Legislature(2023 - 2024)BARNES 124
03/01/2023 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 | |
| HB50 | |
| HB49 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 49 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 50 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 49-CARBON OFFSET PROGRAM ON STATE LAND
2:05:15 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 49, "An Act authorizing the Department of Natural
Resources to lease land for carbon management purposes;
establishing a carbon offset program for state land; authorizing
the sale of carbon offset credits; and providing for an
effective date."
2:06:32 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 2:06 p.m.
2:07:08 PM
JOHN BOYLE, Commissioner Designee, Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), provided introductory remarks on HB 49, on
behalf of the bill sponsor, House Rules by request of the
governor. The legislation focused on the utilization of state
land and submerged land for the purpose of carbon offsets, which
would offer the state a new avenue to diversify its economy and
revenues. He described the "tremendous" inventory of state
lands as a competitive advantage for Alaska that may be very
well suited for carbon offset projects. The administration was
asking for a broad regulatory framework, he said, to enable DNR
to engage with the market, understand where carbon offset
opportunities exist, and generate additional state revenues. He
shared his belief that carbon offset projects could incentivize
forest management and timber harvesting and revitalize the
forest industry as a whole in Alaska, while creating exciting
career opportunities. He emphasized that the bill would not
implement carbon taxes or cap-and-trade regimes on businesses
operating within the state, adding that the land used for carbon
projects would still be open for public access and public use.
The projects could be managed in a way that was reflective of
the state's ethos. He noted the thousands of miles of coastline
and submerged lands in Alaska that were high quality areas for
carbon offset projects, such as commercial kelp farms, that
could provide further opportunities in the mariculture industry.
He urged the state to stay flexible in response to the ever-
growing and evolving market.
2:15:25 PM
JOSHUA STRAUSS, Senior Vice President, Anew Climate, gave a
PowerPoint presentation, titled "Forest Carbon Informational
Overview," [hard copy included in the committee packet]. He
outlined the agenda for the presentation on slide 2.
2:17:09 PM
MR. STRAUSS continued to slide 3, "About Anew," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
•Oldest and largest carbon offset developer in North
America (20+ years)
•Voted Environmental Finance's Best Project Developer
(North America) and Best Offset Developer (California)
for seven years running
• Dedicated forestry team: in in-house finance,
marketing, and legal experts, plus 30 professional
foresters with unparalleled forest carbon experience
2:18:14 PM
MR. STRAUSS narrated the map on slide 4, "Anew Forestry Project
Map," which pictured some of the 110 forest carbon projects
under Anew's management in the U.S. and Canada. Slide 5 listed
Anew's notable public partnerships, including Alaska DNR,
Michigan DNR, Ohio DNR, 8 Wisconsin counties, 3 Massachusetts
townships, 2 Pennsylvania water authorities, and 1 public
university.
2:19:44 PM
MR. STRAUSS discussed forest carbon basics beginning on slide 7,
"What are forest carbon offsets," which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
• Forests across the US sequester substantial amounts
of CO2.
• By maintaining or increasing forest stocking, forest
landowners can generate units of CO2 emissions
reductions ("Carbon Offsets").
• Companies wishing to combat climate change are
willing to pay forest owners for these Carbon Offsets,
thereby claiming credit for reducing CO2 emissions and
mitigating some of the effects of climate change.
2:21:10 PM
MR. STRAUSS proceeded to slide 8, "Forest Carbon Markets," which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Voluntary Market
Companies voluntarily choose to purchase offsets to
reduce their emissions
• Greater variation in pricing
o $4 to $35
• Premium vale attributed to "charismatic" projects
• Less certain demand
Compliance Market
Companies purchase offsets to help meet their legally
mandated emissions targets (CS & Quebec)
• More consistent pricing
o $15 to $20
• Built-in demand through 2030
Additional Compliance Programs
• Washington
• CORSIA (international aviation)
• Canada (Federal and Provincial)
• Oregon
2:24:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether anything federal was on
the horizon.
MR. STRAUSS said nothing was currently on the horizon for a
federal program.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER sought to confirm that any compliance
program would need to come through the state legislature.
MR. STRAUSS answered yes, a compliance program would be at the
state level. He reiterated that there was no federal oversight
on the horizon.
2:27:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS asked whether, in terms of voluntary
compliance, a company looking to purchase carbon credits might
consider the preservation of habitat for wolverine and lynx in
Alaska a charismatic project worth investing in.
MR. STRAUSS answered yes, habitat preservation might increase
the credit value. He indicated that environmental conservation
in addition to emission reduction may be appealing.
2:28:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER suggested that saving the planet may not
have the same market value in twenty years. He asked how much
of the carbon market was voluntary versus compliance.
MR. STRAUSS acknowledged that there was no regulatory mandate
for the voluntary market. Nonetheless, many companies have
publicly committed to becoming carbon neutral by 2030 through
offset programs, for example. He added that although pricing
was variable, measures were being taken to add quantification to
various components of a carbon project. By enrolling in one
now, he said, it wouldn't preclude the ability to better
quantify positive impacts of the project as other methodologies
get "fleshed out."
2:31:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER clarified that if Alaska could derive
benefit from charismatic projects, he was supportive of
"pocketing that money."
CHAIR MCKAY asked whether there were federal tax credits for
voluntarily purchasing offsets.
MR. STRAUSS said no, there was not a direct path to federal tax
credits for these activities.
CHAIR MCKAY pointed out that HB 49 addressed only the voluntary
market.
2:32:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DIBERT asked how forest fires would be addressed
in forested areas in the Interior.
MR. STRAUSS said the department was keenly aware of the forest
fire risk. He discussed the American Carbon Registry's (ACR)
voluntary improved forest management protocol, which included a
"buffer" otherwise defined as a pooled insurance mechanism
for all credit-generating projects to cover catastrophic loss.
2:35:39 PM
MR. STRAUSS resumed the presentation on slide 8 and discussed
the compliance market. He continued to slide 9, which listed
examples of credit buyers in the voluntary space, including
Microsoft, Capital One, Nestle, Disney, Chevrolet, and etcetera.
He added that almost every organization in the Fortune 500 were
buying credits. He noted that state lands were not readily
eligible for participation in the compliance programs based on
their design. Mr. Strauss turned to slide 10, "Landowner
Obligations," which outlined the monitoring obligations per year
in both a voluntary and compliance setting. The ACR a
voluntary program was a 40-year commitment, for example,
whereas the compliance program would be well over 100 years. He
outlined the four stages of a carbon offset project:
verification, inventory, reporting, and the monitoring period.
He reiterated that the commitment to a carbon forest program
would not prevent the utilization of that land for recreation or
for sub-surface minerals.
2:44:01 PM
CHAIR MCKAY inquired about the 40-year monitoring period for
voluntary programs and asked whether that would be a 40-year
lease. In addition, he shared his understanding that Native
corporations had participated in the California compliance cap-
and-trade program. He asked whether those properties in Alaska
were under lease for 100 years.
MR. STRAUSS explained that the monitoring period is the length
of time that the landowner is obligated to follow the rules of
the program. For the voluntary space, the monitoring period is
a 40-year flat commitment, during which time the volume of
carbon stock must be maintained or increased with verification
every 5 years; inventory updates every 10 years; and annual
reports on harvesting. He contrasted that timeframe to the
compliance space, which has a monitoring period of 100 years, a
6-year verification period, 12-year inventory, and annual
reporting.
CHAIR MCKAY asked for verification that the Native corporations
that had sold credits in Alaska were under a compliance program.
MR. STRAUSS indicated that some of them were under a compliance
program.
2:48:33 PM
MR. STRAUSS continued the presentation on slide 11, "Key
Components of Offset Quality," which listed the following
principles: Additionality, permanence, verification/monitoring,
registration/serialization, leakage, reversal buffer.
2:53:20 PM
MR. STRAUSS proceeded to slide 12, "Alaska DNR Pilot Projects,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
• Three areas were selected as pilot projects due
to their carbon stocking, accessibility, and
timber marketability
• Three projects could collectively generate ~10
million offsets over 40-year life
st
• >$80 million in revenue over 1 decade alone
2:55:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for the definition of
"additionality".
MR. STRAUSS defined additionality as the comparison of a project
to an alternate, hypothetical scenario, otherwise referred to as
a "baseline." In response to a request for clarification from
Representative Saddler, he described the baseline scenario as
"what is likely or very plausible in the absence of a carbon
project."
2:57:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS asked why state projects weren't eligible
for the compliance market. In addition, she questioned the
difference in market rates between the voluntary and compliance
markets.
CHAIR MCKAY offered his understanding that HB 49 covered only
the voluntary market. He asked Mr. Crowther whether that was
accurate.
2:58:17 PM
JOHN CROWTHER, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), shared his understanding
that under current protocols for compliance markets, public
lands in Alaska would not be eligible. For that reason, HB 49
targeted the voluntary market.
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS asked whether there was a variance in
credit value on the voluntary versus compliance market.
MR. STRAUSS explained that compliance credits generally traded
for around $18. However, he predicted that a forest credit from
Alaska would trade at around $16 to $27.
2:59:25 PM
MR. STRAUSS walked the committee through the project development
process on slide 14, "Anew Services," which listed the following
stages: project feasibility analysis, contracting and listing,
inventory, modeling and documentation, verification, credit
registration and issuance, and credit sale.
CHAIR MCKAY gleaned that this process would be expensive. He
asked how much it would cost and who would pay for it.
3:03:52 PM
MR. STRAUSS conveyed that Anew, for example, covered all costs
associated with project development, which was sometimes in the
millions, and was only reimbursed upon successful sale of the
credits. Consequently, he shared his belief that Anew's
approach was appealing to landowners because they don't have to
allocate public funds to start a project. He concluded the
presentation on slide 15, "Development Timeline," which depicted
the approximately 18-month timeline of events from starting a
project to getting credits issued.
3:06:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for the definition of "offset."
MR. STRAUSS likened "offset" to "credit" or one metric ton of
emissions reduction.
3:08:17 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that HB 49 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB50 CS - S.pdf |
HRES 3/1/2023 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/8/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 50 |
| HB 50 Summary of Changes (A to S).pdf |
HRES 3/1/2023 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/8/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 50 |
| HB 49 - Forest Carbon 101 - ANEW - 3.01.2023.pdf |
HRES 3/1/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 49 |
| HB 49 Overview Presentation DNR 03.01.23.pdf |
HRES 3/1/2023 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/8/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 49 |