Legislature(2025 - 2026)BUTROVICH 205
02/17/2025 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 | |
| SB47 | |
| SB29 | |
| SB30 | |
| SB61 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 47 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 61 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 61-ELECTRONIC DEVICE RECYCLING
4:25:41 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of 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."
4:26:10 PM
LOUIE FLORA, Staff, Senator Löki Tobin, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented SB 61 on behalf of the
sponsor. He paraphrased the sponsor statement:
[Original punctuation provided.]
SB 61
Sponsor Statement
Senate Bill 61 creates a manufacturer-funded system
for collecting and recycling electronic devices. Flat-
screen televisions, computer monitors, and other
electronic devices have grown integral to modern life,
business, and education. With ever more devices, there
is a growing problem of electronic waste in Alaska.
4:27:01 PM
MR. FLORA continued to paraphrase the sponsor statement for SB
61:
SB 61 introduces the practice of product stewardship
for electronic devices sold in Alaska. Product
stewardship is where the manufacturer of an electronic
device assumes financial responsibility on a life-
cycle basis for that device. Manufacturers allocate
funding to cover collection and recycling activities.
These costs are currently borne by communities, non-
profit organizations, Tribes, and businesses.
Electronic waste associated with human health risks
includes lead used in the cathode ray tubes found in
computer and TV screens, cadmium used in rechargeable
computer batteries, contacts and switches, and mercury
used in the liquid crystal displays of mobile phones
and flat screen computer monitors as well as in
switches, batteries, and fluorescent lamps. These
components are especially problematic in rural Alaska
where community landfills are often unlined, allowing
harmful chemicals to be released into local waters.
Landfill fires that include electronic devices can
cause smoke inhalation hazards in communities.
4:27:13 PM
MR. FLORA continued to paraphrase the sponsor statement for SB
61:
If SB 61 passes, Alaska will join half the states in
the nation, Canada, and many other countries in having
a product stewardship law. Under SB 61 a manufacturer
offering electronic devices covered under this bill
for sale in Alaska would register with the Department
of Environmental Conservation and allocate funding for
the collection and recycling of devices proportional
to the volume of their sales. Manufacturers would
register individually or join a clearinghouse that
specializes in implementing these programs and
dividing the costs of the program among manufacturers.
This will create a funding stream to cover the costs
of collection, transportation and recycling which is
currently funded by a mix of grants and local tax
revenue.
SB 61 was developed by the Alaska Solid Waste Task
Force. Stakeholders in the task force include the
Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation, Kawerak
Incorporated, and Zender Environmental. A product
stewardship policy for electronic devices is 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.
4:28:10 PM
SENATOR HUGHES quoted from a letter by the Consumer Technology
Association saying SB 61 "would establish the broadest, most
cumbersome and likely most costly electronics recycling program
in the US". She asked whether SB 61 included requirements that
were not present in other states and Canada with similar
legislation.
4:28:43 PM
MR. FLORA said the concept and language of SB 61 was drafted
looking at the requirements in the other states that have it in
place, and picking the model that looked like it would be the
best application for our unique circumstances in Alaska. He
acknowledged receipt of the recent letter and a similar letter
last year from the Consumer Technology Association and said
there were points raised that would be addressed in a future
committee substitute for SB 61, for example the recommendation
that microwave ovens were not appropriate for this program. He
highlighted that Senate Bill 61 would establish an advisory
group to consider plans submitted by manufacturers and make
recommendations. He said the advisory committee included two
seats for manufacturers and retailers, allowing them the
opportunity to have a voice in the process of creating the
program.
4:29:56 PM
SENATOR HUGHES said that while she desired proper recycling, she
was concerned about the impact [of SB 61] on Alaskans. She said
a small state like Alaska with its population of less than three
quarters of a million risked losing manufacturing businesses by
telling them what to do. She said if our little state tells
developers and innovators what they must do, big companies like
Microsoft will pull out negatively impacting Alaska.
4:31:08 PM
SENATOR MYERS concurred and added that a lot of people in Alaska
buy things online. He said a lot of stuff comes from not only
outside the state, but outside the country. He asked how the
state would hold manufacturers feet to the fire when items are
not being sold at a brick-and-mortar store in-state.
4:31:47 PM
MR. FLORA answered that SB 61 would require any manufacturer
selling product in Alaska to register with the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC). They would register their
product by weight so DEC can determine the proportional amount
that they would pay as a registration fee. He said [DEC] would
establish protocols for the products coming into Alaska,
regardless of where it's coming from. The advisory group would
also be reviewing DECs plan as well. He said the 13-member
advisory group with industry experts from across the state would
bring their experience from the rural communities of what
products had been put into landfills or collection sites. He
acknowledged that it might take a couple years to really get a
handle on the amount, but that would be handled through the
advisory committee process.
MR. FLORA said there were three subject matter experts with
experience across the country available online to fill in
blanks.
4:33:14 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR described a scenario in which a manufacturer
abroad does not intend to sell in the Alaska market, but their
product reaches the state through Amazon or another online
platform or a secondary market like Ebay. He asked what the
manufacturers' proactive duty would be and what power the state
would have to track down [manufacturers] across state lines or
across international lines.
4:34:08 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked Mr. Flora to identify the invited experts.
MR. FLORA said Lelande Rehard was a former consultant to the
Product Stewardship Institute. He deferred Senator Dunbar's
question to Mr. Rehard.
4:34:39 PM
LELANDE REHARD, Environmental Program Coordinator, City of
Columbia, Columbia, Missouri, said the product stewardship
approach has been used in many states and [those states]
certainly address the issue of products being sold across state
lines and online. He said manufacturers register within the
state, typically through an organization that helps them meet
their obligations and operate the program. That organization
assists with the division of the cost of the program, either
based on the amount of projected sales going into a given
marketplace or on the actual weight of the material being
collected, or some formula that combines both. He said
ultimately, [the manufacturers] develop a fee schedule allowing
them to sell products within the state.
MR. REHARD suggested Mr. Klag might speak to enforcement issues
for retail sales and online sales.
4:35:57 PM
SCOTT KLAG, Consultant, Product Stewardship Institute, Portland,
Oregon said there was a tested definition for manufacturer in SB
61 using the same language used in many other states'
[legislation], not just for electronics, but for other products.
He said this allowed manufacturers to determine who was the
responsible party to fulfill the obligations set in legislation.
He said it was in the manufacturers' interest to have all the
manufacturers that are selling in the state be part of the
program and sharing the cost. He noted there were national
entities, service providers, that help manufacturers meet their
obligations in response to the variety of stewardship laws
across the country.
4:37:54 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR suggested that large companies or more
sophisticated manufacturers would join this coalition and work
with this council, but he questioned whether every manufacturer
across the whole world would join, or even know they're required
to join. He suggested that smaller manufacturers may not realize
they have this new duty and or realize their products are being
sold in Alaska.
4:38:49 PM
MR. KLAG said it was quite common knowledge at this point,
particularly in the western part of the states [that these laws
exist]. He said there may be very low volume manufacturers that
slip through, but that most manufacturers know about these
programs and join up. He said [the manufacturers] have very
active trade organizations that help distribute this
information.
4:38:53 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL noted there may be an amendment from Senator
Dunbar and she asked Mr. Flora whether he intended to propose a
committee substitute.
4:40:06 PM
MR. FLORA said the sponsor could assist with amendments as
needed.
4:40:16 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked whether the amendment Senator Dunbar offered
could be merged with other amendments or a committee substitute.
4:40:24 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR said it was his understanding that his amendment
may not be compatible with the committee substitute, but he said
he could wait to offer his amendment after the committee
substitute was offered.
4:40:42 PM
MR. FLORA suggested that he could work with Senator Dunbar on
the amendment.
4:40:57 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR concurred.
4:41:12 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL opened public testimony on SB 61.
4:42:35 PM
KATIE REILLY, Vice President, Environmental Affairs and Industry
Sustainability, Consumer Technology Association (CTA),
Washington, DC, said CTAs members were the manufacturers that
would be responsible for delivering an electronic product
stewardship program in Alaska under SB 61. She said the industry
was committed to ensuring their products were recycled safely
and responsibly, but that SB 61 would place a significant burden
on electronics manufacturers. She expressed concern about the
requirements outlined in SB 61, and about the capacity for the
current electronics collection infrastructure within Alaska to
safely collect and manage electronics in an environmentally
responsible manner. She asserted that manufacturers would bear
the responsibility and high cost of establishing infrastructure
from scratch.
4:43:52 PM
MS. REILLY observed programs developed in other states for which
manufacturers leveraged existing collection infrastructure with
entities like local governments and nonprofits that already knew
how to safely sort, stack, palletize and shrink-wrap electronics
for transport. She said annual collection events as described in
SB 61 for every community with less than 5500 people,
potentially 200 or more collection events throughout the state,
may lead to skyrocketing costs for manufacturers, and may be
beyond the needs to effectively and efficiently serve the
communities of Alaska.
4:44:33 PM
MS. REILLY noted that, contrary to prior comments, typically in
the US, individual manufacturers kept costs manageable by
dictating their own programs, independently or as small groups,
versus establishing a producer responsibility organization. She
said the language of SB 61 would require producers to
participate in a producer responsibility organization,
increasing overhead or increasing costs for manufacturers.
4:45:12 PM
MS. REILLY further noted requirements in SB 61 for retailers to
provide public education information, and she objected to the
inclusion of microwave ovens as covered electronic devices as
well as undefined battery-containing electronics, possibly toys
or small appliances which she said were incompatible with
electronics recycling systems.
MS. REILLY said CTA would be willing to participate in
discussions about the inclusion of e-waste in the overall
recycling and solid waste management in Alaska. She emphasized
that CTA members were not consulted prior to the introduction of
SB 61 but would be responsible for the requirements outlined in
the bill, even if they held a seat on the advisory committee.
4:45:58 PM
MS. REILLY said CTA recommended a study by DEC to determine:
• the amount of household generated e-waste in Alaska
• where E-waste was being generated in the state
• the existing collection infrastructure and capabilities
throughout Alaska to responsibly manage e-waste
MS. REILLY said CTAs overall concern was that SB 61 would add
considerable costs to doing business in Alaska. She asserted
that manufacturers should not bear the entire cost of
establishing a very broad and potentially cumbersome
infrastructure to manage e-waste from scratch. She offered to
answer questions from the committee.
4:46:39 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR referred to product stewardship programs in other
parts of the US and asked whether CTA had supported any of those
programs in the past or if they opposed them. He asked if there
was a program CTA would point to as a model for effective
disposal and recycling of e-waste. He highlighted the challenges
faced by rural communities regarding the removal of e-waste.
4:47:34 PM
MS. REILLY observed that CTA's member companies were legally
obligated to support collection and recycling in states that
have producer responsibility programs for electronics. In
addition, she said many member manufacturers also support
voluntary programs for their consumers in the other states
around the country that may not have mandated producer
responsibility programs for electronics. She said CTA had been
active in the development of e-waste producer responsibility
programs for decades. She said they were currently more focused
on tailoring performance programs to the communities they're
trying to serve.
4:48:43 PM
MS. REILLY said she did not have a great program or state to
point to [as a model] for the fact that Alaska is unique. She
reiterated that CTA members would be required under SB 61 to
provide once a year collection events for every community with
less than 5500 people, more than 200 collection events
throughout the state of Alaska in a year. Those would be in
addition to required collections for communities larger than
5500. She said collection events were extremely costly to
operate and did not necessarily drive the desired volumes of
material.
4:49:39 PM
MS. REILLY repeated the recommendation that DEC conduct a study
to determine the current e-waste conditions in Alaska which
would allow CTA to assist in building a better plan specific to
the needs of Alaska.
4:50:03 PM
MS. REILLY said Hawaii was probably the most comparable in terms
of the transportation component of the program and not having
certified electronics recycling facilities in the state. She
said e-waste in Hawaii was collected and transported via water
to the US mainland for recycling at certified electronics
recycling facilities. She emphasized that the program had the
highest per pound cost to manufacturers [of existing programs],
but that the high cost did not include stringent convenience
requirements like those outlined in Alaska's proposal, nor the
multitude of collection events [specified by SB 61]. She noted
that when Hawaii's law was passed, there was an existing e-waste
collection infrastructure that manufacturers were able to
leverage. She said CTA was unclear about existing collection
infrastructure in [Alaska], and whether communities were trained
on how to sort and stack and palletize and shrink wrap
electronics for safe transport to ultimate recycling.
4:51:19 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked whether CTA supported Hawaii's adoption and
continuation of e-waste management law. He asked which state's
mandatory program worked best, regardless of comparability to
Alaska.
4:51:46 PM
MS. REILLY said she was not employed by CTA when Hawaii passed
their law and was not aware of CTA's support or opposition to
Hawaii's e-waste law. She said CTA was currently working with
Hawaii's Department of Health to reform Hawaii's program to
better meet the needs of Hawaii consumers and to meet
manufacturers' legal obligations. She said there was not an
example of an ideal state program. She said each state was
unique with unique needs and suggested developing a program for
Alaska's needs as a better approach than trying to adapt another
program to fit Alaska's needs.
4:53:08 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked whether CTA worked in other countries,
for example, Canada. He noted that there were similar programs
in the [European Union] EU.
4:53:26 PM
MS. REILLY said CTA was a US trade association. She said CTA did
some work in Canada, but not in the environmental space. She
said there was a trade association in Canada that handled
environmental issues for the industry. She said CTA did not do
advocacy or work in Canada or the European Union on issues like
extended producer responsibility for electronics.
4:54:06 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL noted the high costs of selling and recycling
[electronic] products. She asked Mr. Rehard whether
manufacturers would decide not to sell products in Alaska.
4:54:34 PM
MR. REHARD said he had not seen that occur. He said that it was
possible that per capita or per pound [e-waste] disposal may be
more expensive due to Alaska's unique considerations. He
observed that the state population was about 738,000 and said he
expected waste generation would be fairly low after the first
few years of implementation. He hesitated to speculate about the
overall costs of the program and whether it would be a detriment
to manufacturers, noting that the costs would be distributed
amongst other programs nationally. He argued that manufacturers
would not attach their costs directly to selling in Alaska. He
suggested that Mr. Klag may have experience with manufacturers
pulling out of marketplaces because of these programs.
4:55:42 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL invited Mr. Klag to comment.
4:56:03 PM
MR. KLAG said he had not experienced that. He noted that there
is good infrastructure in Alaska: the back-haul program and
communities that were already collecting e-waste. He
acknowledged the low population and the absence of a formal
process [for e-waste disposal] but suggested that a program such
as the one proposed by SB 61 might inspire a producer
responsibility organization to form.
4:56:52 PM
SENATOR MYERS noted that there was at least one business in
Tacoma willing to forward products that other producers will not
ship directly to Alaska.
4:57:31 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL held SB 61 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 2.17.25 SB 47 (S)RES Presentation.pdf |
SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 47 |
| 2.17.25 SB 47 Fiscal Note.pdf |
SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 47 |
| 2.17.25 SB 47 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 47 |
| 2.17.25 SB 47 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 47 |
| 2.17.25 SB 47 Supporting Map.pdf |
SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 47 |
| 2.17.25 SB 47, Version A.pdf |
SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 47 |
| 2.17.25 State Parks Facebook Post Canyon Road.pdf |
SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
|
| SB 47 Amendment A.1.pdf |
SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 47 |
| SB 47 Public Testimony.pdf |
SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 47 |
| SB 29 BGCSB Audit 06.22.23.pdf |
SFIN 4/1/2025 9:00:00 AM SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Fiscal Note.pdf |
SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Sectional Analysis Version A.pdf |
SFIN 4/1/2025 9:00:00 AM SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Sponsor Statement Version A.pdf |
SFIN 4/1/2025 9:00:00 AM SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Version A.pdf |
SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 29 |
| (S)RES SB29 Follow-Up from DCCED-CBPL (2.10.25).pdf |
SFIN 4/1/2025 9:00:00 AM SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Public Testimony.pdf |
SFIN 4/1/2025 9:00:00 AM SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 29 |
| SB 29 Public Testimony.pdf |
SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 29 |
| SB 30 Fiscal Note.pdf |
SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 30 |
| SB 30 Summary of Changes Ver A to I.pdf |
SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 30 |
| DNR Responses to SRES re SB30 meeting on 2.3.2025.pdf |
SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 30 |
| SB 30 Ver I Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 30 |
| SB 30 Ver I Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 30 |
| SB30 ver I.pdf |
SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 30 |
| SB 30 Public Testimony.pdf |
SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 30 |
| SB 61 Bill Hearing Request.pdf |
SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Support Resolutions.pdf |
SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Supporting Document Alaska Business Magazine October 2024.pdf |
SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 v.A Fiscal Note.pdf |
SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Version A Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Version A.pdf |
SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Background Alaska Electronics Product Stewardship Summary.pdf |
SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 61 |
| SB 61 Public Testimony.pdf |
SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 61 |
| A.1.pdf |
SRES 2/17/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 61 |