Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
04/04/2018 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 | |
| HB230 | |
| SB125 | |
| HB264 | |
| HB262 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 125 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 262 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 264 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 401 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 230 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 264-SHOPPING BAG FEES & RECYCLING
4:00:00 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 264, "An Act relating to a fee for disposable
shopping bags; relating to the sale of reusable shopping bags;
relating to the recycling of disposable shopping bags; and
providing for an effective date."
4:00:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL moved to adopt the CS to HB 264 as a working
document. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
4:01:17 PM
CAITLYN ELLIS, Staff, Representative Sam Kito, Alaska State
Legislature, presented the CS to HB 264 on behalf of the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee. She paraphrased the
summary of changes [included in committee packet], which reads
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
1. Title: from "An Act relating to a fee for
disposable shopping bags; relating to the sale of
reusable shopping bags; relating to the recycling of
disposable shopping bags; and providing for an
effective date." to "An Act prohibiting disposable
plastic shopping bags; relating to a minimum price for
paper and other shopping bags; relating to the sale of
reusable shopping bags; and providing for an effective
date."
2. Removes the fee for single-use bags and creates a
ban for single-use (disposable) plastic bags.
3. Establishes a minimum 10-cent fee for all other
bags (plastic, reusable). The retail seller keeps 100%
of this fee. Its purpose is to prevent a loophole that
would allow store to give away thick plastic bags in
lieu of single-use plastic bags.
4. Removes the exemption for communities of less than
5,500 persons.
5. Removes the 18-pound weight capacity requirement
for reusable bags.
4:02:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether the proposed bill would
require restaurants to charge for plastic bags used for take-out
orders and "doggy bags".
MS. ELLIS answered that was not addressed in the current
proposed legislation.
4:04:43 PM
SUZANNE COHEN, 350 Juneau, testified in support of HB 264. She
said the only way to change behavior is to establish a fee for
plastic bags. She said Denmark had seen a drop in usage after
establishing a ban. She listed countries and cities which have
established fees or bans on plastic bags. She addressed impacts
on wildlife.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether members of 350 Juneau are
small business owners. He asked about being charged extra for
the bags.
MS. COHEN answered that she and her husband own a small business
and described their efforts to reduce usage by reusing the bags
their stock comes in.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked whether the group had approached
local authorities about the restriction.
MS. COHEN answered the organization was a recent entity. She
said there had been a push which had failed previously.
CHAIR KITO brought up Styrofoam packages and asked whether those
were being addressed by the organization.
MS. COHEN said the parent organization is very much sticking to
climate issues. She said she did not think it was addressing
Styrofoam.
4:11:40 PM
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
(AML), testified in the hearing HB 264. She said the AML has
discussed the issue at length and it was felt [banning bags]
should be a municipal issue. She underlined municipalities can
work directly with local businesses. She shared personal
experience with ordering paper bags which had to be shipped from
out of state, adding to the carbon impact, whereas only one
truckload was needed for the same number of plastic bags. She
said AML is not opposed to the concept but feels it can deal
with plastic bags on a local level.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON listed some communities that are
actively looking at the issue. He asked Ms. Wasserman whether
she has seen so many significant communities move in a short
period of time over an issue.
MS. WASSERMAN said she has seen municipalities respond to any
number of things.
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD commented that Representative
Josephson had proved the point that municipalities can deal with
the issue locally.
4:16:19 PM
MARY VAVIRK testified in support of HB 264. She spoke to the
unsightly effects of plastic bags in the environment.
4:17:52 PM
LISBETH JACKSON testified in support of HB 264. She spoke to
the unsightly effects of plastic bags and to the health issues.
She said it is a state issue. She mentioned the tourist
industry and [the importance of] keeping the area beautiful.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether Ms. Jackson uses bags in her
business.
MS. JACKSON answered that she doesn't use bags for her B&B
business. She said she does use plastic bags for garbage.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether she lives in a community that
bans bags.
MS. JACKSON said she lives near Palmer, Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked about charges for bags.
MS. JACKSON answered there was never a fee instituted for the
bag ban in the city of Wasilla, Alaska.
4:21:28 PM
MICHELLE PUTZ, Bags for Change, testified in support of HB 264.
She said the Sitka, Alaska, assembly was working on a bag ban or
fee. She said the effort was to move people to reusable bags,
not paper. She said a fee on paper bags would help the plastic
bag ban "in court." She spoke to the toxins in plastics and
health issues. She mentioned a boat incident due to plastic
bags in the ocean. She spoke to local businesses' reactions to
a bag fee.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked how someone's litigation has
benefited by a ban on plastic bags.
MS. PUTZ answered there was a court case in California in which
the plastic companies tried to sue, but because they had a fee
on paper bags as well, the fee on the paper bags protected them
4:25:47 PM
SOPHIA TIDLER, Member, Anchorage Waterway Council, testified in
support HB 264. She said the council organizes waterway cleanup
and the amount of plastics collected is unsettling. She said
many communities support the ban or fee. She said consumer
behavior change is why she supports the proposed bill. She drew
parallels with the fight for equal rights and the work of Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
4:29:08 PM
MATT SEAHOLM, American Progressive Bag Alliance, testified in
opposition to HB 264. He paraphrased from his written testimony
[included in committee packet], which reads as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
On behalf of the American Progressive Bag Alliance
(APBA), an organization that represents our country's
plastic retail bag manufacturers and recyclers, thank
you for the opportunity to submit this testimony to
share our collective concerns with HB 264, which would
impose a regressive 20-cent fee on disposable shopping
bags or as is being reported in the media, be amended
to ban all plastic retail bags.
We respect and applaud Representatives Josephson and
Drummond and others for taking the goals of waste and
litter reduction seriously. We share a common
commitment to environmental stewardship and
sustainability. Both are critical to ensuring that we
are protecting Alaska's natural beauty and are solid
business principles.
As a waste reduction measureand not just a
fundraising billHB 264 is flawed. Bag bans and taxes
may lead to fewer plastic retail bags being used, but
similar policies have never delivered significant
reductions in overall waste or litter. Policies that
ban plastic bags push consumers to use less
sustainable alternatives by comparison, and bag taxes
often impose a regressive, inequitable burden on the
most income-sensitive residents. That's a serious cost
to consider for Alaska's hard-working families and
fixed income seniors who may incur higher costs to
their grocery bills or be forced to buy more expensive
alternatives to highly reusable plastic retail bags.
Beyond the economic impact for individual families and
shoppers, HB 264 would require Alaska businessesmany
of whom are APBA members' customersto track, report
and remit shopping bag tax revenue to the state. These
additional reporting, training and compliance
obligations will increase the cost of doing business
in Alaska. Those higher costs may not be covered by
the 25-percent allowance this bill designates for
retailers and could end up being passed down as an
additional consumer burden, on top of the initial
regressive transaction fee and ban.
The proposed environmental benefits would neither
relieve the burden on Alaska's fixed income families
and seniors nor deliver meaningful outcomes on
sustainability efforts. Environmental Protection
Agency figures show plastic retail bags comprise just
0.5 percent of national waste, and national studies
find the same bags account for less than one to two
percent of litter.
When compared side-by-side to its alternatives,
plastic retail bags are the most environmentally
friendly choice. In relating the life cycle impacts of
plastic to the alternatives paper and cloth bags
University of Oregon professor David Tyler observed:
"There are really good things about plastic bags
they produce less greenhouse gas, they use less
water and they use far fewer chemicals compared
to paper or cotton. The carbon footprint that
is, the amount of greenhouse gas that is produced
during the life cycle of a plastic bagis less
than that of a paper bag or a cotton tote bag. If
the most important environmental impact you
wanted to alleviate was global warming, then you
would go with plastic."
Across the country, several states and cities have
decided against implementing taxes and bans on plastic
grocery bags because of the burden on the public and
lack of environmental benefits. When Denver, CO
explored, and ultimately rejected, a bag ordinance in
2013, the city's Office of Sustainability concluded,
"Single-use bags of all types constitute well under
one percent of all waste delivered to landfills? There
are no substantiated claims that a bag fee will result
in entirely eliminating even this tiny fraction of
waste sent to landfills? Concluding that a bag fee
will make a substantial dent in waste going to
landfills is misguided." Likewise, voters in Durango,
CO overturned a 10-cent bag fee in 2013, and in 2014,
the Fort Collins, CO City Council repealed their local
fee.
In Austin, TX, and Thurston County, WA, respectively, bag
laws actually led to more landfill waste from reusable bags
and doubled the use of paper bags that use more resources.
MR. SEACOLM spoke to studies in Denmark comparing plastic and
cotton bags, which found that cotton bags have to be used 7,100
times to offset the impact of all environmental indicators.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked about the bags described in the
Denmark study.
4:34:28 PM
MR. SEAHOLM said the plastic used in Europe is low-density
polyethylene and that is what was studied.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked whether the bags were light 4
milligram bags.
MR. SEAHOLM answered a variety of bag thicknesses are used.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON spoke to the effects of plastic bags in
caribou and reindeer stomachs. He asked what the solution is.
MR. SEAHOLM answered there are other alternatives. He said
recycling is a big part of it. He spoke to reuse. He said a
Quebec study found that 77.7 percent of bags are reused. He
said some of that is for garbage or pet waste. He indicated
that the plastic bags in rivers and streams makes up less than 1
percent. He said some communities found that bans lead to an
increase in litter and waste.
4:38:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked about technologies that can aid
degrading of plastics.
MR. SEAHOLM answered there not a biodegradable option. He
stated that paper takes as long to break down as a plastic bag
would.
4:39:44 PM
KAREN PERRY testified in opposition to HB 264. She expressed
her strong opposition to HB 264.
4:40:49 PM
CAROL MONTGOMERY, Matsu Zero Waste Coalition, testified in the
hearing on HB 264. She gave an update on her organization's
activity since her previous testimony. She said plastic bags
are harmful in part due to their light weight which causes them
to "fly all over." She encouraged statewide action.
CHAIR KITO closed public testimony.
CHAIR KITO held over HB 264.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB262 Amendment J.1.pdf |
HL&C 4/4/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 262 |
| HB264 Supporting Document - Soldotna Resolution.pdf |
HL&C 4/4/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 264 |
| HB264 Opposition Letters 3.10.18.pdf |
HL&C 4/4/2018 3:15:00 PM |
HB 264 |
| SB125 Supporting Document-Letter from DEC Div. of Air Quality (Mar. 21, 2018).pdf |
HL&C 4/4/2018 3:15:00 PM |
SB 125 |