HB 81-PROHIBIT PLASTIC RETAIL BAGS  8:33:48 AM CO-CHAIR HANNAN announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 81, "An Act prohibiting disposable plastic shopping bags; and providing for an effective date." 8:34:30 AM CO-CHAIR HANNAN opened public testimony on HB 81. 8:34:49 AM MICHELLE PUTZ, Leader, Bags for Change, testified in support of HB 81. She said plastics are getting into food and being ingested by humans. The toxins in plastics affect the health and reproductive systems of humans and could be affecting the health of fish. She stated that plastics last forever in the environment; plastic bags in particular litter communities and "are very hard on ... marine life." She reported that 2 million [plastic] bags are given away annually at [Sitka's] two grocery stores alone and cost stores and consumers over $100,000 a year. Ms. Putz said a poll was taken in Sitka asking whether single- use plastic bags should be "banned, provided - but for a fee, handed out for free, or 'no opinion.'" She relayed that over 70 percent of shoppers polled randomly at Sitka's grocery stores agreed that something should be done - either banning the bags or charging a fee for them. She relayed that in a more informal poll on a more conservative site, 225 people were in support of taking action regarding bags and 195 supported taking no action. Ms. Putz said some argue that people recycle their plastic bags; however, she countered that only 1 percent of "the bags" get recycled, and it costs money to recycle. 8:37:15 AM CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND responded that she finds it shocking that 2 million bags are being given away [annually] at Sitka's grocery stores alone. MS. PUTZ noted that was "a quick estimate" made by [the store representatives]. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND estimated that amounts to 2,700 bags per day/per store, if those stores operate 365 days a year. 8:37:52 AM REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON asked if Bags for Change has approached the Sitka Assembly to ask for change as 17 communities in Alaska have. MS. PUTZ answered yes, the group brought the issue to the assembly last year as an ordinance, which passed on first reading. She explained that "opposition came forward"; therefore, Bags for Change asked the assembly to "back off last year" and "put it on hold." This year the group is in the process of doing a citizen ballot initiative and has just begun gathering signatures to put a plastic bag ban on the ballot, along with a fee on paper bags and a provision that would allow the assembly to ticket stores that do not "follow the rule." REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON asked if there is enough community support in Sitka to "get this ban." MS. PUTZ answered yes. She offered her perspective that support [for a ban] seems to be growing in the community, and Bags for Change is "ready to take on this challenge." 8:39:39 AM SYDNEY PAULINO said she was representing herself and her mother, who could not testify today. She stated support of HB 81. She opined that "we owe it to our environment and our communities to take this trash out of our oceans and off our beaches." She stated one reason is that much of Alaska's revenue results from the beauty of the state, and, if polluted, "it will no longer have that kind of effect." 8:40:33 AM LISBETH JACKSON noted that she had not seen a copy of the proposed legislation but supports banning plastic bags across Alaska. She said plastic bags are harmful. She offered her understanding that HB 81 does not include a fee for plastic bag use, and she said she would support such a fee. She noted that single-use plastic bags under a certain mil weight have already been banned in certain communities, and in spring considerably fewer bags are littering environment. She said the communities of Palmer and Wasilla "have taken the elimination of plastic bags in stride," with many people bringing reusable bags to do their shopping. She said this has a positive effect on landfills, waterways, and the environment. 8:42:32 AM MATT SEAHOLM, Executive Director, American Progressive Bag Alliance, indicated that the alliance is involved with a variety of packaging products, but his testimony would focus specifically on the subject of plastic retail bags. He stated his opposition to HB 81. He said the committee should have his written testimony. Mr. Seaholm stated, "Any study that has ever been done has shown, actually, either an uptick or no actual discernible difference in the amount of waste or litter generated in the location that has implemented a ban similar to HB 81." He related a story done by National Public Radio (NPR) that morning that highlighted the unintended consequences of a proposal like [HB 81], including "the carbon footprint of the alternative," such as an increase in garbage bag sales because plastic bags are no longer being used for trash. He said the alternative, which typically is paper, takes up more space in landfills and is heavier and greater in volume in terms of transport. He said the NPR piece also touches upon "the assumption that cotton tote bags are better." He recommended the committee look at that story. He stated, "We know these policies are well-intentioned, but the fact is they really do miss the mark on sustainability." 8:45:20 AM CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked how many bags are actually recycled and how many recycling centers are continuing to accept plastic bags. MS. SEAHOLM answered that there are a number of recyclers throughout the U.S. that recycle plastic. He recollected the last number he had seen was 1.2 billion pounds of plastic. He indicated that 10-15 percent [is recycled], and while that may seem like a low number, "the primary competitor to recycling for us is actually re-use." He relayed that the recycling authority of Quebec identified that 78 percent of plastic bags are reused, predominately as trash can liners. Another recycling use of plastic bags is turning them into composite lumber that is much more durable than other lumber. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND noted that in Alaska there are dozens of rural communities that have no access to recycling centers, and it is cost-prohibitive to return the plastic to an urban community with recycling capabilities. She asked Mr. Seaholm how he intends to reach out to these communities to help them to recycle. MS. SEAHOLM prefaced his answer by stating that recycling is not the sole, end-life use for a plastic retail bag. He said there is no doubt that plastic retain bags are "the best option at the checkout counter." He mentioned environmental footprint, bags from Asia made from nonwoven polypropylene, and cotton tote bags, and he said, "Any of those have to be used so many times that overall you're just not going to offset that single re-use of [a] plastic retail bag." He clarified that even in areas where there is no recycling "that one re-use [of a plastic bag] still makes it the best option." He indicated that since Alaska has no manufacturers of plastic or paper retail bags, the plastic retail bag [weighs less] than the paper bags to ship to the state. 8:49:45 AM BRENDA DOLMA testified in support of HB 81. She said it was legislation that would aid in the protection of Alaskans, animals and waterways in the state, and visitors to the state - not corporations. She related that [Homer] has "boomerang bags," which are made from already existing materials, such as t-shirts. She suggested other communities could consider using similar bags. She noted more than 1.96 million tourists spend thousands of dollars to visit Alaska and "don't want to see 'tundra tumbleweeds' floating around." She surmised that tourists that come to fish would [care] about the impact of plastics on water life. She indicated that [HB 81] would speak for the wildlife that cannot speak for itself. Ms. Dolma said Alaska has 8 national parks, 16 wildlife refuges, and 33,900 miles of coastline. MS. DOLMA referred to language in HB 81, [Section 1, subsection (b), paragraph (2), subparagraph (B), on page 2, lines 26-27], which would include under the definition of "retail seller" a retail establishment "that has annual gross sales of $250,000 or more in the previous calendar year". She questioned whether that would allow rural communities falling below that mark to ban plastic bags. 8:51:58 AM ELISE SORUM-BIRK, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, on behalf of Representative Josephson, prime sponsor of HB 81, responded that Ms. Dolma expressed a valid concern, and she suggested the committee could look into amending the amount to a smaller figure. 8:52:28 AM REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor of HB 81, said the issue came up in the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee a year ago. He said he would not take offense at any attempt by the committee to lower that threshold. 8:52:58 AM LISA NILSEN testified in support of HB 81. She said she has been a retailer for over six years, and her shop does not use single-use plastic bags. She said as a mother of five children, she feels responsible for teaching them by example the many options for transporting purchases. She said as a fisherman's wife, she hears about the negative effect of single-use plastic bags on ocean life. She indicated her husband has expressed shock over the single-use plastic debris on the beaches. Ms. Nilsen shared that she was born and raised in Kake, Alaska. She said she is passionate about discontinuing single-use plastic bags in Alaska. She noted that Northwestern and Coastal indigenous communities in Alaska began banning single-use plastic bags approximately 15 years ago. She said she believes it is time for Southeast Alaska "to get onboard with everybody else." She said she listened to [Mr. Seaholm] and she thinks "they found their solution for their plastic bags in composite lumber products." She opined that it is the right time to pursue the goal of no longer using single-use plastic bags. 8:55:18 AM JOHN HAVRILEK stated that he was testifying on behalf of himself and his wife. He said he supports the ban of plastic bags. He shared that he has been a resident of Alaska for 50 years and is no stranger to pollution, having moved from Cleveland, Ohio, where he witnessed the Cleveland River catch on fire. He said he is proud that attempts are being made by the State of Alaska to ban [single-use] plastic bags. He said he and his wife have been using the same "recyclable bags" for 10 years now. He said the most important thing is to keep the beaches clean. He explained that he lives on the water along the Wrangell Narrows, and he picks up plastic off the beach and out of the water daily, so he would love "to see them disappear permanently." 8:56:55 AM MARGI DASHEVSKI, Alaska Youth Environmental Association (AYEA), testified in support of HB 81. She said there are dozens of Alaska students across the state who, over the past year, have lead campaigns to ban single-use plastic bags; they have collected 766 petition signatures in support of a statewide ban. She read the language of the petition, which extolled the benefits of banning plastic bags statewide. She said she sees the young adults she works with as visionaries for the next generations. She echoed the testimony of Ms. Dowling that banning plastic bags would be a strong step forward for Alaska. 8:58:53 AM KENGO NAGAOKA testified in support of HB 81, which he called common sense legislation. He noted that the Municipality of Anchorage recently passed an ordinance related to a plastic bag ban, and it would be taking effect soon. He said [banning single-use plastic bags] is "a positive thing to do for our environment and our water and our tourism." He said he is aware many communities in the state have already instated such bans, and he opined that it is time for the state to support those communities. He expressed support for high school students working on campaigns around the state to reduce use of single- use plastic. He recognized Homer as addressing the issue soon. Mr. opined that banning plastic bags is not enough; the state must encourage alternatives and ensure those alternatives are accessible to all Alaskans. He said in Anchorage, many residents use [public] transit or walk to buy their groceries, and he wants to make sure reusable bags are accessible and "the paper alternatives don't have an excessive fee on them." He encouraged the committee to think of "the equity components of this proposition, as well." He thanked Representative Josephson for sponsoring HB 81, and he encouraged those who may be "on the fence" to take a closer look at the proposed legislation. 9:01:30 AM SILVIA DAEUMICHEN testified in support of a plastic bag ban. She said she works with a group of children ages 9-13, who are worried about the adverse effects of plastic on the environment. There are about 10 children in the group, and they call themselves "Kids' Environmental Action." She said, "We feel that humans need to take better care ... of our home planet and of the animals, and banning the plastic bags would be a big step." She said she does not use plastic bags; she lines her trash can with newspaper, as she learned to do growing up in East Germany. She encouraged less plastic use in general, especially in Alaska where it is not very feasible to recycle plastic. She opined that efforts should be made to transition to the use of compostable plastic bags, which break down in the landfills and do not release toxic chemicals. She said Kids for Environmental Action have done some research. Regarding the recycling of plastic bags, she mentioned a low rate of 5 percent. She stated that in Fairbanks "there is no way of recycling." She noted that Kids for Environmental Action is part of the Savings Planet Coalition; therefore, she reflected that she could say she was speaking for hundreds of people who would be in support of HB 81. 9:04:01 AM ADAM HYKES testified in opposition to HB 81. He said he "loves the environment" and picks up trash from the side of the road, but he sees the issue as being "a people problem" not "a plastic bag problem." He added, "This plastic didn't ... [make] a jail break from the grocery store; people put them there." He referred to the Prohibition on alcohol and "how that worked out," and he indicated that any prohibition, although well- intended, costs money to enforce. He opined that it is not job of government to pay for [enforcing a ban] but is the responsibility of citizens. He said the amazing organizations he has heard about "should continue to do what they do," because "this is a problem." He said he does not think the legislature is considering the cost that would be involved with enforcing a [single-use plastic bag] ban, including the punishment involved if people ignore the ban. Mr. Hykes said he loves living in Homer and Alaska, but restated his position that [the proposed] ban is not the job of the government. He said he works in a grocery store that uses a lot of plastic bags. If paper bags had to be used, he indicated, the price of doing so would be passed along to the customers. He said the state does not have enough money currently to spend "on new laws" or "putting it on the shoulders of citizens." He concluded, "So, as much as I love this effort, I am not in support of this House bill." 9:06:22 AM AMANDA SASSI testified in support of a statewide plastic bag ban. She stated that single-use plastic is detrimental to the environment, and Alaska's environment, in particular, is sensitive. She opined that using less plastic would mean less plastic in trees and waterways, which would ultimately keep plastic out of animals that people could be eating. She expressed appreciation for the effort being made [under HB 81] and said she hopes "it is considered." 9:07:58 AM NILS ANDREASSEN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League (AML), said he cannot speak for or against "the prohibition of disposable plastic shopping bags," but he would speak to Article 10 of the Alaska State Constitution, regarding the maximization of local self-government. He said, "When we do any statewide preemption of local decision-making, we come back to local control and really giving communities the opportunity to speak for or against something ... of this nature." He opined that "the comments from Sitka" were relevant, in terms of bringing the ban issue before the community, addressing opposition, and potentially changing the minds of community members through public education, campaigning, and advocacy. He said he thinks every community should have that opportunity. He said there are ways to improve HB 81, including to give municipalities the opportunity to opt in or out of s stateside decision. He said AML would be interested in implementation grants, "to walk through what implementation looks like at the local level." He offered to work with the bill sponsor to assess local interest and better understand the implications of HB 81. He reemphasized AML's interest in local control and the maximization of local government. 9:10:08 AM CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND asked about the unorganized boroughs, for which the legislature has the responsibility to act as assembly. MR. ANDREASSEN answered that to the extent the Alaska State Legislature acts as the assembly for unorganized boroughs, it can make decisions related to those boroughs; however, there are 165 incorporated cities and boroughs in Alaska, for whom the legislature is not the assembly, and it is to those he is speaking, because they have local decision-making in place. CO-CHAIR DRUMMOND queried, "So then, it is our responsibility to make those ... kinds of decisions for the unorganized borough, and they're not in the purview of the [Alaska] Municipal League?" MR. ANDREASSEN replied, "For that borough, yes." 9:11:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Andreassen if he is aware of any laws the legislature has passed that apply exclusively to "the unorganized borough within Alaska." MR. ANDREASSEN answered no. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS expressed curiosity as to whether the bill sponsor or anyone else on the committee is aware of that. 9:11:56 AM REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON asked [Representative Kreiss-Tomkins] whether he was aware of any other laws the legislature had passed in that regard. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS shook his head no. 9:12:12 AM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN mentioned that during debate on a recent statewide smoking ban, consideration was made both to an "opt- out" and "opt-in" clause. A statewide ban was enacted, but communities could opt out. He noted that Sitka attempted to opt out, but voters voted that down. In light of the concern regarding unorganized boroughs, he asked Mr. Andreassen whether he thought it would make more sense to offer an opt-in provision rather than an opt-out provision. MR. ANDREASSEN answered that he thinks an opt-in provision would maximize local control more than an opt-out option would. He indicated that giving the decision to the community to make would be positive. To the question of the unorganized boroughs and decisions that could be made in their interest, he noted that there are both home rule and first-class cities within unorganized boroughs that make decisions on behalf of their residents; therefore, it is not a clear-cut case that the legislature could make decisions on behalf of unorganized boroughs and not impact "the incorporated cities therein." He suggested the legislature would want to "work with those cities to really understand what that looks like." He said AML has had some communication with unorganized boroughs, many of which have expressed interest in strengthening communication with the legislature by establishing a "feedback group" between the borough and legislature. He said he thinks that is work that can be done and for which AML could offer assistance. 9:15:06 AM CO-CHAIR HANNAN closed public testimony on HB 81. 9:15:21 AM REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON, to the bill sponsor, said he has a problem with the enforcement aspect of HB 81. He pointed out that in reading the analysis on the back of the fiscal note, it seems as though the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has no interest in seeking out violations or conducting any routine inspection. He said the proposed legislation would throw more onto DEC when the department cannot keep up with its current workload. He asked, "How are they going to enforce this?" 9:16:31 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON offered his understanding that "there would be mostly compliance." For example, there would be situations like that in Anchorage, where citizens overwhelmingly passed the ban and allowed time for existing bag supplies to be depleted. He predicted that people will know there is a ban and will comply with it, and "they won't be ordering that inventory anymore." REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON opined that there are "so many holes" in [HB 81]. He said packaging for bulk grains, fruits, nuts, vegetables, bakery goods, "or other full food products" would be excluded. He suggested that "other full food products" means anything a person would buy in a grocery store. He expressed confusion as to how the ban would actually be enforced. He emphasized that he thinks local control is "a big part of this, too." REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON, regarding the "other full food products", said he thinks this means items that need "some sort of container." He indicated that this language was designed to provide "some ease for the customer." He stated, "The test of the bill isn't absolute purity; it's improvement." 9:18:57 AM MS. SORUM-BIRK added that last year, when a previous version of the proposed legislation was heard, a concern was "sanitation in grocery stores." She explained, "It might be unsanitary to ... have a meat product touching your fruit in your reusable bag." She directed attention to statute, AS 04.16.120, mentioned in bill language on page 2, line [5], and she noted there are specifications regarding, for example, how an unfinished wine bottle must be sealed in order for the consumer to take the bottle home. She explained that the exceptions are created to make things "safe" and "sanitary." Regarding local control, Ms. Sorum-Birk said she does not have an answer but thinks that is something that should be considered further. She said she thinks "this would be very beneficial for the unorganized borough," but she indicated the question should be asked as to where a limit should be on local control when considering benefits to the environment and to local communities. REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON added that while he respects the concerns and interests of local authorities, it is typical that the legislature passes legislation that makes impacts statewide. Regarding the opt-out issue, he said he thinks that would "invite a discussion statewide of this issue and would not be offensive to the principals of the bill." He said he would welcome an amendment to the bill to that effect. He said there is a huge amount of support for HB 81 from across the state, and he thinks environmental concerns and tourism concerns make this a critical issue. 9:22:44 AM REPRESENTATIVE REVAK indicated he found Representative Thompson's remarks that plastic bags had been the answer to paper bags at one point interesting. He said his research brought him to a Scottish report - a full environmental assessment report released in 2005 - and he asked if the bill sponsor was familiar with the study. 9:23:24 AM MS. SORUM-BIRK answered no, but said she has looked at a recently conducted Danish study, as well as a 2008 United Kingdom Environmental Agency study. REPRESENTATIVE REVAK indicated that in the study "and four others listed," in "almost every environmental issue," paper bags were "far more ... negatively impacting to the environment than the production of plastic bags." The one area in which the study found plastic bags to be more detrimental was in "the risk of litter." He listed some categories: primary energy consumption, consumption of water, climate change, emission of greenhouse gases, acid rain, atmospheric acidification, air quality, ground-level ozone production, and solid waste production. He asked why, if paper bag consumption is considered far more detrimental to the environment, it is not considered in HB 81. 9:24:49 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON noted that in past reiterations of this legislation, in former legislative sessions, there was language proposing a fee for paper products. The paper industry pushed back on that, he said. He emphasized that he would welcome such an amendment. Notwithstanding that, he requested that committee members ask themselves the following question: "Are we solving plastics problems one bit at a time, starting with plastic bags, or are we just pushing this off because it's unsolvable?" He opined that to say that "this just won't work" without offering an alternative "is no alternative at all." He said he stands with Representative Revak's former boss, Senator Dan Sullivan, who has expressed concern about "ocean plastics." Representative Josephson exclaimed, "I am tired of reading about whales opened up with 50 pounds of plastic inside them. This is not a sustainable future, and this is a place where we can intervene." 9:26:18 AM REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON noted 24 communities were "listed." She said she is an advocate for local accountability. She asked how many businesses in Alaska are "affected with plastic bags" in producing or where "that is their business." REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded that he thinks "no one does that." He recollected there had been testimony to that effect previously. REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON suggested people concerned can start cleaning up plastic bags. She indicated that plastic bag use had come about because of environmental studies done regarding cutting down trees [to produce paper bags]. She said it seems like "an endless circle ... for us as a state to take the time to mandate what people use and what people don't use." She questioned how the law would be enforced. 9:28:47 AM MS. SORUM-BIRK said there are studies that show it takes more energy to produce a paper bag and a lot more to produce a cloth bag. However, each of those studies misses a key point, which is the environmental impact of the litter on the marine environment and how single-use plastics impact the marine ecosystem and resources. REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON said if she uses a cotton bag to go food shopping, there would be germs accumulating in the bag that she would have to use water and electricity to eliminate. 9:30:42 AM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS expressed appreciation to the sponsor and testifiers. He said there are two goals in HB 81: [reduction of] litter and reduction of resource expenditure. He focused on the latter. Per Representatives Revak's questions and the studies mentioned by Ms. Sorum-Birk, he asked, "You accept the conclusion of resource consumption expenditure for plastic bags versus alternatives, such as paper, or, if you don't, what do you dispute about those studies?" REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON deferred to Ms. Sorum-Birk, but noted that someone today had testified that he/she has used the same bags for a decade. He added that when someone calls in from the American Plastics Progressive Alliance, he has to question that person's motivation. MS. SORUM-BIRK said she somewhat agrees with the analyses done on energy expenditure needed, but what they are not considering is whether the materials are a renewable or nonrenewable resource. She said plastics are made from a nonrenewable resource, which could be an issue in the future. She relayed that Americans use approximately 100 billion plastic bags per year, which requires about 12 million barrels of oil to manufacture. She said, "It only takes about 14 plastic bags for the equivalent of gas to run one mile." Regarding carbon footprint, she said it is true that polyethylene requires low energy to produce, is cheap and cost-effective, and is recyclable; however, [only] "about 1 percent of bags throughout the U.S. are recycled." She said the issue of carbon footprint is real and so is the issue of how many times people reuse a product, but that is true for any product, whether it be plastic, paper, or canvas. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS noted that the studies are not exclusively from the industry, but the study mentioned by Representative Revak and "other lifecycle analyses" are often from pro-environment governments considering resource consumption impact. He said that is one side. The other is litter reduction. He said he picks up trash along the road and off the beach, so he feels "engaged in the question." He observed that the assumption seems to be that the elimination of single-use disposable plastic bag use will decrease the amount of plastic pollution. He said he has not seen that relation and wonders "how that cause and effect assumption is substantiated." MS. SORUM-BIRK responded that she had looked for data showing what percentage of debris in the marine environment was plastic. She said she could not find data on the North Pacific, but a European study of 2016 showed that about 7 percent of marine debris was plastic bags. 9:37:05 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said part of what the legislature considers daily is the question of what has political viability. He noted that there is statewide momentum - even from the conservative areas of Wasilla, Palmer, and Soldotna - to ban [single-use] plastic bans. He suggested one reason may be "the visual insult" of plastic in an otherwise pristine wilderness. He stated concern that if focus is given to the issue being only a small percent of the total problem, then it will be "easy to retreat from the issue." He suggested that trying to expand the bill to include other forms of plastic in the ban "could do jeopardy to what life the bill has." He emphasized that 18 diverse communities have said they want the ban, and he is "honoring their efforts." 9:38:38 AM REPRESENTATIVE REVAK asked if the bill sponsor had considered an exemption for biodegradable plastics. MS. SORUM-BIRK answered that the issue with biodegradable plastics in Alaska is that they take a certain amount of heat to biodegrade in a special industrial level composting facility, of which she speculated there may be one in all Alaska, in Anchorage. She said she has tried to compost biodegradable plastics, and it takes "a very hot compost for that to work" - ideally at the industrial level. 9:39:31 AM CO-CHAIR HANNAN announced that HB 81 was held over.