. It specifies that rates, terms, and conditions charged by a locally-regulated utility must be:

Based on the utility's actual cost of providing the allocated space on the pole that is being used by the licensee; and
Sufficient to cover the utility's actual capital and operating expenses attributable to the portion of the pole used by the licensee.

Although this bill does not affect cities, there is concern that if it passes it may set a precedent for the future.

Encouraging the Use of Cleaner Energy (2SSB 5586)

This bill would add a public utility tax credit for consumer-owned utilities that invest in energy efficiency measures. The second substitute bill limits the public utility tax credit for all light and power businesses for energy efficient investments to a total of $1 million per calendar year. If the Department of Revenue receives applications for the credit that exceed $1 million prior to the end of the calendar year, the Department will apportion the credit on a method determined by the Department. This bill is "partnered" with SSB 6001, meaning the Senate will not pass one bill without passing the other. See last week’s Bulletin for a description of SSB 6001.

Federal Telecommunications

This week the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a final version of a rule on competitive video franchising which broadly pre-empts numerous longstanding local video franchising requirements and procedures. The new rule (approved in concept by the FCC on December 20, 2006 on a 3-2 vote) spells out the details of far-reaching action which voids or undercuts longstanding local authority, and calls into question hard-won public benefits—including requirements that all residents and businesses be served with advanced technology and that support for community channels be continued as previously agreed.

These new rules will have three profoundly negative impacts on local government:

Only a fraction of households will be served. The FCC Rule allows new providers to avoid upgrading facilities in poorer neighborhoods while affluent neighborhoods receive cutting-edge services and lower prices. Local regulations to eliminate "cherry-picking" of affluent customers and the resulting digital isolation of other neighborhoods are preempted.
Unreachable process deadlines are imposed, which would cause any negotiations to likely fail. Communities will have only 90 days to issue a franchise to new entrants. In Washington, this includes Verizon and Qwest, among other companies. If parties can’t reach agreement within the 90-day time frame, the rules deem that a cable franchise is automatically granted. This would clearly put local governments at a disadvantage in the negotiating process as telecommunications companies would not have any motivation to reach agreement.
Critical support for community services (schools, libraries and media) is eliminated. Fees to support public, educational and government (PEG) access would be deducted from the 5% franchise fees communities currently receive.

The National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, NATOA and the Alliance for Community Media all oppose the rules and are expected to file for injunctive relief.

[ previous article ] [ return to top ] [ next article ]