Legislature(2025 - 2026)BARNES 124
03/14/2025 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
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 | |
| HB99 | |
| HB121 | |
| HB25 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 99 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 121 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 25 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 25-DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE
3:46:45 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 25, "An Act relating to disposable food
service ware; and providing for an effective date."
3:46:57 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL opened public testimony on HB 25.
3:47:15 PM
LINDSAY STOVALL, American Chemistry Council (ACC), testified in
opposition to HB 25. She began her testimony by stating that
ACC includes the leading suppliers and manufacturers of
packaging food service products, including polystyrene food and
beverage containers. She stated that while ACC strongly
supports efforts to reduce plastic waste, it believes that HB 25
takes the wrong approach. She stated that HB 25 would restrict
the use of polystyrene food service ware and mandate the use of
only compostable or biodegradable alternatives, which, she
asserted, would limit a restaurant's ability to use a variety of
products, such as plastic and plastic-lined paper containers,
bowls, cups, plates, and lids. She asserted that Anchorage
lacks any commercial composting facilities and that any
compostable food service ware collected by the Municipality [of
Anchorage] (MOA) would wind up in the landfill. Additionally,
she asserted that HB 25 does not address the need to transition
to a circular economy and would ultimately favor certain
materials over others, instead of offering a "more comprehensive
waste management solution." She asserted that the alternative
products required under the proposed legislation would result in
higher operating costs for restaurants and businesses operating
on thin margins could face increased financial constraints.
MS. STOVALL asserted that a practical first step towards a
circular economy entails "understand[ing] current recycling and
composting rates for all food service ware materials, sorting
and processing infrastructure, and markets for collected
materials." She argued that banning polystyrene food containers
would not mean that alternatives would be recycled or composted.
She stated that ACC had been involved in packaging recycling
legislation "that seek[s] to reduce waste and increase the
recycling of all types of packaging materials" in several
states, including California, Colorado, Oregon, Hawai'i, and
Washington. She referred to legislation currently being
considered in Hawai'i.
MS. STOVALL concluded by stating ACC supports "policy ... that
seeks to increase the recycling and recovery of all packaging
materials, rather than imposing targeted product restrictions
that may result in unintended consequences." She urged
committee members to vote no on HB 25. She thanked the
committee members.
3:50:47 PM
BRITTANI ROBBINS, representing self, testified in support of HB
25. She gave a list of her professional credentials. She
stated that she did research on the cost of alternatives to
polystyrene, using webstaurant.com. She reported that an eco-
friendly entre container would cost between 20 and 25 cents,
whereas the Styrofoam would cost 13 to 15 cents; she noted that
this cost differential was the largest she discovered in her
research. She further reported that an eco-friendly salad would
cost 18 to 26 cents, whereas the Styrofoam would cost 14 to 26
cents. She asserted that replacing banned stock with clean
items was no different from replacing recalled products and
should not be viewed as a burden.
MS. ROBBINS said her business is a "nickel and dime business"
and stated that both of her grocery stores continued to operate
despite a decreased population in Wrangell because she
prioritized her customers, not her bottom line. She asserted
that a business should prioritize what is best for customers,
and a legislator should prioritize what is best for
constituents. She argued that there would be no loss in
business, stating that customers prefer green alternatives. She
additionally asserted that there would be no increase in
competition, stating that there is already a large, competitive
market for "green supplies." She stated that biodegradable
items decompose and do not leech toxic poisons into water, soil,
our bodies, etc. She provided some personal anecdotes of the
dangers of Styrofoam. She concluded by urging committee members
to pass HB 25, as is, and thanked the committee members.
3:56:15 PM
KATIE CAPOZZI, President & CEO, Alaska Chamber, testified in
opposition to HB 25. She gave prepared remarks [included in the
committee file], which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
The Alaska Chamber (the Chamber) writes in opposition
to House Bill 25, an Act relating to disposable food
service ware; and providing for an effective date.
The Alaska Chamber is the state's largest statewide
business advocacy organization. Our mission is to
promote a healthy business environment in Alaska. The
Chamber has more than 700 members and represents
businesses of all sizes and industries from across the
state, representing 58,000 Alaskan workers and $4.6
billion in wages.
HB25 would prohibit restaurants from using polystyrene
foodservice containers and mandate the use of
biodegradable or compostable alternatives. While the
business community fully supports responsible waste
reduction and improvements in recycling and recovery,
HB25 takes the wrong approach by restricting
businesses' ability to select the foodservice
packaging that best meets their needs, while failing
to consider the broader environmental and economic
consequences.
All packaging materials, including compostable
alternatives, leave an environmental footprint,
requiring energy and resources for production,
transportation, and disposal. Furthermore, the reality
in Alaska is that the infrastructure needed to
properly process compostable foodservice containers
does not exist. Anchorage's Solid Waste Services'
Curbside Compost Program and Community Compost drop-
off sites do not accept compostable foodservice
materials due to processing limitations. Without
access to an industrial composting facility, these
alternatives will likely end up in landfills, negating
any intended environmental benefits.
HB 25 would impose significant financial burdens on
Alaska's businesses. By requiring restaurants to use
more expensive alternatives that may not perform as
wellespecially for hot or cold foodsthis bill
threatens to increase operating costs for businesses
already struggling with narrow margins. The unintended
consequence could be higher costs for consumers and
additional strain on small businesses.
Moreover, the exemption language found within HB25 is
vague and arbitrary. A regulator at the Department of
Environmental Conservation does not have the expertise
or ability to determine what regulations cause "undue
hardship" to a restaurant. What might appear as a
small financial burden in the context of this specific
proposed law might be the final straw in a long line
of other expensive mandates placed on the business. It
is inappropriate for the government to decide what is
and is not undue hardship on a business.
For these reasons, we urge you to oppose HB 25 and
consider more balanced, evidence-based solutions that
support both Alaska's businesses and environmental
goals.
3:59:35 PM
DYANI CHAPMAN, State Director, Alaska Environment, testified in
support of HB 25. She explained that her organization focuses
on issues relating to clean air and water, and open spaces. She
stated that polystyrene and plastic pollution is a mounting
problem and cited studies that have predicted that there would
be more plastic in weight than fish by 2050 using the earth's
current trajectory. She reported that her organization tested
39 water sources in Southcentral Alaska in 2023 and found
microplastics in 100 percent of the samples, including tap water
in Anchorage. She stated that wildlife often mistakes pieces of
plastic for food. Additionally, she stated that wildlife cannot
fully digest plastic, and consumption thereof may lead to
starvation. She also reported that salmon that are exposed to
microplastics move more slowly and are more vulnerable to
predation. She stated that exposure to microplastics in humans
and mammals has been linked to fertility problems, developmental
issues, cancer, and dementia. She stated that polystyrene
breaks down into microscopic pieces that are difficult to clean
up, is particularly toxic to humans and wildlife, and takes
centuries to fully degrade. She acknowledged that a "brightline
circular system" would be ideal but asserted that some materials
are more harmful than others and that the proposed legislation
is "a good step in the right direction."
MS. CHAPMAN referred to a previous committee, in which
Representative Vance noted that Homer, Alaska, is Styrofoam-
free. She remarked that polystyrene is still very prominent in
Anchorage, Alaska, and many other communities in the state. She
asserted that the passage of HB 25 would keep people and
wildlife healthier in Alaska by getting rid of some of the worst
plastics. She concluded by stating that "nothing we use for a
couple minutes should pollute our environment for hundreds of
years." She thanked the committee members.
4:02:11 PM
HARRIET DRUMMOND, Former Alaska State Representative, testified
in support of HB 25. She asserted that HB 25 would be an
"amazing start." She gave several personal anecdotes about the
importance of reducing plastic use, ways to reuse plastic, such
as reusable takeout containers, and incentives for recycling
plastic.
4:04:33 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 25.
CO-CHAIR HALL stated that the committee would not be offering
Amendment 1 or Amendment 3 to HB 25.
CO-CHAIR HALL invited amendments from committee members.
4:05:12 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved to adopt Amendment 2 to HB 25, labeled 34-
LS0256\A.5, Dunmire, 3/12/25, which read as follows:
Page 1, line 4, following "ware":
Insert "and containers provided by customers"
Page 1, lines 4 - 5:
Delete "(e) and (f)"
Insert "(e) - (g)"
Page 1, line 11:
Delete "(f)"
Insert "(g)"
Page 1, following line 13:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(e) The department may adopt regulations that
allow a restaurant to provide prepared food in a clean
container provided by a customer of the restaurant.
The regulations must establish procedures to prevent
cross-contamination."
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
4:05:24 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:05:33 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS explained that the amendment would allow, not
require, citizens to take reusable containers to a restaurant
for the purpose of takeout. He credited Representative Mears
for the amendment, noting that she was the only current
legislator to have worked in waste management/recycling.
4:05:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE asked for clarification that the
amendment would not require a restaurant to accept reusable
containers.
4:06:12 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS clarified that it is "100 percent voluntary" for
the restaurant to decide if it would accept reusable containers.
4:06:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK noted that people are already bringing
their own coffee cups to coffee stands. She queried whether
there was language in statute preventing people from bringing
their own containers/cups.
4:06:52 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS clarified that the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) does not currently penalize people for
bringing their own containers or cups and noted that the
amendment was for clarity.
4:07:09 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL removed her objection to the motion to adopt
Amendment 2 to HB 25. There being no further objection, it was
so ordered.
4:07:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE moved to adopt Amendment 4 to HB 25, as
amended, labeled 34-LS0256\A.2, Dunmire, 3/11/25, which read as
follows:
Page 2, following line 28:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
TRANSITION: POLYSTYRENE PRODUCTS. (a)
Notwithstanding AS 17.20.035, enacted by sec. 1 of
this Act, a restaurant may provide prepared food in
polystyrene foam disposable food service ware after
the effective date of this Act if the restaurant
obtained the polystyrene foam disposable food service
ware before the effective date of this Act.
(b) Notwithstanding AS 17.20.035, enacted by
sec. 1 of this Act, the state may use polystyrene foam
disposable food service ware after the effective date
of this Act if the state purchased the polystyrene
foam disposable food service ware before the effective
date of this Act."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
4:07:30 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:07:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE explained that Amendment 4 would address
the effective date. She shared her concern about businesses
having to dump inventory upon passage of HB 25. She further
explained that Amendment 4 would change the effective date
language, not the effective date. She stated, "A company cannot
obtain polystyrene products after the effective date. The
original language stated that you can't use polystyrene after
the effective date. This allows companies to move through prior
purchased inventory and not lead to unneeded waste by disposing
of already purchased and manufactured polystyrene products."
She reiterated that the effective date would be the same,
explaining that she would like companies to get through their
existing inventory while still prohibiting them from purchasing
any new polystyrene products after the effective date of the
proposed legislation.
4:08:44 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated the effective date was of concern. He
offered his support for the amendment and stated that the bill
sponsor supported the amendment as well. He thanked
Representative Coulombe for the idea.
4:09:05 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL removed her objection to the motion to adopt
Amendment 4 to HB 25, as amended. There being no further
objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.
4:09:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE indicated that she would not be offering
Amendment 5.
4:09:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE moved to adopt Amendment 6 to HB 25, as
amended, labeled 34-LS0256\A.6, Dunmire, 3/13/25, which read as
follows:
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "(e)"
Insert "(d)"
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "(f)"
Insert "(e)"
Page 1, lines 9 - 11:
Delete all material.
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
Page 2, line 9:
Delete "biodegradable or compostable"
Page 2, lines 14 - 16:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
4:09:47 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:10:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE explained that Amendment 6 would strike
the language that "restaurants must only use biodegradable,
compostable food service ware as an alternative to polystyrene."
She further explained that it would give restaurants more
flexibility to replace their Styrofoam products.
4:10:08 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS opined that the amendment would make the bill
language consistent with the bill intent, stating that "a ban on
polystyrene is not a ban on plastic." He offered his belief
that there are other plastics that are not as injurious as
polystyrene. He offered his support for the amendment, noting
that "it appropriately narrows the bill, so we are dealing with
a human health and environmental issue, but were also preserving
a lot of flexibility for businesses." He additionally stated
that Amendment 6 would address a lot of the concerns heard
during public testimony. He withdrew his objection to Amendment
6 to HB 25, as amended. There being no further objection,
Amendment 6 was adopted.
4:11:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE [moved to adopt] Conceptual Amendment
[7] to HB 25, as amended, as follows:
Page 2, line 12:
Preceding "hardship"
Insert "financial and logistical"
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE clarified that the conceptual amendment
would be in response to business concerns about hardship,
stating that she did not want to impose an undue burden under HB
25.
4:11:55 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS opined that the conceptual amendment would be a
good idea, if products were to be excessively expensive or the
products were unavailable. He stated he could not see why
[legislators] would not provide that clarification to [DEC].
4:12:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK objected.
4:12:14 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:12 p.m. to 4:13 p.m.
4:13:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE restated the motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment [7].
4:14:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK maintained her objection and asked to
hear from the bill sponsor's staff regarding Conceptual
Amendment [7].
4:14:53 PM
KEN ALPER, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that there is not a lot of guidance in
current Alaska Statute on how a regulator might define
"hardship". He offered his belief that Representative Josephson
would not be opposed to the language but cautioned he could not
make that statement with certainty.
4:15:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK said she appreciated the clarification
from the bill sponsor's office.
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK removed her objection to Conceptual
Amendment [7] to HB 25, as amended, and articulated that she was
comfortable supporting the conceptual amendment knowing that the
language "hardship" already existed in Alaska Statute.
4:16:05 PM
MR. ALPER cited an e-mail received from Reese Williams, DEC's
legislative liaison, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Good morning,
If passed, the approach would be as practical and
accessible as possible, while respecting business'
privacy. Applicants could submit a statement of
hardship explaining specific challenges they face.
Supporting documentation could include cost
comparisons or supplier availability issues.
MR. ALPER noted that the conceptual amendment from
Representative Coulombe appeared to be in line with the e-mail
from DEC.
4:16:55 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL restated that Representative Carrick removed her
objection to Conceptual Amendment [7] to HB 25, as amended.
There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment [7] was
adopted.
4:17:22 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved to report HB 25, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
4:17:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE offered her appreciation for the passage
of her amendments. She reiterated that she does not like
Styrofoam and explained her approach to the proposed legislation
was business oriented. She reported that in conversation with
business owners, restaurants already have a difficult time
adjusting to the new requirements for minimum wage and paid sick
leave. She offered her concern regarding putting an undue
burden on businesses and offered appreciation for collaboration
on HB 25.
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE removed her objection.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS offered his appreciation for Representative
Coulombe's comments and collaboration on refining HB 25.
4:18:32 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL announced there being no further objection, CSHB
25(L&C) was reported out of House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee.