AWC Legislative Bulletin - Volume 30, No. 4
January 26, 2007
(Plain Text Version)
Return to Graphical Version | Search
back issues
In this issue:
What You Need to Know Now
From the Director - State of the Cities: Economic Development Report
City Legislative Action Conference (CLAC)
Energy & Telecommunications
Environment & Water
General Local Government
Infrastructure, Transportation & Economic Development
Land Use & Housing
Law & Justice
Municipal Finance
Personnel & Labor Relations
Online Legislative Advocacy Tools
AWC Legislative Contacts & Board of Directors
Energy & Telecommunications
Transmission Siting Preemption (HB 1037)
As reported last week, a substitute bill was passed out of the House Technology, Energy & Communications Committee with an amendment brought forth from a member of the Committee. While the substitute bill language is a step in the right direction to improve the siting process in favor of city land use regulations, the bill still is a concern for cities.
AWC and a city representative met with utilities, interest groups and the Chair of the EFSEC Council this past week to discuss the issue. The supporters of the bill (in addition to the Chair of the EFSEC Council) are Puget Sound Energy, Pacificorp, energy developers and a couple of public utilities.
Developers and utilities tell AWC staff that the problem with siting transmission facilities stems from the challenge of coordinating multiple local jurisdictions in a single project without a one-stop entity to manage the process. In response, cities are proposing a two-pronged approach to this issue:
- The siting or upgrade of transmission facilities that are solely in one local government jurisdiction, and
- The siting or upgrade of transmission projects in multiple jurisdictions.
AWC is working on draft language that would bifurcate the transmission siting process into these two categories. AWC would like to hear comments from cities about this approach. Please contact Victoria Lincoln at victorial@awcnet.org or Sheri Sawyer at sheris@awcnet.org.
At the House Insurance, Financial Services & Consumer Protection Committee hearing on January 25, the list of interested parties wanting to testify on HB 1251 was six pages long! It was standing room only, and the Chair limited speaking time to just a minute or two in order to get through the list in the regularly-scheduled hearing time.
Most interested parties were in favor of the bill, while a few speakers representing scrap metal dealers expressed concern about the proposed requirements. The bill would place new responsibilities on the purchasers of scrap metal by requiring they take identification and by delaying cash payments to the seller.
The biggest single objection to the bill appears to be the "tag and hold" requirement for metal purchasers. It would require scrap dealers to hold the product for a period of time to allow law enforcement or victims to look for stolen material. Amendments are being developed to address some of the concerns with the bill.
Requiring Electronic Payment of Utility Bills (HB 1034)
The fiscal note on this bill shows that the average cost for a local government utility provider to set up an electronic billing system is $16,000, plus monthly charges for maintenance. AWC staff and cities have talked to a number of members of the House Technology, Energy & Communications Committee about the costs for this service. We have stressed to legislators that for an average utility of 5,000 customers, the startup costs and monthly maintenance fees are too expensive for the relatively small number of customers that are projected to use such a system. Given the information in the fiscal note, we are asking that the bill die in the policy committee. See last week’s Bulletin for an overview of the bill.
Net Metering (HB 1140)
This bill requires electric utilities to provide meter aggregation for net metering customer-generators. At a hearing earlier this week, Pacificorp and the rural electric cooperatives expressed concern with this proposal as written. There may be a utility discussion on the bill in the next few days, so AWC would like municipal electric utilities to take a look at the bill and provide comments to Sheri Sawyer at sheris@awcnet.org.
HB 1314/SB 5225 would move all pipeline safety authority into one chapter of the Revised Code of Washington (Chapter 81.88). The bill maintains the status quo in terms of the Washington Utility and Transportation Commission’s (WUTC) safety authority, with a few exceptions which were outlined in last week’s Bulletin.
HB 1478 would require the WUTC to provide first responders, state agencies, and local governments data that the Commission develops or gathers for the maps that are consolidated into their geographic information system. This includes pump stations and valves, etc.
Under this proposal, the WUTC would also provide or make available for inspection by any other entity, including the public, maps or map images that illustrate line pipe location as long as the map or map images are of no greater detail than a scale of one to twenty-four thousand.
Our city representative on the WUTC’s Pipeline Safety Committee has some concerns that the public won't have access to the more detailed GIS maps or information on pump stations, valves, etc. that might impact their neighborhoods. This also means that in some highly-urbanized areas the maps may not provide enough detail to the public to understand where pipelines are. On January 31 at 1:30 pm, the House Technology, Energy and Communications Committee will hold a public hearing on both HB 1314 and HB 1478. Should you have any concerns our comments please contact Victoria Lincoln at victorial@awcnet.org or Sheri Sawyer at sheris@awcnet.org by Tuesday, January 30.
|