Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
04/11/2017 05:30 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| HB173 | |
| HB183 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 183 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 173 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 173-CLIMATE CHANGE COMMISSION
5:41:47 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 173, "An Act establishing the Alaska
Climate Change Response Commission; relating to the powers and
duties of the Alaska Climate Change Response Commission;
establishing the climate change response fund; and relating to
the surcharge on oil produced in the state."
5:41:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor of HB 173, stated that he is introducing the
proposed legislation for the following reasons: he is a
believer in science; the national administration and the
director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) do
not believe that climate change is real; the evidence of climate
change exists in Alaska; and most scientists agree that climate
change is occurring.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON mentioned that he filed a bill during
the Twenty-Ninth Alaska State Legislature, 2015-2016, to
recreate former Governor Sarah Palin's Alaska Climate Change
Sub-Cabinet and to charge that group with recommending
legislation. He asserted that HB 173 would be more
sophisticated than the original bill; it would create a
commission populated by coastal and local communities; and would
create a [Division of] Spill Prevention and Response (SPAR)
[Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)] surcharge to
create an office under the Office of the Governor that would
perform a full range of climate change activities including work
on mitigation and grant access.
5:44:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for a clarification of SPAR and SPAR
funding.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that SPAR stands for "Spill
Prevention and Response" and dates to 1989 as an aftermath of
the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL offered his understanding of SPAR funding as
funding through oil per barrel [produced] and per gallon of fuel
sold. He asked for an explanation of how the commission would
be funded.
5:45:55 PM
MEGAN ROWE, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Josephson, prime
sponsor of HB 173, stated that the proposed legislation would
accomplish two things: it would create a commission; and it
would create a fund for the commission. She relayed that the
reference to SPAR in the proposed legislation was due to the
sponsor's attempt to mirror SPAR's funding mechanism. She said
that SPAR is funded in part through a 1-cent per barrel oil
surcharge. Under the proposed legislation, a similar 1-cent per
barrel oil surcharge would fund the Climate Change Response
Fund. She offered that in drafting the proposed legislation, it
was originally thought that the SPAR fund could be doubled, and
50 percent could be used to fund the Climate Change Response
Commission; however, the Department of Law (DOL) and Legislative
Legal and Research Services recommended an amendment to change
the funding mechanism. She offered that under the proposed
legislation, SPAR and the Climate Change Response Fund would
each take 1 cent per barrel and, therefore, be funded at the
same level. She relayed that Legislative Legal and Research
Services has informed the sponsor that on average, SPAR is
funded at $1.6 million per year by way of the 1-cent surcharge.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if it is only the 1 cent per barrel of
oil passing through the pipeline that constitutes what the oil
company pays into the SPAR fund; he expressed his understanding
that there was an additional .099 cent per gallon of fuel sold
going into the fund.
MS. ROWE replied that there is a motor fuel tax, but that there
are two surcharges per barrel of oil - one for prevention and
one for response. She said that the surcharge for prevention is
4 cents per barrel and the one for response is [1 cent] per
barrel.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated his belief that SPAR was funded with
the 4 or 5 cents a barrel plus 1 cent per gallon sold. He asked
how the Climate Change Response Commission would be funded.
MS. ROWE responded that a 1-cent per barrel oil surcharge would
create the Climate Change Response Fund. She added that another
facet of the proposed legislation is that a significant duty of
the commission would be to assist groups in securing grant
funds, so that the groups would have independent funding.
5:49:10 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked for clarification that the commission
would help groups get funding.
MS. ROWE replied, exactly. She said the sponsor recognizes the
gap in Alaska for services to help non-profits, tribal
governments, and business entities tap into the vast amount of
climate change financing that exists, including grants and other
types of public and private funding. She reiterated that one of
the roles of the commission would be to assist in securing the
funding for these groups, as well as the commission itself.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked, "Who pays the 1 cent?" He asked if
it would be the consortium of oil companies using the Trans
Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS).
MS. ROWE answered that she believed it would be the producers
that would pay the 1-cent surcharge.
5:50:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked when "global warming" became "climate
change."
MS. ROWE speculated that the term "global warming" was used at
one point because scientists thought that the earth was warming,
and now scientists realize the earth is shifting temperatures.
She referred to the PowerPoint presentation, entitled "House
Bill 173 - Climate Change Response Commission," Slide 3, to
point out the various levels of warming shown on the map of the
United States - some places getting warmer and some colder. She
stated that Alaska appears to be affected by warming more so
than any other state.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL offered that "global warming" was the
original term used; global warming is in fact what is occurring;
and the average temperature is increasing. He said that along
with global warming is considerable climate change - hurricanes,
droughts, floods, snowstorms, and many indicators of climate
beside temperature. He asserted that some of these climate
change occurrences do not appear to be global warming, but they
are all part and parcel of climate change, which is due to
warming.
5:52:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that he is troubled by further taxes
on the oil industry. He asserted that a penny a barrel adds up
quickly.
5:53:14 PM
MS. ROWE reiterated that under HB 173, the commission would have
the authority to allocate the estimated $1.6 million in revenue,
as well as use that money as seed money to access additional
climate financing. She asserted that regardless of one's views
on climate change, about $400 billion are spent annually on
climate finance; other states are competing for it; but Alaska
is not. She maintained that Alaska is missing out on
opportunities to secure financing that would especially assist
rural areas, as well as improve Alaska's economy in terms of
green technology.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked if there were lessons learned from
the Palin era iteration of the cabinet level climate change
commission - how well it worked and how this would be different.
MS. ROWE replied that the most significant product from the
Palin era [sub-cabinet] was a report. She expressed her belief
that the group was defunded and, therefore, discontinued. She
stated that there was no funding mechanism for the group, and
its focus was policy and monitoring. She said that the original
version of HB 173 was introduced by the sponsor [on 3/10/17
during the First Session of the Thirtieth Alaska State
Legislature, 2017-2018] and was based on [former Governor
Palin's] administrative order [Administrative Order No. 238
establishing the Alaska Climate Change Sub-Cabinet, 9/14/07].
The new iteration of the proposed legislation includes ensuring
that rural communities "have a seat at the table" and assisting
them in accessing funding.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked if under the proposed legislation,
the commission would have an operating budget to operate
independently.
MS. ROWE expressed her belief that the commission would
determine independently how to distribute program funds and not
be dictated by the Governor's operating budget.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked if the commission would have
dedicated staff.
MS. ROWE responded that under the proposed legislation, there
would be an executive director, who would hire staff funded
through legislative appropriation or the surcharge.
5:56:30 PM
MS. ROWE referred to Slide 2 of the PowerPoint presentation,
entitled "Purposes of the bill." She relayed the four purposes
of the proposed legislation. The first is to coordinate
statewide strategy under the commission, serving as an umbrella
group. The second is to give rural communities an active role;
the commission would be structured to have six members from the
executive branch, including Commissioners from DEC and the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), as well as nine regional
members. She mentioned that because the language for the makeup
of the commission came from the "coastal commission," Fairbanks
was excluded. She maintained that since the Interior is the
region most affected by climate change, there is a forthcoming
amendment to restructure the commission with representation from
the Interior.
MS. ROWE relayed that the third purpose for the proposed
legislation is to help local entities secure funding - climate
financing, grants, aid, and low-cost debt. She added that the
fourth purpose is to create the [Climate Change Response] Fund.
5:58:16 PM
MS. ROWE referred to Slide 3, which illustrates that Alaska is
impacted by climate change more than other states. She referred
to Slide 4, which illustrates the regions of Alaska most
impacted by climate change. She pointed out that according to
the research cited on Slide 4 ["Climate change damages to Alaska
public infrastructure and the economics of proactive
adaptation," Melvin et al, 2016], the infrastructure in the
Interior is most affected by climate change. She said she
believes that to be due to "so much infrastructure there and the
melting of the permafrost," which will cost billions of dollars
in impact unless Alaska works "to fix that infrastructure."
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked what is included as infrastructure
besides buildings and houses.
MS. ROWE answered that the melting of the permafrost would
affect roads, railroads, the pipeline, electrical systems, sewer
systems, and any type of public or private infrastructure.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL concluded that permafrost "is moving the
ground, which (indisc.) structures, and causes a lot of damage."
MS. ROWE said, exactly. She referred the committee members to
the Melvin paper [included in the committee packet], which
details the costs per region for damage to public and private
infrastructure.
MS. ROWE referred to Slide 5, entitled "Global climate finance
increased by 18% in 2014," and pointed out the Climate Policy
Initiative Report in the committee packet, entitled "Global
Landscape of Climate Finance 2015." She relayed that of the
$392 billion spent on climate finance [in 2014], much of it was
public funding that went to developing countries; therefore,
Alaska would not have access to the full amount of money spent
on climate finance. She maintained that Alaska is not currently
competitive for that money, and the commission would assist non-
profits and tribal governments to access some of it.
6:00:54 PM
MICHAEL TUBMAN, Director of Outreach, Center for Climate Change
and Energy Solutions (C2ES), paraphrased from a written
statement, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to speak with you today. My name is
Michael Tubman and I am the Director of Outreach at
the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES).
C2ES is an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan think
tank. Our mission is to advance strong policies and
actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote
clean energy, and strengthen resilience to climate
impacts. A key objective for our organization is a
national market-based program to reduce emissions
cost-effectively. We believe a sound climate strategy
is essential to ensure a strong, sustainable economy.
Our work is informed by our Business Environmental
Leadership Council (BELC), a group of 32 major
companies that work with C2ES on climate change and
energy risks, challenges, and solutions. BELC
companies include BP, Shell, BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto,
GE, utilities, automakers, and other large
industrials. The views I am expressing, however, are
those of C2ES alone.
My presentation this evening will focus on the need
for state climate change strategies and the
opportunities they can help unlock.
The reasons to pursue a climate change strategy
The need to confront climate change is increasingly
clear, and I commend you for taking steps toward a
stronger strategy.
In Alaska, the U.S. Global Change Research Program
expects significant climate-related challenges. The
impacts for the state through this century, include:
· Increased annual precipitation, but with greater
evaporation leading to lower water availability and
snowpack;
· Greater risk from wildfire; and
· Glacial retreat that may affect hydropower and fishery
resources.
Coordinated planning between the public and private
sectors can overcome these challenges, and this is the
goal of climate change strategies. At the same time,
many states view policies to address climate change as
an economic opportunity. These states are positioning
themselves as leaders in new markets related to
climate action, which include: producing and selling
clean energy, developing new resilience technologies,
and attracting new business. These goods and services
are increasingly in demand in a global market moving
toward a carbon constrained future. Economic issues
are just one motivator for state policies that address
climate change. Policies to prepare for extreme
weather events, improve air quality, reduce traffic
congestion, and develop domestic, clean energy
supplies can all have climate benefits and are worthy
endeavors in their own right.
How other states are developing climate change
strategies
Alaskans are not alone in your interest in climate
strategies. Thirty-four states have completed climate
action plans or are in the process of revising or
developing one, and many states are now focused on
implementation of their plans. The origins and
structure of strategies are as varied as the states.
Some start with executive orders, while others begin
with legislation.
One of the keys to a successful climate change
strategy is getting input and buy-in from
stakeholders. Climate change mitigation and resilience
will affect numerous sectors of the economy,
including: energy, hunting and fishing, agriculture,
transportation, health, and water. It is important to
include diverse perspectives when creating climate
change strategies to ensure mutual understanding.
6:04:19 PM
The private sector also has a stake in climate change
strategies. State and local leadership demonstrates
seriousness about ensuring the energy and
infrastructure needs of business. Over the last 18
years, C2ES has worked with businesses to find
practical, economically efficient approaches to
climate change. In a specific example, last year in
Anchorage, we convened about 50 business leaders,
city, state, federal and tribal officials, nonprofit
organizations, and other experts to share their
experiences addressing climate change impacts and
enhancing resilience. These stakeholders helped assess
the climate resilience of Anchorage through a number
of indicators critical for communities and businesses.
Climate change resources
As the state moves from strategies to action, the
federal government has tools and resources that can
help.
Two important examples of federal tools are the
Climate Data Initiative and the Climate Resilience
Toolkit.
· The Climate Data Initiative is part of data.gov and
offers open source access to information for
communities and decisions makers. It includes data and
resources related to coastal flooding, food
resilience, water, ecosystem vulnerability, human
health, energy infrastructure, and transportation.
· The Climate Resilience Toolkit is an interactive
government resource that helps users and communities
explore climate threats, assess their vulnerability
and risks, investigate options, prioritize them, and
take actions to become more resilient.
Both the Climate Data Initiative and the Climate
Resilience Toolkit have a special focus on the Arctic,
which includes 250 Arctic-related datasets, and more
than 40 maps, tools, and other resources designed to
support climate-resilience efforts in Alaska.
In addition, some federal programs provide direct
resources that can be used to implement a strategy.
· The Resilience AmeriCorps program helps low-income
communities become more resilient by providing
volunteers to local governments. Anchorage has taken
advantage of this program.
· Other competitive federal grants for infrastructure
take resilience into consideration, such as
Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery
(TIGER) grants from the Department of Transportation
which provide federal funds to improve transportation
infrastructure, generate economic recovery, and
enhance resilience.
· At the Department of Energy (DOE), the Partnership for
Energy Sector Climate Resilience is an initiative to
enhance U.S. energy security by improving the
resilience of energy infrastructure to extreme weather
and climate change impacts. DOE works directly with
utilities to help them prepare for extreme weather and
climate change, which can save money and lives.
· Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has numerous
programs that provide resources and assistance for
climate adaption in environmental and health
infrastructure and systems.
6:06:53 PM
The use of these federal resources is amplified by
having a climate change strategy that can demonstrate
the long-term planning of the state. Importantly, in
the federal budget process, Alaska's senators have the
ability to bolster these programs and make sure they
are providing adequate resources to fill Alaska's
resilience needs as they are further identified.
Planning for climate change also makes business sense
Planning for climate change also makes business sense.
Many businesses recognize the threats extreme weather
and climate change pose to their supply chain,
operations, and infrastructure. They already make risk
and emergency management plans, along with drills and
training exercises with employees. This experience in
risk management can be coordinated with city and state
agencies to build and maintain resilience. Alaska is
home to many global companies, such as the oil majors,
which have experience in disaster response planning.
In addition, these companies and others may have
access to more detailed data and long-term scenario
planning that could bolster public resilience efforts.
Companies also seek to work with governments to reduce
risk. They consider the resilience of a community as a
factor in determining where to locate their
businesses. For example, a business may be more likely
to move to a location where there is extensive coastal
flood protection, versus an area that is less prepared
for coastal risks. By increasing the ability for
communities to plan for, respond to, and recover from
risks, Alaska can remain competitive in the economic
marketplace.
Planning for climate change makes fiscal sense
Finally, planning for climate change makes fiscal
sense.
Infrastructure should be built to last and provide
economic benefits over the long term. Resilience
planning is just another part of making sure
government money is spent wisely. On a national level
for instance, EPA found that from now through the year
2100, resilience measures could reduce estimated
damages to coastal property from sea level rise and
storm surges from $5 trillion to $810 billion. Making
Alaska resilient to climate-related damage would save
money over the long term.
According to a 2005 National Institute of Building
Sciences study, a dollar spent on disaster mitigation
saves four dollars in future costs associated with
recovery, and allows the Federal Treasury to redirect
an average of $3.65 from disaster relief costs and tax
losses to communities and other outcomes. By
developing a climate change strategy that helps avoid
losses and speeds recovery, Alaska is being a
responsible steward of resources.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.
6:09:45 PM
HAJO EICKEN, Director, International Arctic Research Center
(IARC), University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), testified that
IARC conducts research in collaboration with various
stakeholders in the state, including tribal governments,
boroughs, and industry, on responses to changing environments,
and collaborates with international partners to understand how
the Arctic functions.
MR. EICKEN referred to the question regarding the outcome of
former Governor Palin's sub-cabinet on climate change. He said
that from the university's perspective, the sub-cabinet was
valuable in that it gave the university access to various
commissioners and practitioners in the state. These individuals
had very specific information which led to the production of
many datasets both on the present state of weather and climate
and on projections over the next decade; the datasets were much
more focused and much more responsive to information at the
community level. He gave an example: the IARC now has one
researcher working with the tribal organization within an Eskimo
community to help the community deal with the challenges that it
is experiencing in the coastal environment in Nome. He said he
views the commission as a forum, or interface, to help improve
the flow of information from the university and other entities
to the state.
MR. EICKEN maintained that the proposed legislation is prudent
and a well thought out and effective response to some of the
environmental changes. He relayed that Alaska is experiencing
significant changes in precipitation, snowfall, rain, and air
temperature; however, the most significant challenge is that
much of Alaska is very much determined by the presence of snow
and ice in various forms. He stated that the thawing permafrost
and the change in sea ice cover are big challenges and ones that
federal agencies are not well equipped to address. He referred
to the history of coastal retreat and flooding and the struggle
of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (ACE) in finding effective
solutions for keeping the coastal communities safe.
MR. EICKEN maintained that the value of the commission would be
in creating a space where practitioners and policy makers from
the "stateside" can engage with other experts and
representatives from the community to figure out what
information is needed and what needs to be done. He offered an
example of how the commission would be valuable. Last week the
IARC hosted a workshop with about 80 practitioners and
researchers focused on wildfire response and management; for an
average fire in Alaska, fire-fighting response costs tens of
millions of dollars and for larger fires, hundreds of millions
of dollars. He said that the frequency and intensity of
wildfires is increasing and projected to increase further, and
funds to address those challenges are not projected to increase.
The practitioners in the workshop examined more modern
approaches to fire management, such as satellite platforms.
Attendees reviewed effective responses and ways to reduce the
cost of firefighting next season and beyond. There was only one
state employee in attendance at the workshop because of state
restrictions on travel. He maintained that the role of the
commission would be to ensure that the right contacts are made
so that the state can apply for federal funding to become more
prudent in managing fire risk.
6:15:34 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Mr. Eicken if, in his opinion, there
would be value in the proposed commission even without the 1-
cent per barrel tax and the funds that would be dispersed upon
collection of the tax.
MR. EICKEN responded, yes that is correct.
6:16:36 PM
MIKE BLACK, Director, Community Infrastructure Development,
Division of Environmental Health and Engineering (DEHE), Alaska
Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC), testified that his
primary job is to build sanitation systems and clinics in rural
Alaska. He mentioned that he gave a slide presentation to the
House Special Committee on Arctic Policy, Economic Development
(4/11/17) showing the infrastructure damage in rural Alaska,
including the settling of pipes and permafrost failure on
foundations; and in the presentation he discussed attempts to
address these conditions. He emphasized that there is a real
issue with infrastructure and with the warming environment,
especially in areas where permafrost is close to 32 degrees. In
addition, there are changes in water chemistry and precipitation
rates, which affect the ability to provide water for rural
communities.
MR. BLACK maintained that just as ANTHC has the Center for
Climate and Health, his organization would certainly support the
state taking a very coordinated role in helping bring together
organizations, such as the one at ANTHC, to discuss strategies
for keeping infrastructure functioning and the types of
infrastructure that will be important going forward in relation
to the warming environment.
MR. BLACK stated that he was a member of the Immediate Action
Working Group under former Governor Palin's Alaska Climate
Change Sub-Cabinet. He maintained that at that time, the sub-
cabinet allowed the state to have clear focus and help
coordinate what has now become many organizations involved with
climate change within the state, around the country, and
internationally. At the time of the Palin sub-cabinet, the
State of Alaska was taking a leadership role in bringing
attention to the issues that were important to the state and
recommending coordination of the funding through the federal
government.
6:19:51 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 173 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 173 Fiscal Note DOR 4.7.17.pdf |
HRES 5/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM HSTA 5/9/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 173 |
| HB 173 Fiscal Note GOV 4.10.17.pdf |
HRES 5/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM HSTA 5/9/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 173 |
| HB 173 NCA Climate Change in Alaska.pdf |
HRES 5/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM |
HB 173 |
| HB 173 ADN Climate Change in Alaska.pdf |
HRES 5/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM |
HB 173 |
| HB 173 Impact on Infrastructure.pdf |
HRES 5/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM |
HB 173 |
| HB 173 CPI Climate Finance 2015.pdf |
HRES 5/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM |
HB 173 |
| HB 173 EPA Climate Change in Alaska.pdf |
HRES 5/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM |
HB 173 |
| HB 173 Fiscal Note DEC 4.6.17.pdf |
HRES 5/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM |
HB 173 |
| HB 173 Hearing Request.pdf |
HSTA 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM |
|
| HB0173 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 5/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM |
HB 173 |
| HB0173A.PDF |
HRES 5/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM |
HB 173 |
| HB 183 Draft Proposed CS 4.11.17.pdf |
HSTA 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM |
HB 183 |
| HB 183 CS Sponsor Statement 4.11.17.pdf |
HSTA 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM |
HB 183 |
| HB 173 Sponsor PPT 4.11.17.pdf |
HRES 5/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/11/2017 5:30:00 PM |
HB 173 |