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