Legislature(2023 - 2024)BARNES 124
03/15/2023 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 | |
| HB83 | |
| HB49 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 83 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 49 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 49-CARBON OFFSET PROGRAM ON STATE LAND
1:54:23 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the final order of business would be
HB 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."
[Before the committee, adopted as a working document on 3/8/23,
was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 49, Version
33-GH1372\S, Dunmire, 3/3/23, ("Version S").]
1:54:25 PM
CHAIR MCKAY opened public testimony on HB 49.
1:55:28 PM
KEN HUCKEBA, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
49. He argued that no legislator authored or sponsored the
bill, and it is being rushed for emergency passage. He
expressed disbelief that the establishment of carbon credits by
the state would not be connected to the World Economic Forum
(WEF), or the environmental, social, and governance (ESG)
[directive]. He expressed the understanding that the WEF's goal
is the "complete cessation of fossil fuels." He stated that
Anew [Climate] and Verra are both nongovernmental organizations
which would profit from the carbon credit currency and are
partners of WEF. He pointed out a series of articles titled,
"ESG in Alaska DNA," in the Petroleum News, which was authored
by a previous commissioner of the Department of Natural
Resources. He said, "It would be hard to believe that these
sentiments are not shared with or known by the administration."
MR. HUCKEBA continued by voicing the idea that "ESG is simply a
new method for socialism and Marxism," which is contributing to
the "obliteration and cessation of fossil fuels." He noted that
the [proposed legislation] does not mention further review,
control, audit, or inspections; therefore, the commissioner and
director would have all control, and the WEF partners would do
the credit evaluations. He expressed the opinion that engaging
in carbon trade is a "grift" because it would create a tax,
which would be on individuals and companies producing goods and
services, with no benefit. He opined that the Willow Project is
an example of these policies, as "extremist" WEF lawyers were
able to delay and degrade the project with "their unprecedented
and mysteriously never-argued inclusions in an already-approved
environmental impact statement."
1:58:16 PM
KASSIE ANDREWS, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
49. She began by questioning the inherent net value of carbon
dioxide. She concluded that carbon dioxide has no value as a
commodity because it cannot be consumed or used to heat homes.
She questioned why [the proposed legislation] is being
acknowledged because carbon dioxide is not a part of the
economic system of supply and demand. She suggested that if a
net gross domestic product were not being created, there would
be a subsidy paid by taxpayers. She pointed out that wind and
solar projects do not function without subsidies.
1:59:30 PM
[Due to technical difficulties, the audio was indiscernible, and
Ms. Andrews' testimony resumed at 2:14 p.m.]
2:00:09 PM
MATT JACKSON, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC),
stated that SEACC has worked in depth on forest management
issues on federal and state lands in Southeast Alaska for more
than 50 years, and through this work, the council has acquired a
good amount of institutional knowledge. He expressed agreement
with some of the testifiers and the governor that HB 49 and
carbon offset programs would have nothing to do with climate
change; however, he continued that SEACC believes carbon credits
could be a useful tool for land managers and a revenue source
for the state. He stated, if the proposed legislation goes
forward, SEACC advises that to enter into the carbon registry
there would need to be more requirements, as obtaining forest
inventories and sustainable forest certifications. He added
that having forest management data sets should also be a
requirement. He expressed the hope that the legislature takes a
realistic look at the cost.
MR. JACKSON continued that SEACC is making two suggestions to
improve the proposed legislation's ability to maximize the
revenue the state would receive from the sale of carbon credits.
He suggested that the lease be increased from a 55-year program
to a 99-year program. He stated there is a premium in
permanence in longer-term projects, as they would bring in more
revenue. In a second point, he suggested that the proposed
legislation include the concept of "leakage." He said this is
an industry term for carbon, which was stored in one place but
leaked because of emission activities elsewhere. He gave the
example of the state selling carbon storage in the Haines State
Forest, while reducing timber harvest there. However, if the
timber harvest on Prince of Wales Island increased, this would
be leakage. He described leakage as an essential concept in
carbon markets, and preventing this is an essential part of
valuable carbon offsets. He continued that addressing leakage
in the proposed legislation would increase the revenue of
potential carbon credit programs. He thanked the committee and
offered to provide resources and answer any questions.
2:03:12 PM
LYDIA SHUMAKER, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
49. She paraphrased from a written statement [included in the
committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Firstly I will be addressing SEC 38.95.430 for the
offset revenue fund on page 6:
As explained in the hearing on Monday the 13th, the
revenues would not be going into the permanent fund
but would go into a separate fund to pay for the
expenses of this boondoggle. Although the chair
chooses to hold this public testimony before receiving
the up-dated fiscal notes, we can see that there is an
expected expense to the people of Alaska of One
Million, Eight Hundred Sixty-Seven Thousand, Eight
hundred dollars ($1,867.80) across the three fiscal
notes. Now, if HB 50 was any example, the fiscal notes
will be walked back in order to encourage this bill to
be forced through the legislation. However, if the
work was put in before this bill was presented, it
should be safe to assume this is an accurate cost,
singularly for the one-year period of 2024. Also note,
there is no expected revenue presented still because
this entire scheme is too unknown to have accurate
numbers. Secondly, I will be addressing Page 6 under
definitions; item number 4 "Carbon offset project";
Last Friday, we heard in testimony (given by a
conflict of interest), that if Alaska makes it a law
to manage the forests in a manner different than what
we currently are, that could disqualify us from the
carbon capture market. By Definition, this bill must
install a "framework legislation" that DOES change the
law as it clearly states ".. similar land and resource
management measures that mitigate greenhouse gases by
increasing the carbon stock on state land". This is
placing the carbon fiat market into the law, by
definition, as a priority which will inherently alter
the way Alaska manages the forests, voiding the goal
of the legislation.
Lastly, I will be addressing points made by your own
invited public testimony, which are companies that
work with the World Economic Forum:
1) Although this framework states 55 years, it
has been expressed that the market preferred time
span is 100 years. Alaska has only been a state
for 64 years, and should not get married to a
fiat currency and WEF market for almost the same
length of time. We have come a long way in 64
years, and if our legislators were really pro-
Alaska, we would be seeing an increased amount of
growth in the next 55 years.
2) We cannot use forests that are inaccessible
due to terrain grade. Also, companies would
prefer to clear-cut instead of clearing a
percentage due to cost. There is simply not
enough PRACTICALITY in this bill to even consider
joining this "new green deal" replacement.
3) Everyone tries to reference the native
CORPORATIONS as a shining light for this bill. I
would remind you that the GOVERNMENT is NOT a
CORPORATION.
4) Lastly, joining any carbon fiat currency is
ESG and the people of Alaska view this just like
porn. If you don't want to support human
trafficking, don't watch porn or partake in that
market. If you don't want to support the ESG
poverty that we KNOW happens, don't partake in
this market.
2:05:52 PM
TODD LINDLEY, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
49. He stated that the proposed legislation has been referred
to as the "tree bill;" however, he expressed the opinion that it
should be called the "density bill," because trees per acre
would be used as the metric for measuring the amount of carbon
offset; thus, the higher the tree density, the more carbon
offset. He stated that this would set up a framework for
companies to offset their carbon emissions by leasing the
state's forest. He referenced Anew Climate's whitepaper study
on Alaska's forest, identifying 300,000 acres for a pilot
project. He estimated that the average density of the state
forest is 113 trees per acre. Converting this to barrels of
oil, he related that 300,000 acres of forest in Alaska would be
worth 14,000 barrels of oil. In other words, he explained that
Alaska's forest would become an asset [for companies outside of
the country]. He continued that for the forests to be on the
exchange, they would have to remain in protected status. He
voiced the opinion that Verra, a company that manages carbon
offsets, is a WEF partner. He continued that Verra also
confirmed it is a nonprofit; however, it is incorporated in
Columbia. He questioned why a foreign entity would be giving
invited testimony to the committee and petitioning support for
legislation in the state. He argued that the legislature was
negligent by not performing due diligence on Verra. Based on
the proposed land usage and taxation, he argued that HB 49 needs
to be removed from the ledger completely.
CHAIR MCKAY requested that Mr. Lindley forward information on
the whitepaper study he referenced to the committee.
2:08:29 PM
BERT HOUGHTALING, representing self, testified in opposition to
HB 49. He expressed disgust that the legislature has "bought
into this ESG scam." He questioned whether the legislators are
being paid by WEF to push "this Green New Deal scam."
CHAIR MCCAY interjected that no one in the committee is
receiving "any kind of compensation," and he challenged the
statement.
MR. HOUGHTALING recommended that the legislators "take their
horse blinders off and quit looking at the carrot the federal
government keeps pushing at the end of the stick." He suggested
that invited testifiers had been indoctrinated by WEF. He
expressed suspicion that the rules would be changed because
carbon credits would be under the control of WEF, not Alaskans.
He said, "I wish we could be more like Saudi Arabia, who was
able to accomplish $161 billion in sales of oil in this last
past year." He compared this with $14 billion in oil sales in
Alaska. He stated that Saudi Arabia's cost for production of
oil is $6 per barrel, while it is $68 per barrel in Alaska.
Calling the legislation "a scam," he voiced the idea that it
would increase everyday costs, and the discussion needs to be
tabled or disregarded completely.
2:11:35 PM
KARA MORIARTY, Lobbyist, Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA),
provided testimony on HB 49. She stated that AOGA represents
the majority of the companies that are exploring, developing,
producing, transporting, marketing, and refining oil and gas in
Alaska. She stated that AOGA's mission is to advocate for the
long-term viability of the oil and gas industry in the state and
it "applauds" the governor's efforts to continue Alaska's
tradition of responsible and innovative resource development.
She continued that AOGA supports an approach that incorporates
carbon-offset programs into voluntary carbon-reduction targets.
She recommended that the final framework of a carbon-offset
program should be consistent with Alaska's constitutional
principles of preserving multiple-use land access for all
Alaskans, and this should be maintained through future
administrations. She stated that Alaska is uniquely positioned
to be a leader in the emerging carbon-offset industry, and AOGA
looks forward to learning about the process and the proposed
legislation.
2:14:20 PM
MS. ANDREWS repeated a portion of her earlier testimony that had
begun at 1:58 p.m. and was interrupted because of technical
difficulty. Continuing, she stated that even if wind and solar
energy are not economically viable, they are defendable because
of the electrical output provided. She expressed the
understanding that legislators have made comments concerning
that tax credits "may be the single biggest incentive for
companies to participate" [in the carbon market]. She concluded
that tax credits are the only reason the proposed legislation
exists, so this would be "another government subsidy with a
fraud rating of 90 percent." She questioned the need for the
[proposed] legislation, as it would allow companies to come to
the state and "partake in this fraud." She voiced the opinion
that the state is being lied to on this topic, comparing it to
the process that helped [the federal government enact the
Affordable Care Act]. She reasoned that when debate begins in
defense of what something is not, the concept is fundamentally
flawed. She likened this to the claims that the proposed
legislation is not ESG or connected with WEF. She said, "People
are not stupid and honestly that is what the supporters of this
bill are depending on."
2:16:44 PM
CHAIR MCKAY, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 49.
2:16:53 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:16 p.m. to 2:17 p.m.
2:17:20 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that HB 49, Version S, was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 83 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 83 |
| HB 83 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 83 |
| HB 83 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 83 |
| HB 83 Letter of Support (Safari Club).pdf |
HRES 3/15/2023 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB83 CACFA reestablishment support letter.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 83 |
| HB 83 AMA Comments.pdf |
HRES 3/15/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 83 |
| HB 49 - Alaska DNR Carbon Offset Opportunity Evaluation August 2022 Report.pdf |
HRES 2/24/2023 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 49 |
| HB 49 - Carbon Offset Opportunity Evaluation Appendix_B.pdf |
HRES 2/24/2023 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 49 |
| HB 49 Public Testimony (HRES).pdf |
HRES 3/15/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 49 |