Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
05/01/2024 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB307 | |
| SB67 | |
| HB196 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 307 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 67 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 196 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 223 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 119 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 1, 2024
5:37 p.m.
5:37:25 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 5:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Co-Chair
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative DeLena Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Julie Coulombe
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Will Stapp
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Andrew Jensen, Policy Advisor on Energy and Food Security,
Office of the Governor; Senator Jesse Kiehl, Sponsor; Lisa
Purinton, Acting Legislative Liaison, Department of Public
Safety; Cathy Shlingheyde, Staff, Senator Jesse Kiehl;
Crystal Koeneman, Legislative Liaison, Department of
Environmental Conservation; Representative Genevieve Mina,
Sponsor; Deb Etheridge, Director, Division of Public
Assistance, Department of Health.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Melanie Lesh, Self, Gustavus; Andy Mills, Legislative
Liaison, Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities; Jamie Morgan, Government Relations Regional
Lead, American Heart Association, Sacramento, California;
Dean Humphries, Director of Operations, Lutheran Social
Services of Alaska, Anchorage; Hannah Hill, Executive
Director, Bread Line, Fairbanks; Ron Meehan, Director of
Government Affairs, Food Bank of Alaska, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 119 MARIJUANA TAX
HB 119 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HB 196 FOOD STAMP PROGRAM ELIGIBILTY
HB 196 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 223 TAX & ROYALTY FOR CERTAIN GAS
HB 223 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HB 307 INTEGRATED TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS
HB 307 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
CSSB 67(RES)
PFAS: USE FOR FIREFIGHTING, DISPOSAL
HCS CSSB 67(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee
with nine "do pass" recommendations and with one
new fiscal impact note by the Department of
Environmental Conservation and one previously
published zero note: FN2 (DPS).
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 307
"An Act relating to the taxation of independent power
producers; and increasing the efficiency of integrated
transmission system charges and use for the benefit of
ratepayers."
5:39:47 PM
ANDREW JENSEN, POLICY ADVISOR ON ENERGY AND FOOD SECURITY,
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, provided a PowerPoint presentation
titled "HB 307 Integrated Transmission Systems: House
Finance Committee," dated May 1, 2024 (copy on file). He
began on slide 2 titled "Governor Dunleavy's Energy Policy
Priorities
Open access that is nondiscriminatory to the source of
power generation.
The lowest cost power moves from anywhere to anywhere
without artificial barriers.
Mr. Jensen elaborated that HB 307 was focused on the
Railbelt area of Alaska. He moved to slide 3 titled "How
does HB 307 achieve this:
Elimination of "wheeling" rates in favor of a new
transmission cost recovery mechanism to be developed
by an association of the Railbelt utilities
and approved by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska.
Creates tax parity for Independent Power Producers
by providing the same tax exemption for power
generation as the tax-exempt cooperatives or
municipally owned utilities.
Mr. Jensen turned to slide 4 titled "How could HB 307 be
improved?":
Fix the "double-tax" issue for IPPs and provide for
the tax exemption to apply only to future projects.
Provide for a deadline for the Railbelt utilities to
submit the new transmission cost recovery mechanism to
the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA).
Technical improvements to language and definitions,
and clarification of responsibilities.
Mr. Jensen explained the double-tax issue. He delineated
that the Independent Power Producers (IPP) would pay the
same excise tax on a per kilowatt hour basis as the
cooperatives and both were exempted from the local property
taxes. The bill did not address what happened to the IPP
when they sold their power. They could be taxed a second
time by the utilities. The administration wanted to ensure
the power was only taxed one time. He would like to work
with the committee to address the issue. He briefly
reviewed the last 2 bullet points. He pointed out that
regarding the third bullet point, in current statute the
Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) was responsible for
creating a cost recovery standard for each utility. The
bill would change that to require the utilities to jointly
file one tariff. He delineated that the bill should clarify
who was responsible for developing the cost recovery
standard.
5:44:30 PM
Representative Hannan asked for details regarding the
deadline for cost recovery. Mr. Jensen answered that the
provision was related to when the association of Railbelt
utilities would be required to submit their plan to the RCA
for review. He indicated that the utilities were already
engaged in weekly meetings that included regulatory
attorneys and consultants concerning the development of a
cost recovery mechanism. The utilities relayed that they
could have a mechanism by the end of 2024. The
administration felt that it would be "helpful" to include a
"reasonable deadline" in the legislation. He suggested
language such as "the Railbelt Association would submit
their proposal to the RCA by a certain date. He would work
with the legislature on what a good date would be.
Representative Hannan noted there was already an amendment
deadline. She wondered whether Mr. Jensen was working with
a member of the committee to draft amendment language.
Co-Chair Foster asked if anyone had worked with Mr. Jensen
thus far. Mr. Jensen answered in the negative. He explained
that the recommendations were relayed to him on the prior
day. He deduced that the amendments would be "fairly
simple."
Representative Hannan pointed to the third bullet point on
slide 4 stating "technical improvements to language and
definitions." She related that she was waiting to see
specific definitions in a timely manner.
5:47:31 PM
Mr. Jensen referenced the April 25, 2024, committee meeting
and relayed that the amendment language had been
recommended by Mr. Authur Miller, Chief Executive Officer,
Chugach Electric during the hearing. He believed they were
"simple fixes" and could be drafted in a timely manner.
Representative Coulombe asked about slide 2, regarding the
governor's policy priorities. She was looking for the
cheapest cost for power. She asked how the bill would lower
costs for ratepayers. Mr. Jensen responded that currently,
the transmission costs were recovered through the wholesale
transaction, which worked as a fixed cost added to a
variable cost and made it more expensive possibly
preventing the transaction. He explicated that if they
changed the point of cost recovery to the end user the
amount of money utilities needed to pay for the system
would still be recovered at the middle of the process
rather than at the wholesale process. He exemplified that
when Fire Island wanted to expand and sell power to Golden
Valley Electric Association (GVEA) but when the
transmission costs were added it was no longer the lowest
cost power even if it was at the point of generation. He
summarized it as not allowing the fixed cost to get in the
way of the lowest cost of power; the transmission cost
would be the same regardless of the energy source.
5:50:19 PM
Representative Coulombe asked if the variable costs
referred to the wheeling rate. Mr. Jensen answered the
variable costs would be the cost of power generation and
the transmission cost was fixed. He expounded that
calculating costs at the point of power generation could
prevent the cheapest cost power from moving. Representative
Coulombe offered that Chugach Electric and several other
utilities requested the committee add the ancillary parts
of generating power to the new tariff. She asked how he
felt about it. Mr. Jensen replied that it was a well-
founded suggestion. He explained that the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission used the Mansfield test using five
separate criteria that were industry standards to define a
transmission asset, which included ancillary services. He
believed that Mr. Miller's suggestion was in alignment with
industry standards. Representative Coulombe asked if it
would add to the tariff. Mr. Jensen answered that the
ancillary costs were already embedded in the cost of
electricity.
5:52:18 PM
Representative Coulombe was still skeptical that the bill
would lower the cost for consumers. Mr. Jensen replied that
the costs would not decrease immediately. He elaborated
that a diverse energy supply was needed; over 80 percent of
power was generated by gas. The utilities were looking at
other sources of power generation to reduce reliance on
gas. Wheeling rates or local property tax got in the way of
alternative power sources and the bill was trying to remove
the barriers and enable the utilities to pursue different
sources of power generation. He furthered that utilities
needed to partner with another power generator if they
could not develop another source of power generation. If
that entity was taxed the economics may break down and the
project would not be developed. He concluded that the
provisions would change how costs were recovered and
"smooth the way for additional power projects to come
online and would offset the demand for gas." He remarked
that imported gas was far more expensive than other sources
of power. Representative Coulombe asked if artificial
barriers were wheeling rates and property tax. She wondered
what the artificial barriers were. Mr. Jensen answered in
the affirmative. He reiterated that it was considered an
artificial barrier if the way power generation was
presently carried out created a barrier to development. He
delineated that the cost could still be recovered if done
differently. In addition, the issue of property taxes was a
barrier. The cooperatives' power generation was not subject
to tax. Therefore, a new power generator was at a
disadvantage. The administration was trying to level the
playing field regarding taxes. He clarified that only
wholesale power would be tax exempt.
5:55:12 PM
Co-Chair Foster indicated that Co-Chair Edgmon joined the
meeting.
Representative Galvin relayed that throughout prior invited
and public testimony the committee had heard some mixed
messages. The committee had heard John Burns, President/
Chief Executive Officer, Golden Valley Electrical
Association, emphasizing the need to act immediately yet
other testimony lacked the sense of urgency. She asked
about the apparent immediacy of the bill and why the
administration wanted to get it done this session. Mr.
Jensen answered it would take some time to deal with the
wheeling rate issue and unwind it. He believed that dealing
with the cost recovery issue would be a lengthy process and
stakeholder concerns could be addressed through the
collaborative process. He held that expediency was
necessary for project development. He elucidated that if
the legislation passed in the current session, it provided
project developers the cost certainty to move forward with
the utilities. Adopting the legislation set the policy in
place to allow project development to move forward. He
reiterated that the utilities were meeting weekly, which
indicated they were ready to implement the legislation. He
felt that it was important to try to take advantage of the
momentum and presented a rare moment of alignment in light
of the Grid Innovation and Resilience Partnerships (GRIP)
opportunity. He thought it was an opportunity they did not
want to miss.
5:59:01 PM
Representative Galvin thought that the GRIP was the first
piece that was necessary. She wondered if the legislation
was needed immediately. She queried whether HB 307 had to
pass to allow "the building blocks to progress." Mr. Jensen
answered that it was necessary to provide regulatory and
cost certainty. He expounded that if the issue of wheeling
rates was still floating aroundno one would invest in
that uncertain environment. Letting a whole year go by left
project development in limbo. He relayed that currently
Chugach and Golden Valley were working with IPPs. He
emphasized that taking advantage of the work in progress
was very important in the current year.
Co-Chair Foster noted the amendment deadline of May 2 at
5:00 p.m.
Mr. Jensen thanked the committee for the opportunity to
present and hear about the governor's priorities.
HB 307 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 67(RES)
"An Act relating to firefighting substances; and
providing for an effective date."
6:02:02 PM
Co-Chair Foster invited the sponsor and staff to the table.
SENATOR JESSE KIEHL, SPONSOR, explained that SB 67 was a
"no new spills" bill for Per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS). He reported that PFAS combined carbon
and fluorine in ways that were difficult to break down and
are known as forever chemicals. The chemicals were toxic to
people in very small amounts. The chemicals had gotten in
the water mainly due to firefighting foams in Alaska. The
legislation prohibited the use of firefighting foams
containing PFAS with a very limited exception. He
delineated that there was a delayed effect for the oil and
gas industry where suitable alternate chemicals were non-
existent. The bill also required the state to help small
villages safely dispose of small quantities of PFAS foam.
Co-Chair Foster noted that he would set an amendment
deadline.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony. He noted that Ms.
Lesh was a member of his office staff.
MELANIE LESH, SELF, GUSTAVUS (via teleconference), thanked
Senator Kiehl and his staff for their work on addressing
the issue in Alaska. She thanked Representative Stapp for
offering the companion bill. She relayed that in the last
six years, it was not safe for her to drink the water from
her well in Gustavus. She believed that the bill was a good
starting point in removing the toxic substance from Alaskan
rural communities and villages. She shared that four years
earlier her oncologist had been worried about the chemicals
Ms. Lesh had been exposed to while living in Gustavus.
Testing did not exist at the time; however she had since
been plasma tested along with her neighbors and family;
they all had PFAS levels much higher than the lifetime
limit. The test determined that everyone living downstream
from the Gustavus Airport all had the extremely high PFAS
levels. She asked the committee to please support the bill.
Co-Chair Foster did not realize that the specific testing
was available. He thought that was educational.
Representative Josephson thanked Ms. Lesh for her
testimony. He observed from a prior visit to Gustavus that
it was spread out. He asked if the situation was a plume
issue and not isolated to the area around the fire
department. He asked what she knew about how PFAS spreads.
6:08:17 PM
Ms. Lesh responded that the fire department was not located
in the groundwater plume area. She expounded that her home
was down "a groundwater plume from the airpor on a
riverbank. During World War II (WWII), the river was the
nearest water delivery for the construction work to build
the airport. Therefore, the river had been the natural
channel for the PFAS chemicals to flow right past her and
her neighbors property. The fire department was on the
other side of the river and was not affected.
Representative Josephson asked for verification that she
was reporting a many decades old problem. Ms. Lesh answered
in the affirmative. She detailed that the exposure was due
to the PFAS foam that had been released by the fire
department at the airport.
Representative Galvin presumed the chemicals had traveled
in an underground river that fed Ms. Lesh's well. She asked
if it was a problem for gardens in Gustavus. She was aware
that it was an issue in Anchorage in Sand Lake soil. Ms.
Lesh replied in the affirmative. She elucidated that the
saturation was in her well and she had received a cistern
as part of a settlement of release of liability with the
state. She could not drink the well water nor water her
garden.
Representative Hannan shared that in past years she had
represented Gustavus and had no prior knowledge of PFAS and
its dangers. Gustavus was a community of scientists, due to
its location near Glacier Bay National Park. She noted that
there was no community water system, and everyone had a
cistern or well. The community activists had been on the
front line of alerting Alaskans about PFAS dangers and
called for plasma testing before there were accepted
methods and levels of testing. She voiced that there was a
lot of work to do to protect Alaskans and that the
longitudinal health of many Alaskans was harmed
significantly by PFAS exposure. The state needed to prevent
more harm going forward and clean up PFAS sites. She
offered that most people in Gustavus had not been able to
harvest from their gardens or eat eggs from their chickens
pecking in the soil. Currently, game meat was being tested
to determine the PFAS level in moose harvested in the
community. She declared that the harm had been extensive in
Gustavus and many other communities across Alaska. She
thanked Ms. Lesh for sharing a painful history in Gustavus
with the committee.
6:14:00 PM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED Public Testimony.
Co-Chair Foster noted there were two fiscal notes. He asked
the department to review them.
ANDY MILLS, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES (via teleconference),
reviewed the new Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOT) fiscal note dated May 9, 2023. He noted
that part of the information was from the prior year, but
the information was still relevant. He explained that DOT
had discovered fairly extensive research that revealed the
number of Project Code Red sites throughout the state,
which allowed the department to obtain environmental
contractors to gather rough estimates of disposal costs.
The fiscal note identified one new position to coordinate
the disposal program and an estimated capital cost of $2.5
million calculated by averaging the cost estimates from two
contractors.
6:16:16 PM
Co-Chair Foster moved to the zero fiscal note from the
Department of Public Safety.
LISA PURINTON, ACTING LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY, explained that the published zero fiscal
note (FN1 DPS) dated February 24. 2023. The department was
not anticipating a significant fiscal impact from the bill.
6:17:18 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked the committee if any member planned
to submit an amendment.
6:17:44 PM
AT EASE
6:22:31 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster noted the committee would consider one
amendment.
Representative Stapp MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1:
Page 1, following line 2:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. AS 46.03 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Article 3A. Firefighting Substances Disposal
Reimbursements.
Sec. 46.03.135. Firefighting substances disposal
reimbursements. (a) A firefighting substances disposal
reimbursement program is established in the
department.
(b) The department shall accept an application for
disposal reimbursement on a form provided by the
department from a person domiciled in
(1) a community in the state with a population of
less than 2,000 that is off the road system who
received a firefighting substance that contains a
perfluoroalkyl substance or polyfluoroalkyl substance;
or
(2) the state who received a firefighting substance
that contains a perfluoroalkyl substance or
polyfluoroalkyl substance from a partially state-
funded fire safety project.
(c) The department may accept a reimbursement
application only if the application provides proper
disposal documentation showing compliance with
regulations adopted by the department and any other
applicable law.
(d) The department shall prioritize reimbursements as
follows:
(1) activities related to the proper disposal of a
firefighting substance that contains a perfluoroalkyl
substance or polyfluoroalkyl substance, including
disposal of the equipment containing the substance;
(2) activities related to the proper disposal of
firefighting equipment residually contaminated by a
perfluoroalkyl substance or polyfluoroalkyl substance;
(3) replacement of equipment containing or residually
contaminated by a perfluoroalkyl substance or
polyfluoroalkyl substance."
Page 1, line 3:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "substances"
Insert "foam"
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "substance"
Insert "foam"
Page 1, line 9:
Delete "substance"
Insert "foam"
Page 1, line 10:
Delete the first occurrence of "substance"
Insert "foam"
Page 1, line 13:
Delete "substance"
Insert "foam"
Page 2, line 2:
Delete "substance"
Insert "foam"
Page 2, lines 4 - 6:
Delete all material.
Page 2, following line 6:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 3. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
TRANSITION: REGULATIONS. The commissioner of
environmental conservation may adopt or amend
regulations as necessary to implement the changes made
by this Act. The regulations take effect under AS
44.62 (Administrative Procedure Act) but not before
the effective date of law implemented by the
regulation.
* Sec. 4. Section 3 of this Act takes effect
immediately under AS 01.10.070(c)."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 2, line 7:
Delete "This"
Insert "Except as provided in sec. 4 of this Act,
this"
Delete "2024"
Insert "2025"
Co-Chair Foster objected for discussion.
Representative Stapp explained the amendment. He informed
the committee that the amendment made some structural
changes to the disposal reimbursement requirements and the
amendment was done in conjunction with the sponsor. They
both worked had worked to find language that best remedied
the concerns DEC had. He asked the senator to discuss the
amendment.
Senator Kiehl explained that the amendment reflected
substantial work done by the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) and Department of Law (DOL) and built on
the work DOT used to build its fiscal note. The approach
shifted the removal of PFAS foam from small rural villages
from the state to a reimbursement program. He delineated
that the bill was still limited to the same group of rural
villages who received the PFAS from a partially state
funded program. He noted that he was referring to the
Project Code Red from about a decade ago. The villages
would be able to dispose of the foams and receive
reimbursement through the mechanism in the amendment. In
addition, it mitigated the potential concerns DOL had about
liability. He claimed that the amendment got the job done
and appreciated the amendment.
CATHY SHLINGHEYDE, STAFF, SENATOR JESSE KIEHL, explained
that there were two other small changes in the amendment.
One change was brought to the sponsor by industries like
telecom companies that had a lot of server rooms using
clean agent firefighting gases worked by removing oxygen
from the room. Some of the halon replacements were being
classified as PFAS in other states. She informed the
committee that the bill did not address clean firefighting
agents, which had no replacements. The amendment clarified
that the bill addressed foam exclusively. The other change
also updated the effective date by one year.
6:26:03 PM
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, indicated that both sponsors
had worked very closely with the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) on the language and the
department was comfortable with the amendment. The
department had no concerns.
Representative Ortiz deduced that the amendment called for
the removal of the PFAS by the village rather than the
state. He asked if he was correct. Senator Kiehl answered
that the PFAS removal would be done by a contractor trained
in the removal of the hazardous substances.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW the OBJECTION to Amendment 1.
There being no further objection it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Foster asked for a review of the new zero fiscal
note from the Department of Environmental Conservation
allocated to Spill Prevention and Response (SPAR).
Ms. Koeneman replied that no costs were anticipated by DEC.
She noted that the fiscal note was currently in draft form.
She explained that the communities would be contracting
with a third party and submit reimbursements to the
department which was part of standard operating procedures.
The department believed it could absorb the processing
costs. The $2.5 million of Unrestricted General Funds (UGF)
capital expenditure was maintained in the fiscal note for
reimbursement to the communities and would be sufficient to
cover all the mitigation costs. The department did not have
the funds to take on the capital costs.
6:30:37 PM
AT EASE
6:30:52 PM
RECONVENED
Ms. Koeneman noted that the DEC fiscal note replaced the
DOT fiscal note.
Co-Chair Edgmon MOVED to REPORT HCS CSSB 67(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes and giving Legislative Legal the
ability to make technical and conforming changes.
There being no objection it was so ordered.
HCS CSSB 67(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with nine
"do pass" recommendations and with one new fiscal impact
note by the Department of Environmental Conservation and
one previously published zero note: FN2 (DPS).
Senator Kiehl thanked the committee.
HOUSE BILL NO. 196
"An Act relating to the supplemental nutrition
assistance program; and providing for an effective
date."
6:32:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GENEVIEVE MINA, SPONSOR, thanked the
committee for hearing the bill pertaining to the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). She
elucidated that HB 196 would enact Broad-Based Categorical
Eligibility (BBCE). She recognized the effort and
leadership by the Division of Public Assistance, the
Department of Health (DOH), and the administration in
addressing the backlog and providing policy recommendations
for ways that improved the SNAP program. She elaborated
that SNAP was Alaska's strongest food security program
funded at 100 percent by federal dollars. The program
included work requirements for able bodied adults and a
step-down approach that reduced benefits as a recipient
earned more income. States followed federal rules to
administer the program but had flexibility in how they
administer it. When the state failed to deliver SNAP during
the backlog, constituents went hungry and relied on food
pantries, straining the food bank system and costing the
state more on bulk food purchasing in General Funds (UGF).
She relayed that during hearings on the SNAP backlog, one
reform mentioned by DOH was BBCE. Currently, Alaska's SNAP
requirements were based off the federal guidelines of 130
percent of the Alaska Poverty Level (APL) based on gross
income and requiring an asset limit.
Representative Mina continued and identified two issues
with following the federal standards. She addressed the
income limit that currently created a steep benefits
cliff at 130 percent of the APL that discouraged working
families from earning more. She explained that low income
working families who have high expenses like childcare,
housing, and utilities had less disposable income; because
they have large deductible expenses, they receive higher
SNAP benefits. However, a single mother with two children
at an income level of 125 percent and she received a modest
raise reduced the SNAP benefit by more than the amount
gained in the pay raise. She reiterated that the scenario
discouraged households from earning more and worked against
the goal of increasing food security and encouraging self-
sufficiency. She highlighted the second issue that the
asset limit was too restrictive. She communicated that
currently, the asset limit was $2,750.00 or $4050.00 with
an elderly or disabled member of the family. The
restrictive limit applied to owning a second car,
snowmachine, four-wheeler, or a boat and prevents people
from having savings or another car. The limit forced low-
income seniors to spend down their assets and was more
bureaucratic for Division of Public Assistance (DPA) to
administer. She added that the BBCE was enacted in 42
states and 2 territories and made SNAP benefits automatic
for individuals eligible for Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF).
6:37:29 PM
Representative Mina continued with her remarks. She
elaborated that the proposals raised the income limit to
200 FPL and allowed DOH to waive the asset test. She listed
the impacts of the changes. She related that it reduced the
benefit cliff and encouraged more parents to be able to
take a raise to earn more to support their families;
allowed people to save; simplified SNAP administration,
saving time and money for the state; and supported local
economies because SNAP was an economic driver. She
emphasized that no Alaskan should go hungry, and the
legislation also helped the state be more efficient.
6:38:41 PM
Representative Stapp appreciated the bill but had many
concerns. He asked how many applications the department had
to process the past year aside from the backlog.
Representative Mina deferred the question.
DEB ETHERIDGE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, answered that there were
approximately 60,000 SNAP recipients currently with an
average number of 2.5 recipients per case. Representative
Stapp asked how many more people would be eligible under
the bill if the poverty threshold was increased from 130
percent to 200 percent. Ms. Etheridge replied that it was
difficult to estimate because it was unknown how many more
individuals would apply or were eligible to apply.
Representative Stapp remarked on the large SNAP backlog. He
thought the data needed to make the estimate was
obtainable. He asked if it was possible.
6:40:57 PM
Ms. Etheridge answered that they could potentially come up
with an educated guess. She had tried in the past and it
was "complicated." Representative Stapp recalled that the
state went through a two-year SNAP benefits backlog
nightmare." He questioned the proposal to "dramatically"
increase the number of recipients even with the extended
effective date of 2025. He asked what the existing
application processing time was and how that would change
under the bill. Ms. Etheridge replied that the effective
date of the bill aligned with the division's "milestones"
changes. She expounded that currently the SNAP program was
operated out of the division's legacy Eligibility
Information System. The intention was to move to a modular
more agile system that allowed for automated robotic
processing. She expected the change would increase
efficiencies similar to the Alaska's Resource for
Integrated Eligibility Services (ARIES) program, used for
Medicaid. Representative Stapp asked if expanding the
eligibility would be more or less cumbersome and time
consuming for the division. Ms. Etheridge responded that
the department estimated it would take about the same
processing time or a bit less due to electronic automation
efficiencies. Representative Stapp asked whether the
efficiencies were due to the technology and not the change
in the application requirement. He wondered whether she
anticipated a dramatic decrease in processing time if the
bill was enacted. Ms. Etheridge answered that she expected
more ease in eligibility due to not having to verify
assets.
Representative Stapp asked what the current asset limits
were for recipients.
Representative Mina replied that the current asset limits
were $2750.00 for an individual and $4250.00 for a
household with and elderly or disabled individual.
6:43:51 PM
Representative Stapp asked for the meaning of asset.
Representative Mina replied that assets meant savings, more
than one vehicle, property, etc. She deferred further
answer to Ms. Etheridge.
Ms. Etheridge answered that other assets included other
property, a secondary vehicle, or savings account.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED Public Testimony.
JAMIE MORGAN, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS REGIONAL LEAD, AMERICAN
HEART ASSOCIATION, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA (via
teleconference), supported the legislation. She read from
prepared remarks.
On behalf of the American Heart Association, thank you
for introducing HB196 and SB149 to implement Broad-
Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE) within the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
These bills will allow states to eliminate the asset
test and raise the gross income eligibility limits for
certain households.
Options under BBCE will provide targeted assistance
for low income working families and seniors. Raising
the gross income limit primarily benefits working
families with children, as they are more likely to
have competing expenses like childcare, housing, and
utilities, leaving them unable to afford the necessary
foods for a healthy diet. Removing the asset test also
helps households often seniors with modest savings
or assets still qualify for the assistance they need,
while reducing the administrative burden on the State.
SNAP participation is estimated to reduce the
likelihood of a household being food insecure. States
that have adopted SNAP-supportive policies, like broad
based categorical eligibility, generally have more
SNAP-eligible participation than do states without
these policies. Policies that make SNAP easier to
access increase participation in the program, food
insecurity is reduced, and fewer children and families
go hungry.
This legislation comes at a time that food insecurity
levels are already elevated. SNAP is a crucial program
that helps Alaska's anti-hunger network to meet the
need. It is for the abovementioned reasons we support
HB196 and SB149 to reduce hunger in Alaska, eliminate
administrative burdens on the Division of Public
Assistance, and save the state money.
6:47:11 PM
DEAN HUMPHRIES, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, LUTHERAN SOCIAL
SERVICES OF ALASKA, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke
in strong support of the legislation. He believed that the
bill would have a positive impact on the state's
communities by expanding benefits to more working low
income Alaskans while reducing administrative burdens. The
asset test served as a mechanism to keep struggling
individuals in a cycle of poverty. He elaborated that by
eliminating the asset test struggling Alaskans would not
face a benefits cliff. He indicated that with the
implementation of the food waste movement and the supply
chain organization, food banks had experienced a "historic
decline" in corporate donations. His organization served on
average 2,300 individuals per month. He believed HB 196
made the SNAP program more efficient and effective. He
noted that Alaska was one of 9 states that did not adopt
the Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE). He urged
the committee to support the bill.
6:49:06 PM
HANNAH HILL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BREAD LINE, FAIRBANKS (via
teleconference), strongly supported the bill. She shared
that the Bread Line was an anti-hunger organization. She
voiced that when impoverished Alaskans did not receive food
stamps, they were forced to turn to food banks and soup
kitchens like the Bread Line. She emphasized that since the
SNAP backlog, every month the Bread Line had seen record
breaking numbers of individuals. She noted that the past
month was the busiest the organization had ever had. Food
relief organizations all over the state were experiencing
elevated community hunger that was exacerbated by the
decline in donations and the federal commodity programs.
The Bread Line was struggling to maintain the increasing
level of service. The BBCE was targeted assistance that
focused on low income families and seniors. Raising the
gross income limit to 200 percent of the federal poverty
guidelines primarily benefited working families with
children and removing the asset test helped seniors retain
modest savings while receiving needed benefits. She
declared that Alaskans could better care for Alaskans by
joining the majority of other states in adopting HB 196.
She shared that there were many benefits of adopting the
bill; reducing hunger in Alaska, eliminating the
administrative burden on the DPA, and saving the state
money.
6:51:40 PM
RON MEEHAN, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, FOOD BANK OF
ALASKA, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), related that he was
also the manager of the Alaska Food Coalition. He spoke in
favor of the legislation. He offered that the Alaska Food
Coalition represented more than 180 food banks and other
food relief organizations. He believed that the
implementation of BBCE would provide economic security to
hard working Alaskans. He indicated that SNAP was the most
effective food assistance program in the country and helped
over 92,000 Alaskans or 1 in 8 families. He reminded that
committee that SNAP was a federal program administered by
the state where the benefits were 100 percent federally
funded and the administrative costs were a 50 percent/50
percent (50/50) state and federal split. The bill also
allowed the state to eliminate the asset test and raise the
income limit. He reiterated the current asset limits and
indicated that current asset limits did not allow for
emergencies or savings for things like rent deposits. He
believed not adopting BBCE would punish hardworking
Alaskans for becoming more economically independent. The
current system harmed senior asset security as well.
Ultimately, self-sufficiency was the goal, but currently,
recipients could not save, receive a small raise, or take
on a second job and stay on SNAP. He voiced that adopting
BBCE incentivized work and also allowed the state to
eliminate the asset test, which would cut down on the
administrative time and expense in verifying applications.
He reiterated that food relief organizations had continued
to see incredibly high record levels of usage. The bill
eliminated the backlog and would make the program work
better. He offered that the states that had adopted BBCE
had experienced more efficiencies in workload and reduced
costs. He relayed more data from other states. He strongly
encouraged the committee to move the bill forward.
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
6:57:32 PM
Representative Galvin stated that many of her questions
were answered by the public testimony. She appreciated the
upcoming efficiencies and thanked the department for taking
on the challenge of improving the SNAP program. She
reported that when families can choose the food, they
purchase it is more beneficial and healthful for them.
Representative Hannan stated that her question had been
addressed by Mr. Meehan. She reiterated that SNAP benefits
were paid at 100 percent and the federal government paid
half of the administrative costs. She voiced that for the
$138,000.00 in fiscal note costs the state could feed more
Alaskans, reduce case evaluation time, and hopefully help
get people out of poverty.
Representative Coulombe asked about the income limit. She
was not sure what the poverty standard was and what income
level 130 percent of the poverty level was. Representative
Mina answered that the Alaska SNAP standards as of October
1, 2023, the gross limit was $1,973.00 and the limits
changed depending on the household size. Representative
Coulombe asked if it was the 130 percent or 200 percent
level. Representative Mina answered the limit was at 130
percent of the Alaska Poverty Standard and not the Federal
Poverty Standard. Representative Coulombe asked about the
number for 200 percent for an individual under the bill.
7:00:52 PM
AT EASE
7:01:34 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster requested a copy of a chart [provided by
the Department of Health].
Co-Chair Foster asked Ms. Etheridge to reply.
Ms. Etheridge replied that the chart she provided the co-
chair was related to pregnant women and she did not have
information regarding a household of one. She could follow
up with the committee to provide additional information.
She provided information for a household of 2 that was
based on 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL).
She relayed that the amount was $4107.00 She furthered that
a household of one at the 177 percent FPL was $2,686.00.
7:03:04 PM
Representative Coulombe asked if the number was $4,107 per
month. Ms. Etheridge responded in the affirmative.
Representative Coulombe asked about the asset aspect of the
bill. She wondered how it affected eligibility. Ms.
Etheridge responded that someone over the asset limit would
be ineligible for the benefit.
Representative Mina elaborated on what constituted an
asset. She relayed that assets were cash on hand, money in
bank accounts, certificates of deposit, U.S. Savings Bonds,
stocks, bonds, property not for sale, crowd funding
accounts, and lump sum payments. Representative Coulombe
asked for the existing asset limit. Representative Mina
replied that the asset limit was $2,750.00 or $4,250 for a
household with an elderly or disabled person.
Representative Coulombe asked for verification that the
bill proposed eliminating the asset limit. Representative
Mina answered in the affirmative.
7:05:07 PM
Representative Cronk asked what a person received with a
SNAP benefit. Ms. Etheridge responded that an individual
received an electronic benefit card (EBT) that would only
allow for the purchase of food. The card could be used at
grocery stores, farmer's markets, and in rural areas it can
be used to purchase items for subsistence fishing or
hunting. Representative Cronk considered the 130 percent
limit and asked how much an individual would be eligible
for. Ms. Etheridge replied that there were different
standards based on where a person lived including in rural
and urban areas. She indicated that for an urban household
of one the amount was $374.00 and a minimum of $30.00. In
the Rural 1 area the amount was $477.00, and the minimum
was $38.00 and in Rural 2 areas the amount was $588.00 with
the minimum level of $46.00. The standards were set by the
Federal Nutrition Services through the Thrifty Food Plan.
Representative Cronk asked if food pantries were separate
from SNAP. Ms. Etheridge responded affirmatively.
Representative Cronk appreciated the asset relief. He
shared that if he was not a legislator, his income made him
eligible for the benefits, however his assets would
disqualify him.
7:07:52 PM
Representative Stapp had five people in his family. He
asked what his income limit was at 200 percent of the
poverty level. Ms. Etheridge replied that the amount was
$7,322.00. Representative Stapp asked for an annual amount.
Representative Mina interjected that it amounted to $87,
864.00. She highlighted that SNAP calculated expenses into
the eligibility. Therefore, if a recipient lived in a
household with high costs for things like childcare, etc.
the expense was also calculated to derive the amount of
SNAP benefits received. Representative Stapp asked if the
FPL amount was based on adjusted gross income or gross
income. Representative Mina would follow up with the
answer.
Co-Chair Foster asked for any closing comments.
Representative Mina commented in reference to the
administrative tradeoff between raising the income limit
and waiving the asset test. She pointed out that there was
a 2019 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report stating
that 5 percent of the national costs of SNAP was BBCE the
expectation was for a nominal increase in applications to
the state. She added that the error rates were a big part
of SNAP administration and Alaska had the worst error rates
in the prior year. She declared that BBCE helped reduce
error rates.
HB 169 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster set an amendment deadline for HB 115 on
Tuesday, May 7 at 5:00 p.m.
Co-Chair Foster spoke to the next day's schedule.
7:12:14 PM
Representative Josephson asked about amendment deadlines
for HB 307 and HB 115.
Co-Chair Foster replied that the deadline for HB 307 was
May 2 at 5:00 p.m. and the deadline for HB 115 was May 7 at
5:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
7:12:50 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 196 Presentation HFIN 03.06.24.pdf |
HFIN 5/1/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 196 |
| HB 196 Combined Bill File 03.06.24.pdf |
HFIN 5/1/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 196 |
| HB 196 Letters of Support 03.06.24.pdf |
HFIN 5/1/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 196 |
| HB 196 Public Testimony Rec'd by 040424.pdf |
HFIN 5/1/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 196 |
| HB 196 Sectional Analysis Version A 03.06.24.pdf |
HFIN 5/1/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 196 |
| HB 196 Sponsor Statement Version A 03.06.24.pdf |
HFIN 5/1/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 196 |
| HB 196 Supporting Document - CBPP Report BBCE Supports Working Families 03.06.24.pdf |
HFIN 5/1/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 196 |
| HB 196 Supporting Document - Fact Sheets 03.06.24.pdf |
HFIN 5/1/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 196 |
| HB307 HFIN Presentation 5.1.24.pdf |
HFIN 5/1/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 307 |
| HB 223 Amendment 1 to Amendment 13 ( D.12) 050124.pdf |
HFIN 5/1/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 223 |
| SB 67 Amendment 1 Stapp 050124.pdf |
HFIN 5/1/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 67 |
| SB 67-NEW FN DEC-SPAR-05-01-24.pdf |
HFIN 5/1/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 67 |