Legislature(2025 - 2026)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/27/2025 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
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 | |
| SB30 | |
| SB54 | |
| SB61 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 61 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 61
"An Act relating to an electronic product stewardship
program; relating to collection, recycling, and
disposal of electronic equipment; establishing the
electronics recycling advisory council; and providing
for an effective date."
9:43:25 AM
SENATOR LOKI TOBIN, SPONSOR, conveyed that SB 61 had a very
interesting premise, and she would speak to the reason she
wanted to introduce the legislation. She discussed managing
waste, which was connected to life expectancy. She
explained that as our society had advanced and evolved,
electronic waste had become an issue, and now management of
electronic waste was a necessity. She emphasized that
without effective systems, communities burned flat screen
televisions next to schools and left fax machines on the
tundra.
Senator Tobin explained that SB 61 was developed by the
Alaska Solid Waste Task Force. She listed stakeholders as
the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation, Kawerak
Incorporated, and Zender Environmental. The bill was
supported by the Alaska Federation of Natives, the Alaska
Municipal League, the Solid Waste Association of North
America as well as numerous Alaska communities,
organizations, and businesses including the Denali
Commission.
Senator Tobin emphasized that every time a person purchased
an electronic device, they paid for another state to have a
product stewardship plan for the objects. Many states had
processes that required manufacturers to pay for recycle
processes for electronic materials. She noted that Canada,
European countries, and Hawaii had such stewardship plans.
She explained that SB 61 created a manufacturer-funded
system for collecting and recycling electronic devices such
as flat-screen televisions, computers, monitors, fax
machines, and printers.
Senator Tobin discussed hazards to communities and noted
the bill would require manufacturers to pay for what tribes
were currently paying for. Manufacturers allocated funding
from product sale revenue to cover collection and recycling
activities. The funding would support the efforts currently
underway by communities, non-profit organizations, tribes,
and businesses.
9:47:10 AM
Senator Tobin specified that under Senate Bill 61 a
manufacturer whose electronic devices are sold in Alaska
would register with the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) and pay an annual administrative fee to
the department. Manufacturers could register individually
or more commonly join a product responsibility organization
that specialized in implementing the programs and dividing
the costs of the program among manufacturers. Manufacturers
or their product responsibility organization would produce
a proposed plan, which would be reviewed and amended by a
13-member advisory council and approved by DEC.
Senator Tobin relayed that there were expert testifiers
online and available to answer questions on how the plans
were operated and how it was currently happening in Alaska.
She noted that in a previous committee of referral, changes
included removing (from electronic materials to be
recycled) microwaves, batteries containing electronics, and
FTA devices. The bill was also amended to reduce
collections sites. Additionally, the bill was amended to
allow for the advisory council to meet virtually to save on
costs. The legislation had the individual penalty removed,
which would allow individual communities to handle the
issue.
Senator Tobin thought it was important to note that the
bill helped DEC oversee the program, but there was no
involvement from the state other than approving the plans
that electronic manufactures produced. The community would
help devise the process. She emphasized that the activities
were already happening in communities, and the tribes and
non-profits were braiding together funding that was
volatile. She proposed that the bill would help create a
more sustainable practice to ensure the hazardous materials
were removed from landfills.
Senator Merrick asked how many manufacturers would be
required to register with DEC under the bill.
9:50:21 AM
LOUIE FLORA, STAFF, SENATOR LOKI TOBIN, relayed that every
producer of electronics in the state would be required to
register. He did not have a number, which would be
available upon registration.
Senator Kaufman was curious about the carve-outs, and what
was in and not in the bill. He mentioned microwaves and
considered items that could end up deteriorating at a
remote location. He mentioned electric vehicles and asked
how the bill would affect larger items that could
potentially contaminate land.
Mr. Flora relayed that there were multiple laws in
different states that covered different products. The bill
was limited to specific waste streams because it was the
first time contemplating a product stewardship law. The
sponsor had wanted to limit the bill to a specific waste
stream, because broadening the bill could potentially
involve other unforeseen constituencies that might oppose
the bill. He mentioned that the sponsor had looked at the
consideration of vapes in the future, which were a problem
at schools and municipalities. Currently the bill was
focused on electronics.
Senator Tobin added that a more detailed list of products
could be found on page 19 of the bill.
Co-Chair Stedman asked how the bill would work on islands.
He asked who would pay for the storage or sorting.
Senator Tobin relayed that the storage and sorting would be
part of a proposed plan that a manufacturer or product
stewardship organization would detail. She relayed that
there were individuals available online that were actively
working on product stewardship in Savoonga.
Chair Stedman pointed out that all communities were
different. He was concerned with who paid the cost and how
it interacted with the manufacturer and mentioned the cost
to communities.
Senator Tobin relayed that under the bill, the burden of
cost would be on the manufacturers, which would be part of
the product stewardship plan. She mentioned that other
states had been collecting resources to help with product
stewardship, and there were practices in place.
9:55:09 AM
Senator Kiehl asked if the sponsor could provide insight on
what percentage of landfills in the state had a liner.
Mr. Flora thought that under 10 percent of landfills had a
liner. He thought most class 3 facilities in rural Alaska
did not have a liner.
Senator Kiehl contemplated electronics with substances that
could seep into the water table. He asked how the bill
would work with communities that handled electronics
collection. He mentioned that currently in Juneau, it was
possible to drop electronic waste four days a week. He
mentioned the practices in other areas.
Mr. Flora relayed that the advisory council had specific
positions for the large municipal landfills and other
stakeholders. The process of creating an e-recycling plan
would consider ongoing efforts and were required to fund
ongoing efforts to the greatest degree possible.
Senator Tobin pointed out that member's packets included a
presentation from the Solid Waste Alaska Task Force, which
provided some additional detail on current efforts (copy on
file). She noted that about 70 percent of communities had
some level of e-waste recycling. She hoped the entire state
would have access to the program.
Senator Kaufman considered the list and had more questions.
He asked if the list of e-waste would include all kitchen
appliances. He asked about dishwashers that had
electronics, and whether the items were included.
Senator Tobin thought stakeholders could answer Senator
Kaufman's question. She thought some of the items Senator
Kaufman mentioned such as refrigerators needed experts to
remove harmful aspects before they could be successfully
recycled. Under the legislation, it might be more
complicated than simply removing the items from unlined
landfills.
9:59:17 AM
REILLY KOSINSKI, ZENDER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND RESEARCH
GROUP (via teleconference), relayed that he was a member of
the Solid Waste Alaska Taskforce (SWAT). He spoke from
written remarks:
•Personally, I live in Haines and work for Zender
Environmental as a Statewide Coordinator for the
Backhaul Alaska Program
Backhaul Alaska
•Backhaul Alaska is a SWAT initiative that is
administered by Zender Environmental.
•It's a Program that aims to help all Alaskan
communities effectively and affordably backhaul hard-
to-manage or potentially hazardous waste-streams that
should be diverted from landfills especially rural
landfills
•Ewaste is one of the materials our Program
prioritizes, and I hope to provide a brief background
regarding Alaska's current ewaste recycling efforts
and existing infrastructure.
•Currently new electronics have little issue getting
into communities - there is a very robust
infrastructure in place for delivering products
throughout the state.
•So, in short the transportation infrastructure for
recycling is already there It's a matter of managing
the logistics in reverse.
•Our Backhaul Alaska Program has been doing just this
using existing shipping routes to facilitate more
efficient backhaul of wastes & recyclables, including
ewaste.
Alaskan Communities Recycling Ewaste
•Our Program has either fully or partially funded
backhaul & recycling shipments covering roughly 100
different communities since 2018.
•It should be noted that we're doing this for not just
ewaste, but other hard-to-manage waste streams such as
lead acid batteries, tires, mercury containing
products, and appliances.
•Plus, we are performing a lot of the operational
aspects ask of the manufacturers in this bill.
•We're just 1 of multiple organizations that have been
backhauling ewaste on a local and regional level.
•Some of the other organizations supporting regional
efforts include:
oKawerak in Nome serves 16 Bering Strait
communities
oManiilaq in Kotzebue
oBBAHC serving Dillingham & Bristol Bay
Communities
oA collaboration AVCP, Donlin Gold, and Delta
Backhaul in Bethel
oCook Inlet Keeper in the Kenai Borough
oKANA in Kodiak serving island-wide
oPOW Island
oCRNA in Glennallen serving the Copper River
Valley
oGreen Star of Interior Alaska serving Interior
communities
•These organizations actively coordinate with outlying
communities within their region to bring ewaste into
hubs for subsequent repackaging and shipment to
recyclers.
•For our part, we try to partner with these regional
organizations where we can and leverage funds to help
support their efforts.
•Also, there are plenty of communities that
individually manage ewaste for recycling
•Further, there are established recycling companies in
Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Kodiak that accept ewaste.
•By our count, at least 70% of communities already,
ohave been recycling ewaste within the last 5
years
oHave access to established ewaste recycling
services, or
oHave access to ewaste collection events
•I'd say this is a conservative estimate. I don't have
full knowledge of every community & region's efforts,
but these are the ones that we're aware of.
•But all these current programs and efforts goes to
show how important diverting ewaste from landfills is
to communities throughout the state.
Not starting from scratch
•This bill would not require anything to be built from
scratch, no studies are needed it would be building
off of 20+ years of development and refinement
•There are many Alaskan entities with experience that
would gladly partner, leverage, and contribute to the
development an efficient statewide program.
•Importantly, SB61 will allow for a formalized process
and provide a solid foundation to build around.
•Instead of multiple fractured efforts, we can have
single program to coordinate ewaste recycling on a
statewide level.
Need for stable, long-term funding
•Proud of our work, but our funding is limited.
•Backhaul Alaska is predominately federally grant
funded
•Our main source funding will run out the end-of-
summer this year,
•We have additional funding sources that can help
cover maybe the next year or 2, but our Program will
likely have to scale-back significantly if renewed
funding is not available.
•There is a lot of uncertainty around the continued
availability of federal grants used to operate our
Program and others.
•This uncertainty is a barrier to long-term planning
and capacity building.
•We cannot effectively plan or invest resources beyond
a year or 2 because it's uncertain if we'll be able to
providing the same level of service we're currently
offering.
•SB61 would establish that stable, long-term funding
needed for managing ewaste on a statewide level.
hank you, I'm available for any questions
Mr. Kosinski explained that the funding for his program was
limited. He discussed funding sources from federal funds
and grants and felt there was much uncertainty. He
discussed the challenge of working on long-term plans
without long term funding.
10:04:32 AM
SCOTT KLAG, PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP INSTITUTE (via
teleconference), explained that the Product Stewardship
Institute was a national policy organization that had been
working on product stewardship programs across the states.
The institute had been working with the development of
electronic stewardship programs since the year 2000. He
discussed his background working in waste and recycling
laws. He explained that stewardship programs were an
approach that required producers and manufacturers to share
in the management of the end-of-life of products. Programs
included coverage of leftover paint, batteries, mattresses,
and pharmaceuticals. Recently several states had passed
laws covering packaging.
Mr. Klag relayed that the bill would set out what products
were covered, and what obligations the manufacturers would
have. He discussed the importance of designing a program to
build on existing private and public infrastructure. He
cited that 24 states had passed legislation covering
electronics and millions of pounds of the materials had
been diverted.
Mr. Klag continued and noted that Oregon had recently
updated its law and expanded the scope of products
included, similar to what was proposed in the bill. He
thought the bill addressed important elements for an
effective law that was designed in collaboration with
stakeholders. He thought the bill would provide sustainable
financing, which was a crucial element.
10:08:00 AM
DR. LYNN ZENDER, ZENDER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND RESEARCH
GROUP (via teleconference), relayed that she had a
doctorate in civil engineering. She thought the bill had
been carefully vetted. She discussed tightening budgets.
She referenced state programs in Hawaii, Maine, and
Washington. She mentioned speaking to stakeholder groups.
and discussed forming an advisory group. She mentioned
feedback sessions to tribal and urban groups.
Dr. Zender mentioned the health benefits of the bill, and
noted that electronics contained lead, cadmium, flame
retardants, and PFAS, which caused a myriad of health
problems. She described rural landfills with no liners,
which allowed leaching into nearby water sources. She cited
that in one rural Alaska study, there were health effects
linked to proximity to the dump. There were correlations of
hazardous waste and birth defects. She discussed the
proximity of landfills to villages and discussed water
sources and contamination. Electronics and batteries made
up the bulk of hazardous waste in rural Alaska. She
discussed the limitation of landfill liners. She discussed
potential cuts to federal funds.
10:12:30 AM
Dr. Zender referenced an opposition letter from the
Consumer Technology Association (CTA) (copy on file), to
which her organization had responded with a letter
addressing counterpoints to the arguments presented (copy
on file). She thought the letter from CTA was inaccurate
and presented wrong information. She thought product
stewardship programs were a market-based approach.
10:14:00 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman OPENED public testimony.
10:14:26 AM
KATIE CAPOZZI, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ALASKA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
spoke in opposition to the bill. She relayed that while the
chamber supported responsible recycling efforts and
environmental stewardship, it thought that the bill placed
an unachievable and costly burden on manufacturers, which
would ultimately negatively impact Alaskan consumers and
businesses. She thought the bill would establish one of the
most costly and burdensome programs in the nation, while
not taking into account the state's unique logistical and
infrastructure challenges. She thought the state lacked the
infrastructure to support the bill. She contended that the
bill's inclusion of all batteries contained in electronics
proposed to expand the existing system beyond what it could
handle. She thought the bill asked manufacturers to create
a program from scratch and would pass costs on to
consumers. She encouraged future dialog and collaboration
with stakeholders.
Senator Merrick asked if the changes to the bill in the
Senate Resources Committee made the bill more palatable to
the Alaska Chamber.
Ms. Capozzi thought there were improvements made in the
committee, but the chamber still could not support the
bill.
10:17:40 AM
LORENE ANELON, ILIAMNA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. She
relayed that she spoke on behalf of the village of Iliamna
and the corporation. She discussed the expense of
recycling. She discussed challenges with maintaining a
clean environment in the village. She discussed handling of
e-waste and tires. She thought the bill would improve
community clean-up and would prevent harmful chemicals from
impacting the subsistence lifestyle. She thought the bill
would help rural communities.
10:19:40 AM
KATIE REILLY, VICE PRESIDENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS,
CONSUMER TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA (via
teleconference), spoke in opposition to the bill. She
relayed that her association's members would be responsible
for paying for and delivering on an electronic product
stewardship program in the state. She suggested that the
proposal in the bill would place a significant burden on
electronics manufacturers. She cited that there had not
been a new e-waste program passed since 2014, and cited
that electronics were the fastest declining product waste
stream in the country.
Ms. Reilly expressed concern about the provisions proposed
in the bill. She thought there was no clear data on
electronic data generation across the state. She was
concerned about significant costs for manufacturers. She
discussed a requirement for a collection event required for
communities with less than 5,500 people, which would result
in over 200 expensive collection events. She discussed the
potential for skyrocketing costs. She pondered where and
how much e-waste was being generated. She referenced CTA's
written testimony (copy on file). She highlighted a fiscal
note from the Department of Environmental Conservation. She
mentioned that CTA's overall concern with the bill was the
addition of considerable costs for doing business in the
state, while being structured beyond what was needed to
meet the need.
10:23:13 AM
FALLON GLEASON, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. She worked in
environmental health in Bristol Bay and had assisted
numerous villages with e-waste. She thought recycling e-
waste was imperative. She discussed federal funding used by
tribes to recycle e-waste, and the potential for using the
funds for other matters related to health. She stressed
that e-waste created a burden for small rural communities.
10:24:42 AM
VANESSA TAHBONE, SELF, NOME (via teleconference), spoke in
support of SB 61. She worked for Kawerak, a regional non-
profit, as an environmental project coordinator. She was a
regional coordinator for the Back-haul Alaska Program. She
had worked to get electronics out of landfills in rural
communities. She noted that there were already storage and
shipping routes in place. She conveyed that electronic
recycling had already been happening in her region for over
a decade. She was an avid subsistence hunter and gatherer
and discussed chemical pollution on the land. She
emphasized that there was existing infrastructure.
10:27:25 AM
ENISHA ELBIH, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. She was a resident of
South Naknek and was speaking on behalf of the tribe. She
noted that her community had a class 3 unlined landfill,
which meant pollutants could leach into the land and air.
It was her community's first year shipping out e-waste. She
mentioned the uncertainty of future funding and thought the
cost of shipping should be on the manufacturer.
10:29:12 AM
BENNY PISCOYA, KAWERAK INC., NOME (via teleconference),
spoke in support of the bill. He relayed that he was a
Native man, and he had participated in hunting and fishing.
He had learned from his grandfather to "pack it in, pack it
out," which he thought should apply to e-waste.
10:29:52 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman CLOSED public testimony.
10:29:59 AM
Senator Kiehl addressed a new fiscal note from the
Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of
Environmental Health, OMB Component 3202. For FY 26, the
department estimated there would be a cost of $499,600 of
UGF, and two full-time positions. The number stabilized in
FY 28, with a cost of $420,700. In FY 29, the fund source
switched from UGF to General Fund program receipts and
remained level going forward.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked the sponsor if she wanted to offer
closing comments.
Senator Tobin emphasized that currently 70 percent of
Alaskan communities had an e-waste recycling program paid
for by Alaskans through grants, community contributions,
and tribal dollars. The bill did not create a statewide
recycling program but instead established a statewide
electronic stewardship plan. She clarified that although
the initial costs would be paid by UGF, the annual fees
would eventually be paid for by the manufacturer fee
associated with registration with a digital stewardship
program. The costs would be backfilled. She mentioned
potentially making a longer time horizon for implementing
the program, to ensure the state was able to recoup the
costs. The actual costs incurred by establishment of a
stewardship plan would be paid for by manufacturers on a
service charge that people already paid. She emphasized
that people were already paying for e-recycling for other
states, in Canadian provinces, and in Europe. The bill
proposed to continue the existing program, but paid for by
manufacturers. She looked forward to stakeholders
contacting her office for dialogue.
Co-Chair Hoffman thanked the sponsor.
SB 61 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Hoffman noted that the deadline for amendments to
SB 30, SB 54, and SB 61 was set for Tuesday, April 8 at 5
o'clock p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 54 Legislative Legal Memo 1.5.2025 - Copy.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/11/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 Sponsor Statement Version G 3.18.2025 - Copy.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/11/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 Sectional Analysis Version G 3.18.2025 - Copy.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/11/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 Supporting Document- Letter-ENSTAR 02.26.25 - Copy.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 Supporting Document- Letters (Combined) - Copy.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/11/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 Supporting Document-ASID Report 03.09.2023 - Copy.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/11/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 Supporting Document-Sunset Review of AELS Board 04.07.2024 - Copy.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/11/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 Supporting Document-USACE Contract Opportunity 01.31.2024 - Copy.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/11/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 AIA AK Position on 2.3.25.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/11/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 Please Pass - Extend AELS Board; Register Interior Designers.msg |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/11/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 IIDA NPC Testimony.msg |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/11/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 Testimony Killian.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/11/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 Benoit Testimony.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/11/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 CIDQ Letter of Support- SB 54 (SF).pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/11/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 NCARB addressing AK SB 54.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/11/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 Letter in Support_KConway_Olson.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/11/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 DCCED-CBPL-032125.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/11/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 61 (RES) Background Alaska Electronics Product Stewardship Summary.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 (RES) Background information - Denali Commission Letter for Support for Backhaul Alaska Program.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 (RES) Background Presentation Solid Waste Alaska Task Force.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 (RES) Supporting Document Alaska Business Magazine October 2024.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 (RES) Version I Explanation of Changes.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 (RES) Version I Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 (RES) Version I Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 (RES) Version I Support.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Electronics Recycling Opposition Letter SFIN 3.25.25.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 NEW DEC - EH - 02282025.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 30 Summary of Changes Ver A to Ver I.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 30 |
| SB 30 Support Document DNR Response.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 30 |
| SB 30 Supporting Document Hokenson Statement in Support.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 30 |
| SB 30 Support Document Pawlowski Testimony in Support.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 30 |
| SB 30 Ver I Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 30 |
| SB 30 Ver I Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 30 |
| SB 61 CTA_Opposition_SB61_3_26_25.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 54 Testimony Schmidt.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/11/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 Testimony Goneau.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/11/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 Testimony Fritz.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/11/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 SLC Amendments 3.26.2025.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 Testimony Wiltfong.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/11/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 Testimony Cash.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/11/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 54 APDC 2025 SB 54 Letter of Support.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM SFIN 4/11/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 54 |
| SB 61 DeWilde.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Testimony Agnus.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Testimony Breuker.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Testimony Jeffers.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Testimony Edmund.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Testimony Silas.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 City of Emmonak suppor.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Comments Addressing CTA Opposition Letter- Zender Environmental.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 SWRAC Support Letter.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 SEASWA Support Letter.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Testimony Andrew.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Testimony Nowatak.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Angoon Community Association support.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Tesimony Horner.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Testimony Kassaiuli.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Testimony IGAP Manokotak Village Council.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Testimony Snowball.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Support Adams.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Support Bower.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 support Tuntutuliak.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Support Wrangell Cooperative Association.pdf |
SFIN 3/27/2025 9:00:00 AM |
SB 61 |