HB 81-PROHIBIT PLASTIC RETAIL BAGS  8:04:15 AM CO-CHAIR HANNAN announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 81, "An Act prohibiting disposable plastic shopping bags; and providing for an effective date." 8:04:55 AM REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN noted that a National Public Radio (NPR) article had been circulated regarding the economics of plastic, paper, and cloth bags, as well as the issue of carbon footprints. He asked for the bill sponsor's response. 8:05:37 AM ELISE SORUM-BIRK, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Josephson, prime sponsor of HB 81, said the sponsor's staff looked into the issue once that article had been brought to their attention. She stated that plastic bags being less expensive and easier to produce does not eliminate the issue that plastic bags are a major source of marine debris and pollution. She added that the smaller carbon footprint involved in the production of plastic versus cloth bags does not "eliminate why we should be getting rid of them." 8:06:50 AM CO-CHAIR HANNAN handed the gavel to Co-Chair Drummond. 8:06:55 AM CO-CHAIR HANNAN moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 81, labeled 31- LS0205\A.1, Nauman, 4/17/19, which read as follows: Page 2, lines 19 - 27: Delete all material and insert: "(2) "retail seller" includes a market, grocery store, convenience store, drug store, or other retail establishment that (A) sells goods to consumers; and (B) is located in a permanent building;" 8:07:04 AM REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON objected for purposes of discussion. CO-CHAIR HANNAN spoke to Amendment 1. She said under HB 81, "a retail establishment selling over $250,000 worth of goods" would have to "comply with the law." Amendment 1 would bring that threshold down so that any retail establishment located in a "permanent building" would have to comply with the law. 8:08:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor of HB 81, said he would not be opposed to Amendment 1. He surmised that "some accommodations like this will have to be made" as the bill moves forward. He indicated that the [reason] for the $250,000 threshold had to do with a colleague from the North Slope who had expressed that "it might be better for small communities" because of "the practicality of enforcement and the size of some of these businesses." 8:09:08 AM REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON withdrew his objection to Amendment 1. There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. 8:09:31 AM CO-CHAIR HANNAN moved to report HB 81, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection CSHB 81(CRA) was reported out of the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee.