Legislature(2023 - 2024)BARNES 124
04/12/2023 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
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 | |
| HB120 | |
| HB95 | |
| HB125 | |
| HB143 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 120 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 95 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 125 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 143 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 12, 2023
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom McKay, Chair
Representative George Rauscher, Vice Chair
Representative Josiah Patkotak
Representative Kevin McCabe
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Stanley Wright
Representative Jennie Armstrong
Representative Donna Mears
Representative Maxine Dibert
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 120
"An Act relating to hunting, trapping, and fishing licenses for
certain nonresident postsecondary students; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 95
"An Act relating to designation of state water as outstanding
national resource water; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 95 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 125
"An Act relating to trapping cabins on state land; and relating
to trapping cabin permit fees."
- MOVED CSHB 125(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 143
"An Act relating to the Department of Environmental
Conservation; relating to advanced recycling and advanced
recycling facilities; relating to waste; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 120
SHORT TITLE: HUNT/FISH LICENSE FOR NONRESIDENT STUDENT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TOMASZEWSKI
03/17/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/17/23 (H) RES, FIN
04/03/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/03/23 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/05/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/05/23 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/12/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 95
SHORT TITLE: NATL. RES. WATER NOMINATION/DESIGNATION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RAUSCHER
03/06/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/06/23 (H) FSH, RES
03/23/23 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/23/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/23/23 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/28/23 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
03/28/23 (H) Moved HB 95 Out of Committee
03/28/23 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
03/29/23 (H) FSH RPT 4DP 2AM
03/29/23 (H) DP: C.JOHNSON, MCCABE, CARPENTER, VANCE
03/29/23 (H) AM: HIMSCHOOT, STUTES
03/29/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/29/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/29/23 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/03/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/03/23 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/05/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/05/23 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/12/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 125
SHORT TITLE: TRAPPING CABINS ON STATE LAND
SPONSOR(s): RESOURCES
03/20/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/20/23 (H) RES, FIN
03/27/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/27/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/27/23 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/29/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/29/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/29/23 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/03/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/03/23 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/05/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/05/23 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/12/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 143
SHORT TITLE: ADVANCED RECYCLING AND FACILITIES
SPONSOR(s): RESOURCES
03/27/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/27/23 (H) RES, L&C
04/05/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/05/23 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/12/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE FRANK TOMASZEWSKI
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, presented HB 120.
MICHAELA ANDERSON, Staff
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a sectional analysis of HB 120, on
behalf of Representative Tomaszewski, prime sponsor, and
answered questions.
MACKENZIE ENGLISHOE, Emerging Leader
Tanana Chiefs Conference
Chandalar Lake, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided public testimony in opposition to
HB 95.
AARON BRAKEL, Inside Waters Program Manager
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided public testimony in opposition to
HB 95.
JENNY-MARIE STRYKER, Political Director
The Alaska Center
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided public testimony in opposition to
HB 95.
JESSICA PLACHTA, Executive Director
Lynn Canal Conservation
Haines, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided public testimony in opposition to
HB 95.
TREVOR JEPSEN, Staff
Representative Tom McKay
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a summary of the changes to the
proposed committee substitute to HB 125, on behalf of the
sponsor, the House Resources Standing Committee, on which
Representative McKay serves as chair; gave a PowerPoint
presentation, titled "Advanced Recycling," during the hearing on
HB 143, on behalf of the sponsor, the House Resources Standing
Committee, on which Representative McKay serves as chair.
PRAPTI MUHURI, Manager
Recycling and Recovery
American Chemistry Council
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about advanced
recycling.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:03:12 PM
CHAIR TOM MCKAY called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. Representatives Patkotak, Wright,
Armstrong, Mears, Dibert, Rauscher, and McKay were present at
the call to order. Representatives Saddler and McCabe arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
1:04:04 PM
HB 120-HUNT/FISH LICENSE FOR NONRESIDENT STUDENT
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 120, "An Act relating to hunting, trapping, and
fishing licenses for certain nonresident postsecondary students;
and providing for an effective date."
1:04:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FRANK TOMASZEWSKI, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor, presented HB 120. He stated that the proposed
legislation would create a new hunting, fishing, and trapping
license for nonresident students enrolled full or part time at
an Alaskan university.
MICHAELA ANDERSON, Staff, Representative Tomaszewski, Alaska
State Legislature, gave a sectional analysis of HB 120, which
read as follows [hard copy included in the committee packet].
Section 1: Amends the section to include the new
nonresident postsecondary student license.
Section 2: Adds a new subsection allowing for
nonresident students who are enrolled half-time or
part-time in postsecondary education to purchase a
special nonresident postsecondary student license for
sport fishing, hunting, or trapping at the same cost
as a resident license.
Section 3: Provides uncodified law that allows the
Department of Fish and Game to adopt regulations to
implement to the new license.
Section 4: Provides for an effective date.
Section 5: Provides for an effective date.
MS. ANDERSON, reviewing the contents of HB 120, gave an example
showing that if the legislation passes, students will save $200
when purchasing a nonresident hunting, trapping, and fishing
license. She also detailed that the proposed bill would not
change the rules or cost for stamps and tags.
1:07:33 PM
MS. ANDERSON, in response to a question from Representative
Mears, said that nonresident students would not be permitted to
dip net.
1:07:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked about the estimated number of
students who may be interested in a license.
MS. ANDERSON expressed uncertainty about this current number.
She mentioned that, according to fiscal notes, there would be a
zero fiscal note and not a major loss of revenue.
1:08:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked about the eligibility.
MS. ANDERSON replied that she would follow up to the committee
with the exemptions.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether the students receiving the
benefit would live in the dorms. He also asked about whether
the license applied to moose and caribou.
MS. ANDERSON answered that the students would not necessarily
need to live on campus or in a dorm. She stated that HB 120 is
for all part-time and full-time students, and the license would
not cover large game, like moose and caribou. If applicable,
the students would need to purchase large game stamps or tags at
the regular nonresident cost.
1:10:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TOMASZEWSKI clarified that all students enrolled
in the University of Alaska system and other post-secondary
schools within the state could benefit whether they live on or
off campus.
CHAIR MCKAY questioned whether the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G) would need to verify that the students are enrolled
in a post-secondary school in Alaska.
MS. ANDERSON replied that students could use enrollment papers
or student identification cards to show their status. She
stated that she would speak to ADF&G for specifics concerning
the documents needed. She assured the committee that store
clerks have experience checking for the validity of military
identification cards; therefore, these clerks are trained to
determine the validity of identification cards.
1:12:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether the meat would be going
outside of Alaska or utilized in the state.
MS. ANDERSON answered that meat leaving the state would likely
be an uncommon exception.
1:14:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT confirmed that a student identification
card would be sufficient proof of enrollment when students apply
for a license. He questioned the activities nonresident
students are permitted to do at present.
MS. ANDERSON answered that they are currently treated as
nonresident sportsman and can get a license for hunting and
fishing; however, they must pay the nonresident fees and are not
eligible for a trapping license.
1:15:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DIBERT commented on the training needed for
nonresidents who are fishing and hunting.
REPRESENTATIVE TOMASZEWSKI said that ADF&G offers classes anyone
can attend.
MS. ANDERSON said training is currently not a requirement.
1:15:59 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that HB 120 was held over.
HB 95-NATL. RES. WATER NOMINATION/DESIGNATION
1:16:22 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 95 "An Act relating to designation of state water
as outstanding national resource water; and providing for an
effective date."
CHAIR MCKAY opened public testimony.
1:17:13 PM
MACKENZIE ENGLISHOE, Emerging Leader, Tanana Chiefs Conference,
read from a prepared testimony on behalf of the Tanana Chiefs
Conference in opposition to HB 95. She stated that she was born
in the Village of Gwichyaa Zhee at Chandalar Lake. She shared
that as a child she hunted, trapped, fished, and gathered for
her survival. She said her family were the only people she had
seen on the lands near her village. She reminisced about
travelling over clean and clear waters in her canoe and said it
was the "cleanest water I've ever seen in my life." She
expressed the belief that people who have never been to the
lands around her home should not have more power than the Native
people who know the land.
1:19:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG questioned her preferred mechanism for
the process of designating Tier III bodies of water.
MS. ENGLISHOE emphasized the necessity for the decisions to be
made by people who have been in the area, such as [scientists
and Native peoples], as opposed to people in offices who have
not "set foot" in the area, such as [the legislature].
1:19:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS offered to engage in tribal consultation.
REPRESENTATIVE DIBERT voiced that she looked forward to the
Tribe's involvement.
1:21:29 PM
AARON BRAKEL, Inside Waters Program Manager, Southeast Alaska
Conservation Council (SEACC), expressed opposition to HB 95. He
advised that the Clean Water Act provides for certain waters to
be designated as Outstanding National Resource Waters (ONRW),
and this leaves the state with mechanisms to do so. He pointed
out that, to this date, Alaska has not adopted an effective
mechanism for designation of these bodies of water. He
expressed the belief that HB 95 would turn the process of
designating waters into "political football." He emphasized
that under this bill, designation of Tier III bodies of water
would be left in the "legislative arena." He asserted that
SEACC supports the public's access to an administrative process
for nomination and designation of ONRW, which would be a
transparent, science-based process with public participation and
a clear timeline for decisions. He recommended that HB 95
include clear and reasonable information requirements for
petitioning and provide for the consideration of important
ecological, cultural, and subsistence values and uses. He
suggested the proposed legislation should include requirements
that the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
establish a deadline which finalizes the ONRW designation
process and provide annual updates to the legislature on the
progress of nominations.
1:24:33 PM
JENNY-MARIE STRYKER, Political Director, The Alaska Center,
testified in opposition to HB 95. She stated that DEC already
classifies Tier I and II bodies of water; therefore, DEC should
classify Tier III bodies of water. She argued that the
designation of Tier III waters should be determined by
scientists with the state, instead of the state legislature.
She expressed the opinion that if the designation process
becomes part of the state legislature, lobbyists, politics, and
money would have influence. She expressed the understanding
that the proposed legislation is an attempt to address the
designation process; however, she expressed the belief that the
process should be through DEC.
1:26:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE questioned whether Ms. Stryker knew DEC
did not want responsibility.
MS. STRYKER expressed awareness concerning DEC's stance on Tier
III waters. She stated the preference would be to establish
requirements and time limits for DEC, rather than risk the
potential for the process to be politicized in the legislature.
1:28:19 PM
JESSICA PLACHTA, Executive Director, Lynn Canal Conservation,
testified in opposition to HB 95. She said the state has failed
to designate Tier III bodies of water thus far, and the proposed
legislation "could make it all but impossible for any Alaska
waters to be designated a Tier III water body." She warned that
under the proposed legislation, designation would become a
political decision instead of a science-based DEC decision.
Because of their lack of scientific background, she asserted
that there are very few representatives in the legislature
qualified to make these decisions. She pointed out that not
only does DEC work year-round, but it also employs experts in
this field, making the organization a well-qualified entity.
She exemplified the Chilkat River which is located partially
within the Alaska Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve and has
exceptional cultural, ecological, economical, and recreational
importance to the Chilkat Tlingit and the community of Haines.
She stated that Lynn Canal Conservation opposes HB 95 because it
would restrict DEC from processing Tier III applications. She
claimed that narrowing the opportunity to designate Tier III
waters to just the legislature is not in the best interest of
all Alaskans who depend on these exceptional water bodies. She
urged the committee to listen to Alaska Native Tribes and honor
their requests for Tier III designation.
1:30:23 PM
CHAIR MCKAY, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony.
1:30:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS moved Conceptual Amendment 1 to HB 95. She
stated that the amendment would add tribal consultation as part
of the process to nominate Tier III bodies of water.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER objected.
1:31:09 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:31 p.m. to 1:40 p.m.
1:40:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS, noting that the amendment was not
prepared, withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1 until a future
meeting.
1:40:54 PM
CHAIR MCKAY offered his support of HB 95 and stated that it
creates consistency with the way the legislature designates
state parks, game refuges, recreational sites, forests, and
other special purpose sites. He stated that this is consistent
with Article 8, Section 7, of the Alaska State Constitution, as
it contemplates the legislature as the appropriate body to
reserve state resources from the public domain. He remarked
that Tier III water designation carries with it a high duty of
care. The designation is, by its nature, a reservation from
incompatible uses and an appropriation of a state resource. He
expressed agreement with the administration and the sponsor that
the legislature is the correct body to make such decisions. He
stated that the public currently does not have clear guidance on
nominating Tier III bodies of water. He voiced the opinion that
HB 95 is extremely prudent and necessary to avoid any further
confusion regarding the nomination and consideration of bodies
of water as ONWR.
1:42:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER highlighted the benefits of allowing the
legislature to designate Tier III waters. He commented that the
legislature could provide public input, as all Alaskans can
contact their representatives to nominate and provide input to
the designations. He contended that the legislature intends to
work alongside DEC and will have access to scientific
information through the department. He expressed assurance that
there would be transparency because every committee meeting has
the opportunity for public comment.
1:44:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PATKOTAK moved to report HB 95 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS objected.
1:45:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS spoke to her objection, emphasizing that
the legislature is an inappropriate venue for designating Tier
III waters because few legislators possess the type of
experience necessary to adequately process applications based on
science and process.
1:46:11 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McCabe, Patkotak,
Rauscher, Saddler, Wright, and McKay voted in favor of moving HB
95 from committee. Representatives Armstrong, Mears, and Dibert
voted against it. Therefore, HB 95 was reported out of the
House Resources Standing Committee by a vote of 6-3.
1:47:04 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:47 p.m. to 1:50 p.m.
1:50:29 PM
HB 125-TRAPPING CABINS ON STATE LAND
CHAIR MCKAY announced the next order of business would be HOUSE
BILL NO. 125, "An Act relating to trapping cabins on state land;
and relating to trapping cabin permit fees."
1:50:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 125, labeled, 33-LS0497\Y, Bullard,
03/28/23, ("Version Y"), as a working document.
CHAIR MCKAY objected for the purpose of discussion.
1:51:30 PM
TREVOR JEPSEN, Staff, Representative Tom McKay, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, the House Resources
Standing Committee, on which Representative McKay serves as
chair, provided a summary of the changes for Version Y, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Change 1: Clarifies that the owner of a trapping
cabin would have to authorize the use of their cabin
by other individuals prior to the department issuing
another permit for their cabin. (page 2, lines 15-16)
Change 2: Technical change to allow for consistency
with section 2 of the bill. (page 2, line 18)
Change 3: Clarifies the acceptable uses of trapping
cabins and that it may only be used for seasonal
shelter. (page 3, lines 19-20)
Change 4: Grammatical correction, no substantive
difference. (page 3, line 24)
Change 5: Reiterates that permit holders may not
reside at a trapping cabin or on the state lands where
the trapping cabin is located. (page 4, lines 10-12)
1:53:15 PM
CHAIR MCKAY removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Version Y was before the committee.
1:53:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 125,
Version Y, labeled, 33-LS0497\Y.1, Bullard, 04/10/23, which read
as follows:
Page 4, lines 8 -9:
Delete " , except as authorized by the
commissioner,"
CHAIR MCKAY objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER spoke to Amendment 1. He explained that
he supports the bill in general; however, he expressed the
concern that Version Y is too broad and could be misused.
1:54:33 PM
CHAIR MCKAY validified the concerns brought up by Representative
Saddler and agreed that the committee should not enumerate in
statute the variety of special conditions, such as weddings and
funerals. He removed his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE objected and questioned trapping-related
activities, such as using an all-terrain vehicle to access
cabins in the summer for the purpose of stocking it for winter
use.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER voiced that his intention had not been to
prohibit activities related to trapping, including provisioning
and cabin maintenance. He voiced the intention to eliminate
uses other than those which are specifically related to
trapping.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE maintained his objection.
1:57:12 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McCabe, Patkotak,
Rauscher, Saddler, Wright, Mears, and McKay voted in favor of
Amendment 1. Representatives Dibert and Armstrong voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 7-2.
1:58:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER moved to report HB 125, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
125(RES) was reported out of the House Resources Standing
Committee.
1:59:07 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:59 p.m. to 2:02 p.m.
HB 143-ADVANCED RECYCLING AND FACILITIES
2:02:16 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 143, "An Act relating to the Department of
Environmental Conservation; relating to advanced recycling and
advanced recycling facilities; relating to waste; and providing
for an effective date."
CHAIR MCKAY explained that HB 143 would create a regulatory
framework around a new industry known as "advanced recycling."
This would take plastics which are not suitable for traditional
recycling and convert them into high value products through
various chemical processes. Without some regulatory processes
governing the industry, these manufacturers are not able to
evaluate the profitability of investing in Alaska. He mentioned
that 23 other states have passed bipartisan legislation like HB
143, and this allows these emerging technologies to operate in
their states. He stated that the proposed legislation would add
Alaska to the list of states for manufacturers to consider when
investing millions of dollars in advanced recycling.
2:04:07 PM
TREVOR JEPSEN, Staff, Representative McKay, gave a PowerPoint
presentation, on behalf of the sponsor, the House Resources
Standing Committee, on which Representative McKay serves as
chair, titled "Advanced Recycling" [hard copy included in the
committee packet]. He directed attention to slide 2. He
detailed that advanced recycling, also referred to as chemical
recycling, is a relatively new industry which has been around
for 10 years. He stated that advanced recycling takes discarded
plastic and turns it into petroleum-based products. He
mentioned that advanced recycling has been used in large scale
commercial operations in the last 5 years. He reiterated that
legislation like HB 143 has passed in 23 other states.
MR. JEPSEN described the flowchart pictured on slide 3, which
related that, using chemistry, post-use plastics can be
converted to valuable products, and this extends the life of
plastic. He suggested that using the basic building blocks of
new chemicals, plastic feedstocks, and plastic additives,
outputs can be asphalt roads, roofing, waxes, and lubricants.
2:06:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if HB 143 allows recycling centers
to break down plastic to return it to its component parts.
MR. JEPSEN confirmed plastics can be broken down through a
process called depolymerization and rebuilt into other
materials.
2:07:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, referring to slide 3, questioned which
states are currently utilizing plastic additives to asphalt
roads.
MR. JEPSEN deferred to Prapti Muhuri.
2:08:21 PM
PRAPTI MUHURI, Manager of Recycling and Recovery, American
Chemistry Council, answered that advanced recycling is being
used to produce additives in asphalt roads in other states,
including Missouri.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked if asphalt requires higher
temperatures to lay.
MR. JEPSEN responded that many different products can be made
from plastics through advanced recycling.
2:09:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS mentioned that, because of a lack of
critical mass and low population, recycling in Alaska is
difficult to manage in remote communities. She questioned the
minimum critical mass needed to be recovered from the waste
stream to make advanced recycling practical in Alaska.
MR. JEPSEN stated that an economic model later in the
presentation would address the question. He continued his
presentation with slide 4, addressing the process of advanced
recycling. He stated that there are different processes used to
break down plastic polymers into base chemical components, such
as gasification, pyrolysis, and solvolysis. He further detailed
that advanced recycling is non-combustive and should not be
confused with incineration. He said that there are some air
emissions associated with advanced recycling, and this is
regulated in accordance with the Clean Air Act. It would also
be subject to the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), just like any other manufacturing plant.
2:12:02 PM
MR. JEPSEN moved to slide 5 and detailed the advanced recycling
processes. He stated that the primary product from gasification
is synthetic gas or syngas. The primary product from pyrolysis
is petroleum liquids, diesel, and naphtha. He pointed out the
flowchart on slide 6 and said that plastics are first collected,
washed, sorted, and shipped to an advanced recycling facility.
He continued that naphtha is a precursor to plastics, and it is
produced through pyrolysis. This can then be sent to a cracker
producer or plastic resin producer to be thermally broken down
into components which can be sent to various manufacturers.
These manufacturers will eventually produce this into consumer
goods.
2:13:53 PM
MR. JEPSEN, in response to a question from Representative
Armstrong, explained that "cracker producers" are facilities
which thermally break down naphtha.
2:14:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DIBERT asked where the nearest manufacturer is
located.
CHAIR MCKAY, in continuation of Representative Dibert's
question, asked whether all the steps pictured in the flow chart
on slide 6 are meant to take place within Alaska.
MR. JEPSEN answered that slide 6 displays only a hypothetical
example. He said this would depend on the economic activities
that transpire as a result of the legislation.
MR. JEPSEN advanced to slide 7, which addressed whether advanced
recycling is necessary. He pointed out that it is estimated
that as little as 8.7 percent of recycled plastic is reused. He
stated that China is no longer taking plastic recyclables. He
remarked that, if the committee is concerned with efficiency in
recycling, conserving landfill space, and creating relatively
low greenhouse gas emissions [GHG], then it should be in support
of advanced recycling.
2:16:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER noticed a discrepancy on slide 7.
MR. JEPSEN clarified that slide 7 is from a previous
presentation and mentioned that some of the figures may not be
precisely accurate; however, the estimates demonstrate that the
amount of plastic currently being recycled is relatively low.
Mr. Jepsen described the concept of a circular economy on slide
8. He pointed out that advanced recycling would incentivize
markets to reuse products and allow plastic waste to be returned
to the economy to be used more efficiently. He expressed the
opinion that the issue of conserving space for waste and using
resources more efficiently transcends party lines. He added
that the industry is economically sustainable without government
subsidies, and advanced recycling would complement mechanical
recycling, not replace it.
MR. JEPSEN moved to slide 9, which addressed the economic
benefits of advanced recycling and recovery. He stated that one
advanced recycling facility in the state could process 50
percent of the 59,700 metric tons of landfill plastics. He
stated that these figures resulted from the use of the Impact
Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) economic modeling software. He
explained that the 59,700 metric ton figure was calculated using
2020 census data with a weighing factor of 8.7 percent, which is
the estimated recycling rate.
2:20:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked to clarify if the nearly 60,000
metric tons is calculated or a real figure of how much plastic
waste is produced.
MR. JEPSEN, in response, confirmed that the figure is just a
calculated estimate, not a total measurement.
MR. JEPSEN, in response to Chair McKay, stated that Alaska
currently does not have an advanced recycling center and the
figures are based on IMPLAN. He continued, explaining the table
on slide 9 and said that should an advanced recycling center be
implemented in Alaska, the IMPLAN modeling analysis shows there
is a potential for 100 new jobs with a total economic output of
$34.2 million. He explained that the downstream employment, or
as seen on the chart as the "Indirect Effect," through business-
to-business purchases within the supply chain would create [90
more jobs with $6.7 million in payroll and $24.7 million in
output]. He explained that the "Induced Effect" on the chart is
the value stemming from household spending [and is projected to
create 60 jobs with a payroll of $3.8 million and an output of
$11.3 million].
MR. JEPSEN addressed the earlier question concerning the minimum
critical mass in Alaska and said it would be difficult for the
House Resources Standing Committee to fully calculate the
critical mass and doing so would be outside the scope of the
bill. He said that HB 143 would only set up a regulatory
framework, and the creation of an advanced recycling facility
would involve a private enterprise which would conduct their own
feasibility studies. He concluded that HB 143 sets up the
regulatory framework for investors who may wish to start an
advanced recycling facility within Alaska.
2:23:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked about the primary components of
recycled plastics.
MR. JEPSEN responded that plastics are separated into 7
different categories. Types 1 and 2 can be mechanically
recycled. The remaining 3-7 types of plastics can be used in
advanced recycling. He offered, for clarity, to create a
written document with information about the 7 types of plastic.
In response to a follow-up question, stated that because plastic
bottles are made from types 1 and 2 plastics, they are preferred
for mechanical recycling.
2:25:15 PM
MR. JEPSEN, in response to a series of questions from
Representative Armstrong, stated that the 59,700 metric tons
figure on slide 9 assumes Alaska's share of landfill plastics
throughout the country. He responded that plastics could be
retrieved from a landfill, or diverted from going to a landfill,
and brought to an advanced recycling facility for processing.
In response to whether the success of an advanced recycling
program would necessitate better consumer and corporate
recycling programs, he expressed the belief that monetizing
plastics would increase plastic recycling.
2:27:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS asked about the program's feasibility. She
gave her professional expertise in recycling and mentioned the
possibility of a more practical method of diverting plastics
from landfills in Alaska. She voiced concerns about the bill.
CHAIR MCKAY replied that HB 143 is only a discussion of the
regulatory framework of advanced recycling. He continued that
private entities interested in investing in advanced recycling
would need to decide if it was economically feasible.
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS expressed her concern that HB 143 could
harm existing industries.
2:29:48 PM
MR. JEPSEN, pointing out the value of advanced recycling on
slide 10, stated it would be a low GHG process to create
petroleum-based products, decrease landfill space taken up by
plastics, greatly increase the percentage of recycled plastics,
and bring economic benefits to Alaska. He reiterated that these
benefits are contingent on the passage of HB 143. Concluding
the presentation, he further outlined the contents of HB 143 in
slide 11, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
• Delegates authority to the DEC to develop
manufacturing regulations related to air emissions and
water discharges from advanced recycling facilities
• Clarifies that advanced recycling facilities will be
regulated as manufacturing facilities not as waste
disposal facilities
• Clarifies that plastic feedstock and products will
not be classified as industrial, solid, or other waste
• Defines terms
2:31:18 PM
MR. JEPSEN gave the sectional analysis of HB 143 [included in
the committee packet], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Sec. 1 Designates the Department of Environmental
Conservation with the power to develop manufacturing
regulations related to advanced recycling.
Sec. 2 - 6 Provides clarification that certain
definitions currently in statute do not apply to
advanced recycling materials, products, and
facilities.
Sec. 7 Provides new definitions to define advanced
recycling and the chemical processes associated with
it.
Sec. 8 Provides for an effective date.
2:32:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG questioned the difference between
managing the regulations for a waste facility versus a
manufacturing facility. She questioned whether there are other
advanced recycling facilities which are classified as both a
waste facility and a manufacturing facility.
MR. JEPSEN expressed the opinion that regulating advanced
recycling as a manufacturing facility would make more sense, as
this would be consistent with the regulation of these facilities
in other states.
CHAIR MCKAY acknowledged Representative Mears' expertise on the
topics presented in HB 143 and invited her to testify at the
next meeting.
2:33:30 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that HB 143 was held over.
2:33:47 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:34 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB120 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 4/5/2023 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/7/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| HB120 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HRES 4/5/2023 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/7/2024 9:00:00 AM |
HB 120 |
| HB 120 Fiscal Note (Sport).pdf |
HRES 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 120 |
| HB 120 Fiscal Note (Wildlife).pdf |
HRES 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 120 |
| HB 120 Fiscal Note (Support).pdf |
HRES 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 120 |
| CSHB 125 (RES).pdf |
HRES 4/5/2023 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 125 |
| HB 125 Summary of Changes (R to Y).pdf |
HRES 4/5/2023 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 125 |
| HB 125 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HRES 3/27/2023 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 125 |
| HB 125 Amendment Y.1.pdf |
HRES 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 125 |
| HB 143 Sponsor Statement Version U.pdf |
HRES 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/19/2023 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/21/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 143 |
| HB 143 Sectional Analysis Version U.pdf |
HRES 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/19/2023 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/21/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 143 |
| HB 143 Fiscal Note (DEC).pdf |
HRES 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 143 |
| HB 143 FAQ_for_policymakers.pdf |
HRES 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 143 |
| HB 143 HRES Presentation 4.12.23.pdf |
HRES 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 143 |
| HB 95 Written Testimony (HRES).pdf |
HRES 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 95 |
| HB 143 Advanced Recycling - Follow-Up Documentation #01.pdf |
HRES 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 143 |