SENATE BILL NO. 8 "An Act relating to the regulation and production of industrial hemp." 11:00:10 AM SENATOR JOHNNY ELLIS, SPONSOR, voiced that the bill had growing support and no known opposition. He contended that the bill would give Alaskans the freedom to farm industrial hemp. He asserted that the state should not be hindered by the federal government in producing industrialized hemp, as it was not related to marijuana. He felt that the bill would help out Alaska farmers and take a stand against the federal government. He offered a brief history of industrialized hemp in the United States. He dubbed the bill a "freedom to farm" bill, which would unite lawmakers in bipartisan support. He revealed that it was not certain where in the state the product would grow, but insisted that Alaskan farmers wanted to make the attempt. He shared that the uses for industrialized hemp were numerous. He referred to support letters in member packets (copy on file). 11:04:32 AM SARAH EVANS, STAFF, SENATOR JOHNNY ELLIS, discussed the sectional analysis of the bill (copy on file): Section 1 establishes a license procedure in the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for production of industrial hemp, including planting, growing, harvesting, processing, possessing, selling, or buying industrial hemp. This section also requires the Commissioner of DNR to adopt regulations relating to industrial hemp. Section 2 creates an affirmative defense to a prosecution under AS 11.71.030 - 11.71.060 for the manufacture, delivery, possession, possession with intent to manufacture or deliver, or display of a schedule VI controlled substance if the person was licensed to produce industrial hemp and in compliance with the term of license. Section 3 authorizes the Department of Public Safety to conduct a national criminal history record check for licensure as an industrial hemp producer in AS 12.62.400. Section 4 states that a person who is licensed under sec.1 of the bill to produce industrial hemp is not required to be licensed as a marijuana establishment under AS 17.38.100. 11:06:45 AM Co-Chair MacKinnon queried the difference between the intent of the bill, and that of the citizens' initiative, which would require a license for industrial operations related to cannabis. Senator Ellis responded that there was an understood difference between the two crops. The cannabis crop had a much greater THC level than that of industrial hemp. 11:07:49 AM Co-Chair MacKinnon OPENED public testimony. 11:08:18 AM ROB CARTER, DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE (via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. He clarified that the CS would not have fiscal impact for the division. Co-Chair MacKinnon rebutted that the fiscal not had been for $160,000 the previous day. She whether the industrial hemp would need to be tested for THC levels. Mr. Carter explained that as the CS was written, there were no requirements for the division to provide testing services. Co-Chair MacKinnon wondered whether public safety or state troopers would be able to identify visually the difference between industrial hemp and marijuana. Mr. Carter responded in the negative. He believed that the difference between marijuana and hemp would have to be left to the good faith of the producer. 11:10:18 AM RONDA MARCY, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ALASKA HEMP INDUSTRIES (via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. She clarified that affirmative defense would shift the burden of testing onto the field producer. She relayed that the hemp would be tested numerous times, and that certified seeds, verified to be less than 3 percent THC, would be used. She offered an anecdote about industrialized hemp in Kentucky, and the benefits the plant had offered the state. She said that her company was ready to help farmers to produce products that ranged from insulation and concrete, to fish food. She expressed excitement about bringing the industry to Alaska. 11:12:40 AM Senator Bishop asked about the use of hemp in concrete. Ms. Marcy shared that there was a substance known as "hempcrete," which had been used to build the Roman aqueducts. She discussed the high value of hemp insulation. She explained that the hempcrete had a bit of a "give" to it, making it optimal for use in buildings in Alaska. She added that the high insulation factor of hemp would help to lower energy costs in the state. 11:14:24 AM Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether the recent initiative would legalize the opening hemp retail establishments. Ms. Marcy replied that she had submitted an application for a license, but added that hemp sales and marijuana sales were separate issues. She had been legally advised that growing hemp was legal, provided the producer could prove that the product contained less than three percent THC. She asserted that she would strive to be in compliance with all regulations. She offered that the nutritional content of hemp was higher than alfalfa. 11:16:34 AM DON HART, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. He pointed out that the previous testifier was a bastion of information related to hemp and marijuana. He discussed the legalization of industrial hemp in Canada. He explained that at the present time, hemp was generating funds for Canada, which he thought would be good for Alaska. He discussed the hemp seed, which had nine grams of protein in three tablespoons; higher than salmon. He believed that industrialized hemp could bolster the Alaskan economy. 11:19:17 AM JACK BENNETT, SELF, HOMER (via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. He discussed sustainable building, and had worked on building a tiny home model utilizing hemp products. He discussed heating in rural areas of the state, and highlighted the importance of energy efficiency and sustainability that could be provided with green building materials such as hemp products. He lauded the high geothermal mass of hempcrete. He discussed the waste produced with concrete production. He relayed that Mercedes Benz and BMW used hemp plastics in their car doors. He expounded on the many useful qualities of industrialized hemp. 11:23:02 AM LACEY ESHLEMAN, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. She had an extensive farming background, and acknowledged that challenges of farming in Alaska. She thought there would be benefits to farming hemp. She discussed her personal farming experience and history. She expressed excitement about the industrial applications of hemp. She possessed currently unused farmland and was interested in growing hemp. She thought industrialized hemp would help to stimulate the economy. 11:25:26 AM CASEY ESHLEMAN, SELF, WASILLA (via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. He was interested in industrialized hemp for the health and industrial benefits the plant would provide. He shared that agricultural benefits of the hemp plant included the rejuvenation of depleted soils. He relayed that, as a contractor, he was excited to use industrial hemp in his construction. He encouraged the passage of the legislation. 11:27:21 AM FRANK TURNEY, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. He shared that he had been trying to educate his community on the benefits of industrial hemp, and the difference between it and smokeable cannabis, for two decades. He mentioned the Fairbanks Northstar Borough's resolution in support of the bill. He stated that hemp biomass was the fastest growing biomass on the planet. He discussed the products that could be made using hemp. He offered a brief explanation of cannabis and hemp. He directed the committee's attention to the website www.hemp.com as a source of information. 11:30:46 AM Co-Chair MacKinnon CLOSED public testimony. 11:31:04 AM Vice-Chair Micciche discussed the fiscal note. Vice-Chair Micciche thought that the zero fiscal note would be defensible if the cost were shifted to the producer. He wondered why the sponsor had not considered the shift. Senator Ellis explained that any hemp production in Alaska would require the importation of hemp seeds from elsewhere. He believed that the affirmative defense written into the bill that related to the producer using less than 3 percent THC seeds would be enough legal coverage for the farmer and the state. He said that he would accept any suggestions that the committee had to offer. Vice-Chair Micciche thought that the bill could be more prescriptive. SB 8 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration.