Legislature(2023 - 2024)BUTROVICH 205
03/20/2024 03:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB168 | |
| SB194 | |
| SB175 | |
| HB143 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 194 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 143 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 175 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 168 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 143-ADVANCED RECYCLING AND FACILITIES
4:35:17 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL announced the consideration of HOUSE BILL NO.
143 "An Act relating to the Department of Environmental
Conservation; relating to advanced recycling and advanced
recycling facilities; relating to waste; and providing for an
effective date."
4:36:00 PM
TREVOR JEPSEN, Staff, Representative Tom McKay, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, testified on HB 143. He was
presented with three questions from the staff:
1. If an entity knew they would be regulated at the same level
as other solid waste entities, would that mean they would
not open a plant in Alaska?
2. What are the practical differences between being regulated
as a manufacturer versus a solid waste entity?
3. What are the regulatory differences between manufacturing
products and solid waste?
MR. JEPSEN said, to address the first question, he explained
that under current regulations, an advanced recycling facility
could potentially operate in Alaska, and the DEC believes it
could issue a permit. However, such facilities require high
capital investments and long timelines. Without clear
regulations and statutes, it is highly unlikely that substantial
investment would be made in Alaska. For the second question, he
mentioned that Deputy Commissioner Christina Carpenter from DEC
would be the best person to address the practical differences.
He added context on why plastic feedstock should be regulated
differently from solid waste. Solid waste is typically disposed
of, while plastic feedstock, having been sorted and cleaned, is
used as a manufacturing input. This is akin to recycled metals
used in car manufacturing; once sorted and cleaned, they are no
longer considered waste. Therefore, even if there are no
specific benefits or differences, it would be illogical to
regulate them in the same way due to their fundamental
differences. He invited Deputy Commissioner Carpenter to discuss
the regulatory differences between manufacturing products and
solid waste.
4:39:44 PM
MS. CARPENTER asked him to repeat the question.
4:39:52 PM
MR. JEPSEN asked about the practical differences between
regulating an advanced recycling facility as a manufacturer
versus as a solid waste facility, and similarly, regulating
input material as plastic feedstock versus solid waste.
4:40:29 PM
MS. CARPENTER said that currently, there is no differentiation
between plastic feedstock and other solid waste in solid waste
facilities. The Department believes it has the statutory
authority to regulate this industry but notes that clearer
guidelines would benefit industry clarity regarding
manufacturing requirements, as well as air and wastewater permit
requirements. She asked if this answered the question posed at
the last hearing.
4:41:07 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL asked Senator Dunbar whether that response
answers the question that he posed at the last committee
hearing.
4:41:10 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR replied that it did not answer his question and
asked if there are different air and wastewater requirements
between treating a facility as a solid waste facility versus a
manufacturing facility. He noted that the previous answer did
not address this, and he sought clarification on the specific
differences in regulations for each type of facility.
4:41:55 PM
MS. CARPENTER offered to follow up with the committee with
additional information.
4:42:12 PM
MR. JEPSEN said that advanced recycling is a multi-billion
dollar industry globally, with an estimated $17.5 billion
currently invested. In the U.S., there are 14 planned advanced
recycling projects. He noted that estimating exact project
economics is challenging due to the long feasibility study
process and varying factors such as scope and location. He also
mentioned that power consumption is a relevant consideration in
these projects.
4:43:24 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN said that it did not answer his question. He
stated that while it's understood that companies invest in
building plants to make a profit, the question seeks a detailed
economic analysis of the costs involved. He asked for a
comparison of the costs of producing plastic from raw materials
versus using recycled materials. He emphasized that simply
noting that companies are investing does not provide the
necessary detailed economic analysis.
4:44:09 PM
MR. JEPSEN said he is aware of life cycle assessment analyses
comparing emissions. He stated that he would look into whether
there are financial disclosures or project economics available
from private companies, though he noted that finding such
detailed financial information may be challenging.
4:44:38 PM
MR. JEPSEN said that regarding Senator Kaufman's question about
the energy requirements for a medium-sized hospital, he reviewed
the lifecycle assessment and found no specific numbers linked to
the reference. He provided context by examining the energy usage
of a medium-sized hospital, defined as having 100 to 499 beds.
Hospitals are known to be among the most energy-intensive
commercial buildings, with round-the-clock usage ranging from
approximately 150 to 250 kilowatt hours per square foot
annually. For a rough estimate, using an average of 200 kilowatt
hours per square foot and assuming a 200,000 square foot
hospital, the annual energy consumption would be about 40
million kilowatt hours. This is equivalent to 40,000 megawatt
hours. For comparison, Alaska's total annual energy consumption
is roughly 6 million megawatt hours. Thus, a medium-sized
hospital would account for approximately 0.7 percent of Alaska's
annual energy use.
4:47:04 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL opened public testimony on HB 143.
4:47:27 PM
PATRICK SIMPSON, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified
in support of HB 143. He stated that he represents Alaska
Plastic Recovery, which is committed to transforming plastic
waste into recycled plastic lumber, known as Grizzly Wood. This
process helps prevent plastic waste from ending up in landfills
by converting it into durable, environmentally friendly
construction materials. HB 143 recently passed the House of
Representatives and is pivotal in promoting advanced recycling
technologies in Alaska by clarifying environmental rules for
advanced recycling facilities. This legislation will enable
companies like his to innovate and expand, increasing the amount
of plastic recycled into new products. He acknowledged the
environmental concerns related to advanced recycling, such as
potential chemical pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. He
believes that with proper regulation and oversight, these issues
can be effectively managed. His company is committed to
sustainable practices and is prepared to collaborate with
lawmakers, environmental groups, and the community to ensure
that advanced recycling aligns with Alaska's environmental
goals. Alaska Plastic Recovery, along with other stakeholders,
is ready to support the bill's implementation and address any
concerns.
4:49:52 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked for an estimate of the amount of plastic,
in tons, that would be available for recycling under HB 143.
4:50:05 PM
MR. SIMPSON replied that he could deliver this information to
the committee.
4:50:30 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked whether his company in Alaska is currently
manufacturing plastic products using recycled materials.
4:50:42 PM
MR. SIMPSON replied that is correct.
4:50:45 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if the plastic materials are sourced from
Alaska.
4:50:49 PM
MR. SIMPSON replied that all of their plastic waste comes from
Alaska. They source it from three main areas: marine debris
collected from beaches, post-consumer recycling programs, and
industrial sources such as Hilcorp, on the North Slope and
freight companies with significant amounts of film plastic.
4:51:29 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if material is made into Treks, which looks
like wood but is not actually wood.
4:51:39 PM
MR. SIMPSON replied that it has the same properties.
4:52:07 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked if the mechanical process used by the
company means they do not use high heat or chemicals as
envisioned in advanced recycling methods. He inquired about what
changes the company would experience if HB 143 passes, seeking
clarity on how their existing operations might be impacted by
the new legislation.
4:52:39 PM
MR. SIMPSON replied that the advanced recycling process
described in the bill is capable of handling types of plastics,
such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and styrofoam, that are too
degraded for use in mechanical recycling processes like those
used by the company. Advanced recycling can reuse these more
degraded plastics, which might otherwise need to be sent to a
landfill.
4:53:29 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked why polyethylene is prohibited.
4:53:47 PM
MR. SIMPSON replied that plastic left on beaches for extended
periods can degrade due to UV exposure, which affects its
mechanical properties. However, the chemical properties of the
plastic remain, and advanced recycling processes can utilize
these to recycle the plastic effectively.
4:54:06 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked whether the technology is currently
unavailable but would be accessible under HB 143.
4:54:21 PM
MR. SIMPSON said that while the technology for advanced
recycling is not new to them, the bill clarifies regulations,
which would provide greater opportunities for businesses like
theirs. It ensures that they can operate within a clear
regulatory framework, keeping doors open for future expansion
and revenue generation in the recycling industry.
4:55:02 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN thanked Mr. Simpson for thoughtful analysis on
energy consumption.
4:55:19 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if the clarification and support for
advanced recycling technology in the bill would be a significant
investment for a business of their size.
4:55:32 PM
MR. SIMPSON replied that while he is currently focused on
growing his small business and selling recycled plastic lumber,
he hopes to expand into advanced recycling technology as his
business grows. Currently, he is focused on selling Grizzly
Wood.
4:55:53 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if investing in advanced recycling
technology would require a substantial investment, such as
between $250,000 to $500,000, or if it would be a multi-million
dollar investment, understanding that the answer might involve
confidential business information.
4:56:16 PM
MR. SIMPSON replied that investing in an advanced recycling
facility would require millions of dollars, while the systems
currently under consideration are in the $100,000 range.
4:56:30 PM
MR. CLAMAN asked for the name of his business and where it is
based.
4:56:44 PM
MR. SIMPSON replied that is called Alaska Plastics Recovery and
has a mobile processing facility. It is currently located in
Palmer., but processed plastic last summer in Soldotna, Seward,
and Anchorage.
4:57:05 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL closed public testimony on HB 143.
4:57:17 PM
MR. JEPSEN said that advanced recycling would help by allowing
the recycling of all types of plastics, beyond those that
mechanical recycling can handle. Mechanical recycling is limited
to certain types of plastics due to physical constraints.
Advanced recycling, on the other hand, can process a broader
range of plastics. He also noted that investments in such
facilities can range widely from a couple of million dollars to
hundreds of millions or even billions, depending on the scale.
Further financial analysis of various facilities will continue.
4:58:21 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL held HB 143 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 175 Supporting Documents_Alaska Electronics Product Stewardship Summary.pdf |
SRES 3/20/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 175 |
| SB 175 Letter of Support 3.19.24.pdf |
SRES 3/20/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 175 |
| SB 175 Letter of Opposition 3.19.24.pdf |
SRES 3/20/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 175 |
| HB 143 HRES Response to SRES 03.20.24.pdf |
SRES 3/20/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 143 |
| HB 143 DEC Response to SRES 03.20.24.pdf |
SRES 3/20/2024 3:30:00 PM |
HB 143 |
| SB 175 DEC Response to SRES 03.20.24.pdf |
SRES 3/20/2024 3:30:00 PM |
SB 175 |