SB 61-ELECTRONIC DEVICE RECYCLING  3:31:32 PM CHAIR GIESSEL announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 61 "An Act relating to an electronic product stewardship program; relating to collection, recycling, and disposal of electronic equipment; establishing the electronics recycling advisory council; and providing for an effective date." 3:31:54 PM CHAIR GIESSEL solicited a motion. 3:31:58 PM SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for SB 61, work order 34-LS0220\I, as the working document. 3:32:08 PM CHAIR GIESSEL objected for purposes of discussion. 3:32:17 PM LOUIE FLORA, Staff, Senator Löki Tobin, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented the committee substitute for SB 61 on behalf of the sponsor Senator Tobin. 3:32:36 PM MR. FLORA presented the explanation of changes for the committee substitute for SB 61. He noted the changes reflected: • feedback from testimony opposing SB 61 • request by a medical association requesting modification • Senator Dunbar's amendment. [Original punctuation provided.] CSSB 61 (RES) explanation of changes Version A to  Version I Page 10, lines 23-27: provides manufacturers of electronic devices the ability to propose a lower number of collection sites or collection events if they can demonstrate that a community has safe and adequate storage for recyclable electronic devices. Page 14, line 15: delete penalty for people who knowingly mix electronic devices with landfill waste. Page 17 line 3: Provides the council with the ability to meet virtually as well as in person. Page 17, line 29: excludes medical devices regulated by the FDA from the electronics recycling program. Page 19, line 25: removes microwave ovens from the list of items eligible for the electronics recycling program. Page 20, line 12: removes "battery containing electronic" from the definition of "covered electronic device" or those devices that are part of the electronic recycling program. MR. FLORA offered to answer questions. He noted that members of the Solid Waste Alaska Task Force were available to describe current and ongoing efforts in Alaska and that there was broad infrastructure in place and a lot of work currently being done. 3:35:19 PM SENATOR CLAMAN asked why microwave ovens and battery-containing electronic devices had been removed from SB 61. 3:35:37 PM MR. FLORA explained that battery-containing devices was unclear and broad and so had been removed. He noted ongoing discussions about including vape devices, a growing problem, [in SB 61], and said they might require a separate bill. He said microwave ovens should not have been included in SB 61 because they were not recyclable. 3:36:26 PM SENATOR MYERS asked why medical devices were removed from SB 61. 3:36:36 PM MR. FLORA explained that medical associations in other states have sought to remove medical devices from similar legislation. He said he could provide a more detailed explanation. 3:37:13 PM SENATOR MYERS affirmed that he would appreciate more explanation, noting the extensive amount of electronic equipment in medical settings. 3:37:50 PM SENATOR HUGHES expressed interest in the invited testimony for SB 61. 3:38:14 PM CHAIR GIESSEL announced invited testimony on SB 61. 3:38:51 PM REILLY KOSINSKI, Statewide Coordinator, Backhaul Alaska Program, Zender Environmental, Anchorage, Alaska, introduced himself and began a presentation on the Backhaul Alaska Program. He said he intended the presentation to address the concerns about SB 61 expressed by the Consumer Technology Association (CTA). He moved to slide 2, addressing infrastructure questions about the backhaul program: [Original punctuation provided.] Existing Infrastructure  • Robust infrastructure exists for delivering goods to & from communities • Many leveraging opportunities • Backhaul Alaska and others have been developing efficiencies [Slide 2 includes a map of Alaska showing the entire state and extending south along the Pacific west coast to northern California, illustrating current backhaul collections sites and routes and modes of transportation for items being shipped in to communities and having the potential to ship recycling bound items out.] 3:40:17 PM MR. KOSINSKI moved to and narrated slide 3: [Original punctuation provided.] Ewaste Recycling in Alaska  At least 70% of communities already Recycle ewaste Have access to ewaste recycling services, or Have access to collection events [Slide 3 includes a map of Alaska showing communities that have been recycling e-waste for the past five years.] 3:40:57 PM MR. KOSINSKI moved to slide 4 and said Backhaul Alaska was established in 2018 and has provided the operational aspects of recycling services described by Senate Bill 61, including training, conducting collection events and managing the logistics for around 100 communities. He said they handled not only e-waste but also other hard-to-manage waste streams. Despite being a small operation with limited resources, the program has efficiently removed significant amounts of waste from rural areas. He expressed strong interest in collaboration and partnerships to tackle statewide e-waste recycling efforts: [Original punctuation provided.] Backhaul Alaska  • Establishing Partnerships • Bolstering Existing Infrastructure • Providing Training • Conducting Collection Events • Assist Community Backhaul Efforts • Managing Logistics • Leveraging Funds • Coordinating with Recyclers 3:42:08 PM MR. KOSINSKI moved to and narrated slide 5. He observed that there were many organizations [in Alaska] that help with backhaul and recycling of hard to manage materials like e waste and many communities that individually manage their own e waste. He noted that there were established recyclers in the state in Anchorage, Fairbanks and Kodiak, that accepted e-waste along with the other products they recycle. He emphasized that there were many willing partners: [Original punctuation provided.] Other Ewaste Recycling Efforts  • Kawerak (Bering Straight Region) • Maniilaq Association (NW Arctic Borough) • KANA (Kodiak Island) • AVCP/Donlin Gold/Delta Backhaul (Y-K Delta) • Cook Inlet Keeper (Kenai Peninsula Borough) • Prince of Wales Island Tribal Environmental Coalition • Many individual community efforts • Established recyclers who accept ewaste in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Kodiak 3:42:53 PM MR. KOSINSKI moved to and narrated slide 6: [Original punctuation provided.] Not Starting from Scratch  • A lot of progress has been made over 20+ years • Many organizations are involved in ewaste recycling • SB61 borne out of a multiyear stakeholder process • Many experienced communities and organization available to help [Slide 6 includes a map of Alaska illustrating present e-waste recycling across the state and potential future sites.] MR. KOSINSKI noted that the Solid Wate Alaska Taskforce (SWAT) did reach out and meet with the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), however CTA was completely opposed to [SB 61] from the outset, and uninterested in engaging further. He said SB 61 would allow for a more formalized program that all who are involved can build around, create one program to coordinate e- waste recycling and make it much more efficient. 3:44:50 PM MR. KOSINSKI moved to and narrated slide 7. He expressed pride in the Backhaul Alaska program's achievements but highlighted the challenge of limited funding, particularly with federal funding set to expire in the summer. He mentioned the possibility of additional funding sources for the next year or two but warned of the need to scale back operations if further funding isn't secured. He SB 61 was crucial for maintaining service levels and stability: [Original punctuation provided.] Need for Stable, Long-Term Funding  • Limited Community Funds for Backhaul & Recycling • Organizations like Backhaul AK rely on Federal Grants • Uncertainty is a barrier long term investment and planning • SB61 would establish stable long-term funding 3:46:00 PM MR. KOSINSKI moved to and narrated slide 8. He discussed the prevalence of extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws across the U.S.: [Original punctuation provided.] Big Picture  In the US • Over 140 PS Laws • 33 States • 20 Product Categories • Alaskans have already been paying in We should also receive some benefit MR. KOSINSKI said there was no evidence that there has been an increase in product cost based on product stewardship programs. He argued that the costs of these programs were distributed among consumers or integrated into business operations. He said, instead, Alaskans have been funding other states' EPR programs without benefit. 3:47:50 PM CHAIR GIESSEL removed objection; found no further objection and CSSB 61 was adopted as the working document. CHAIR GIESSEL [concluded invited testimony on SB 62]. 3:48:04 PM CHAIR GIESSEL opened public testimony on SB 61. 3:49:39 PM ALYSSA MURPHY, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, said she was an Environmental Specialist for the state of Alaska and also served as the secretary for the recycling non-profit ReGroup on the Kenai Peninsula. She said ReGroup and Cook Inletkeeper work together to facilitate electronics recycling events annually. She emphasized the huge cost and burden [of these efforts] to the community. She advocated for SB 61 as a means to shift the onus from end-users [exclusively]. 3:51:03 PM CHAIR GIESSEL closed public testimony on SB 61. 3:51:07 PM CHAIR GIESSEL solicited a motion. 3:51:14 PM SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved to report CSSB 61, work order 34- LS0220/I, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). 3:51:34 PM CHAIR GIESSEL found no objection and CSSB 61(RES) was reported from the Senate Resources Standing Committee.