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 |