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 | |
SB 175-ELECTRONIC DEVICE RECYCLING
3:50:43 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO.
175 "An Act relating to the office of management and budget; and
providing for an effective date."
3:50:53 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL opened public testimony on SB 175.
3:51:08 PM
SATCHEL PONDOLFINO, representing self, Homer, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 175. She introduced herself as the Lower Inlet
Organizer for Cook Inletkeeper, which is the only organization
on the ports that can recycle electronics. She said she works
for the community nonprofit Cook Inletkeeper and shared
information about their electronics recycling program, which has
been facilitated since 2006. She mentioned that Cook Inletkeeper
is the only organization on the Kenai Peninsula offering this
service, with the support of a few partners. The program is
limited in capacity and primarily functions as an annual event,
offering a four-hour window for residents in Soldotna, Seward,
and Homer to drop off electronics. The organization partners
with three villages across Kachemak BayPort Graham, Nanwalik,
and Seldovia to remove electronics from those communities. Since
2006, the program has diverted over 600,000 pounds of
electronics. She explained that the program's cost typically
ranges from $17,000 in a low year to $25,000 in a high year,
with most expenses tied to recycling through Central Recycling
Services in Anchorage. Despite its success and high public
participation, the program is a small-scale effort. MS.
PONDOLFINO noted that she frequently observes electronics at the
Homer transfer site due to the limited opportunities for
responsible recycling. Electronics account for 70 percent of the
toxic leachate in landfills, which poses significant challenges,
especially in rural communities with unlined landfills. She
expressed strong support for SB 175, emphasizing the need for a
stable funding source that would allow the program to expand
beyond its current annual offering. This would enable them to
hire additional staff and increase recycling opportunities. She
mentioned discussions with the Kenai Peninsula Borough's
landfill and solid waste departments, which have indicated they
lack the capacity to run such a program independently but would
be open to partnership if funding became available. She offered
to answer questions about the program's logistics, which rely
heavily on volunteer support and partnerships with six
transportation entities. She stressed the importance of the
program for protecting small landfills and preserving Alaska's
precious water resources.
3:54:07 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked about concerns raised in written
testimony from the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), based
in Virginia. He explained that their primary concern revolves
around the potential additional expense associated with the
proposed legislation. He inquired whether the cost, particularly
in remote areas, would be significant and asked for comments or
clarification on the matter.
3:54:42 PM
MS. PONDOLFINO said she had not read the testimony from the
Consumer Technology Association and was unsure about the
specific expenses they were referencing. However, she clarified
that a significant portion of their expensesat least $10,000
goes directly to Central Recycling Services in Anchorage, which
handles the backhauling of electronics to Vancouver, Washington,
for processing. She acknowledged that small villages would
indeed have transportation costs, but they have worked with
generous transportation companies, such as Weaver Brothers and
Tote, who contribute to the program as part of their charitable
efforts. She emphasized that the proposed legislation offers a
new funding stream that could help create an economy of scale.
This would allow them to collaborate more effectively with
transportation agencies and recycling services, potentially
leading to better pricing and expanded services.
3:55:50 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked for clarification regarding the backhaul
process, noting that the concerns raised in testimony about
additional expenses were not very specific. He requested more
information on how backhaul works and asked about the
opportunities for backhaul when a barge arrives, unloads cargo,
and has an empty barge for return.
3:56:17 PM
MS. PONDOLFINO deferred to Mr. Flora for more detailed
information on backhaul logistics. She explained that Cook
Inletkeeper manages all the logistics from the southern Kenai
Peninsula to Anchorage, but from that point, Central Recycling
Services, an important partner, handles the backhauling process.
She suggested reaching out to Central Recycling Services for
additional insights on this topic. Other agencies, including
those in Nome, have been conducting extensive research on
backhaul opportunities.
3:58:10 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked whether Missouri has a similar program in
place.
3:58:15 PM
MR. REHARD replied that the program in Missouri is not as robust
as the one being proposed in Alaska. He noted that it is similar
to programs in Washington, Oregon, Illinois, Maine, and other
states.
3:58:57 PM
KAYLA BOURDON, representing self, Nome, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 175. Kawerak Inc. She expressed support for SB 175
and noted that many landfills in Alaska are unlined,
understaffed, and some are unlicensed. She explained that e-
waste can be particularly problematic in these conditions as it
leaches harmful chemicals into unlined landfills, which can then
contaminate subsistence resources and local water sources.
Borgan pointed out the health risks, including cancer,
associated with these conditions. She emphasized that passing
the bill would provide rural communities with better
opportunities to manage e-waste, improving landfill conditions
and overall environmental and community health.
4:01:21 PM
LYNN ZENDER, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 175. She introduced herself as a resident of
Anchorage and director of a small business focused on rural
waste issues, water quality, and job training. She said she
holds a PhD in Civil and Environmental Engineering and
emphasized that approximately 85% of rural Alaska communities
burn their waste due to cost constraints, which is the most
practical way to manage their landfills. Many of these
communities cannot afford to operate an electronics backhaul
program, leading to rapid accumulation of e-waste. As a result,
e-waste is often burned in dump fires or burn boxes, releasing
harmful lead into the environment. She noted that electronics
are a major source of lead in rural Alaskan waste streams.
Statistics demonstrate that three-quarters of landfills are
within one mile of communities, with a quarter being less than
1,200 feet from homes. About half of these communities
experience regular exposure to burning smoke, with 15 to 20%
smelling smoke most days of the week. This exposure poses severe
health risks, particularly to children, who have no safe blood
levels for lead. Lead exposure contributes to high rates of
cardiovascular disease, especially among Alaska Natives, with a
life expectancy for an Alaska Native male baby born today being
similar to countries with low life expectancies like Haiti,
Ghana, and Afghanistan. SB 175 would offer a viable solution for
managing e-waste in rural Alaska and provide benefits for urban
areas as well, especially for poor families, small businesses,
and schools. Bender noted that urban landfills also face issues
as they fail after their design life, with many becoming
Superfund sites. She pointed out that lead should not be added
to these landfills when a solution already exists in other
states and countries. She mentioned that she has a closet of old
electronics that would cost her about $200 in recycling fees.
She can afford this but understands that many residents in
Anchorage cannot. Without a local recycling depot, accessing
recycling services is difficult, and many cannot afford the fees
or the time to drive across town. She stressed that local depots
could provide jobs and that businesses like hers, which manage
multiple devices, have to allocate significant funds for
recycling, which could be better used elsewhere. She expressed
support for SB 175 and the positive impact it could have on both
rural and urban communities.
4:04:54 PM
BENNY PISCOYA, representing self, Nome, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 175. He introduced himself as an Alaska Native
assistant hunter and shared a principle he was taught: "Pack it
in, pack it out," which he applied to e-waste management. He
explained that in Nome, where he lives, there are 13 surrounding
villages. He said the company he works for arranged for Bearing
Air to donate e-waste, which is brought back to Nome, repaired,
and then sent out. SB 175 would provide valuable funding for the
surrounding villages of Nome, supporting their e-waste
management efforts.
4:05:38 PM
DENISE OLIN, representing self, Nome, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 175. She introduced herself as a resident of Nome
who grew up in Wales, a community outside of Nome. She expressed
personal concern about recent studies on microplastics found in
marine mammals, highlighting that 32 out of 33 animals examined
had plastic in their stomachs. This raises serious concerns
about the impact of e-waste that has not been properly managed
or hauled out of communities in her area. Owen emphasized the
need to hold accountable those responsible for creating products
that contribute to e-waste. She noted that hazardous materials
like lead and mercury from e-waste can leach into land and water
sources, which poses a severe threat, especially for those who
rely on natural resources for their subsistence.
4:07:11 PM
KARLA JENSEN, representing self, Pedro Bay, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 175. She introduced herself as a tribal member
from the village of Pedro Bay and an employee of Zender
Environmental. She highlighted the significant increase in
electronic devices in rural villages and the corresponding rise
in electronic waste. Once no longer functional, electronic waste
often ends up in landfills, which are typically unlined in her
community. The waste is usually transported by barge or air, but
high transportation costs can delay shipments, causing e-waste
to sit and potentially leak harmful chemicals into the
watershed. She emphasized the importance of protecting water
resources, stating that SB 175 would greatly benefit Alaska by
addressing these issues. She pointed out that similar programs
are already in place in many states and countries and urged the
committee to consider the bill carefully to help manage Alaska's
growing e-waste problem.
4:09:16 PM
ALLY PECK, representing self, Washington, D.C, testified in
opposition to SB 175. Senior Manager, Environmental Policy,
Consumer Technology Association (CTA). She introduced herself as
a representative of CTA, which includes manufacturers and
retailers of consumer tech products targeted by this
legislation. Pack expressed surprise at the bill, stating that
e-waste is actually a rapidly declining issue, with electronics
being the fastest declining product in the solid waste stream.
She referenced US EPA data and charts included in their written
testimony to support this claim. Pack noted that no state has
mandated a new electronics recycling program in over a decade,
and while 25 states have such programs, none are recent. She
mentioned that SB 175 is modeled after an Oregon program, which
she argued is unsuitable for Alaska due to differences in
geography and recycling infrastructure. The Oregon program was
developed over 15 years to address specific issues within their
state. She objected to placing 100 percent of the responsibility
on manufacturers, as this could either increase product prices
or disincentivize manufacturers from selling in Alaska. She
suggested further discussions with legislators to develop a
program that is better suited to Alaska's needs. Pack concluded
by emphasizing that electronics currently make up only two
percent of the solid waste stream and proposed exploring other
areas of focus. She offered to answer any questions and referred
to their detailed written testimony for additional information.
4:11:40 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked whether CTA has any local affiliates that
could work with the bill sponsor. He noted that, as a DC-based
organization, CTA may not have been directly consulted. He
inquired if there are any local groups that the bill sponsor
could collaborate with on this issue.
4:12:06 PM
MS. PECK replied that CTA does not have any local affiliates in
Alaska but expressed a willingness to collaborate and find a
solution. She mentioned that the closest relevant experience
might be found in Washington State. She suggested that a
collective effort of stakeholders could help refine the bill.
4:12:47 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked whether she is familiar with the situation
in rural, unlined landfills where it is challenging to manage e-
waste. He inquired if there is evidence that significant amounts
of e-waste have been removed from these landfills over the past
two to three decades or if e-waste continues to accumulate in
rural areas.
4:13:18 PM
MS. PECK said that the data available from the EPA, Washington
State, California, and Maine primarily tracks current waste
entering the stream rather than assessing old landfills for e-
waste from 15 or 20 years ago. The data indicates that, as of
2024, a significantly smaller percentage of current waste is e-
waste compared to 2010.
4:14:04 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL clarified that the abbreviation CTA stands for
Consumer Technology Association.
4:14:17 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked her about a letter received from her
colleague, which mentions excessive or unnecessary burdens and
additional expenses associated with the legislation. He inquired
about the specifics of these costs, as they were unclear to him.
4:14:47 PM
MS. PECK replied that setting up an extensive e-waste collection
system across Alaska would involve significant transportation
costs, especially for reaching rural communities. She noted that
these costs might not be offset by the amount of e-waste present
in smaller towns, leading to potentially high expenses for
transportation and program setup. Additionally, the large size
of Alaska would increase the costs for manufacturers to fund
such programs.
4:15:52 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if there is another state with a
recycling program that might be better suited to Alaska's
geographic and infrastructural profile, given that Oregon's
system may not be ideal. He suggested that such information
would be useful for the bill sponsor and the committee as they
work to refine the bill.
4:16:18 PM
MS. PECK said she would consult with colleague, the expert with
25 years of experience, to explore alternative models. She noted
that it may be challenging to directly model Alaska's system
after any specific state due to its unique geographic and
infrastructural characteristics. However, she suggested that a
tailored solution could be developed through stakeholder
engagement.
4:17:02 PM
AMANDA TOERDAL, representing self, Nome, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 175. She stated that she works for Kawerak, Inc.
and said she supports the electronic device recycling program.
Collecting and properly managing e-waste in rural communities
requires significant effort and funding from regional
organizations and grants. Establishing a product stewardship
program through state law would provide a more sustainable
solution for reducing pollution and managing electronics.
Additionally, such a program would offer resources for educating
the public on recycling electronics. As consumers continue to
purchase new electronic devices, she said implementing a
stewardship program is logical, especially with the transition
to cleaner energy and new appliances. As e-waste generation
increases, responsible recycling should be supported by
manufacturers and state leadership and not just volunteers and
local groups.
4:18:52 PM
NATHAN BARING, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 175. He said that with substantial funding from
the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction
Act, there is likely to be a rise in electronics-driven programs
in Alaska. He opined that it is time for Alaska to align with
states like Texas, Maine, and Missouri by incorporating
recycling costs into product prices. This would ensure that
electronics sold in Alaska contribute to state recycling
programs, relieving small rural governments from the financial
burden of funding these programs through taxpayer dollars. He
also addressed concerns raised by Senator Kawasaki regarding
additional costs, noting that the primary expense would be
reflected in product costs, which currently support recycling
programs in other states. Bearing stressed that shifting the
recycling cost burden to producers is crucial for addressing
health disparities in rural communities and encouraging
innovation to reduce recycling costs.
4:20:46 PM
VANESSA TAHBONE, representing self, Nome, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 175. She mentioned that she works with Kawerak,
Inc. in their recycling program serving the Bering Strait
region, which includes 15 communities and 20 tribes. The region
has a robust recycling program aimed at addressing the issues of
open burning and unlined landfills in rural areas. SB 175 would
be a significant asset for Alaska by providing a product
stewardship framework that could alleviate the financial burden
on local entities managing e-waste. She noted that the cost of
electronics already includes a recycling fee, and she does not
believe that adding a product stewardship program would impose
an additional burden. Instead, it would support efforts to
maintain safe and non-toxic landfills, reducing health risks
associated with open burning of electronics. SB 175 would be a
step in the right direction for the state.
4:22:37 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL closed public testimony on SB 175.
4:22:50 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL invited Mr. Flora to testify on SB 175.
4:23:07 PM
LOUIE FLORA, Staff, Senator Löki Tobin, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, testified on SB 175.
4:23:29 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked general details on backhaul, specifically
in relation to rural Alaska communities.
4:23:53 PM
MR. FLORA replied that if a representative from Backhaul Alaska
were available, they could provide a more detailed response.
However, he explained that community collection events are
organized, utilizing Conex containers and other shipping
materials. He cited a volunteer effort in which a landing craft
was used to transport e-waste from Nome to Homer, where it was
partially loaded by hand into a CONEX container and then
transported by truck. Flores acknowledged that managing e-waste
in rural Alaska involves complex logistics. He referred to a
white paper from Donlin Gold LLC, included in the packet, which
outlines their efforts in organizing backhaul for various parts
of rural Alaska.
4:25:33 PM
MR. REHARD said he would do his best to answer, but acknowledged
that Ms. Zender would be the best person to provide detailed
information. He explained that Backhaul Alaska's major project,
usually funded through grants, focuses on removing hazardous
materials from rural landfills. Due to limited resources, they
cannot serve every community, which is why SB 175 is being
considered as a more sustainable solution. He recommended
visiting Backhaul Alaska's website for more information about
their long-standing efforts.
4:26:21 PM
MS. ZENDER elaborated on how waste management logistics vary by
community and region. For smaller, more typical off-road
villages, waste is often collected in shipping containers and
shipped out during the summer months. In other areas,
electronics might be barged to Seattle or a central hub for
consolidation. For instance, the Arctic region ships electronics
to Nome for consolidation before further transport, while other
communities might send waste across lakes and down roads to
Homer and Anchorage. She noted that logistics can involve
multiple stages and routes, and is open to answering further
questions.
4:27:42 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked if, according to the fiscal note, the bill
establishes an electronic stewardship program for manufacturers
of specific electronics sold in Alaska, and whether it has been
determined which electronic items will be included.
4:28:11 PM
MR. LOUIS replied that the specific items would be determined by
the product manufacturers through a clearinghouse. They would
then collaborate with the department and the advisory committee
established by the bill to determine which products are
included.
4:28:29 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked if that would be determined year 2027.
4:28:31 PM
MR. FLORA replied that he believes that is correct.
4:28:37 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP expressed curiosity about the data for TVs and
certain electronics. He asked about the protocols for landfills
in rural Alaska, specifically regarding whether there is a
threshold for requiring lined landfills based on village
population. He inquired why all landfills are not lined, given
concerns about water quality, regardless of the presence of
electronics.
4:29:50 PM
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), Anchorage, Alaska, testified
on SB 175. She said there are protocols laid out in regulations
for landfills, which are based on factors such as whether the
facility is on the road system and the average quantity of waste
received daily. She offered to follow up with the committee to
provide specific details on requirements and allowances for
lined and unlined landfills.
4:30:56 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL requested that information in writing.
4:31:08 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR wondered whether CTA has engaged with any
manufacturing associations to discuss SB 175, considering the
impact it will have on manufacturers. He noted that Alaska does
not have manufacturers, and inquired whether there were efforts
to reach out to such associations to address the bill's
implications.
4:31:50 PM
MR. FLORES replied that he believes the Solid Waste Alaska Task
Force had briefly consulted with CTA, but he had not directly
spoken with them or received feedback until after the first
hearing on the legislation. He expressed his intention to have
further conversations with CTA.
4:32:14 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked for clarification on how the fees from
manufacturers are practically collected in a product stewardship
program. He noted that most Alaskans purchase electronics from
retailers rather than manufacturers and inquired if
manufacturers would refuse to sell in Alaska due to
unprofitability. He also asked how the fees are integrated into
the retail prices, such as with Fred Meyer or Walmart, and
whether such issues have been observed in other states with
similar programs.
4:33:10 PM
MR. REHARD replied that he is not aware of any state program
causing manufacturers to stop selling their products in that
state. He added that, typically, manufacturers register with the
state in a clearinghouse or producer responsibility organization
when a product stewardship program is established. These
organizations manage the collection and distribution of fees
based on the manufacturers' market share. For instance, if a
manufacturer like Samsung has a certain percentage of the US
market, they would contribute a proportional amount towards the
recycling costs for the Alaska program. This method helps in
budgeting and setting fair fees for the recycling program, as
seen in similar programs in other states.
4:34:48 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL closed public testimony and held SB 175 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 |