ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 15, 2023
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom McKay, Chair
Representative George Rauscher, Vice Chair
Representative Kevin McCabe
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Stanley Wright
Representative Jennie Armstrong
Representative Donna Mears
Representative Maxine Dibert
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Josiah Patkotak
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 83
"An Act reestablishing the Citizens' Advisory Commission on
Federal Management Areas in Alaska; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 49
"An Act authorizing the Department of Natural Resources to lease
land for carbon management purposes; establishing a carbon
offset program for state land; authorizing the sale of carbon
offset credits; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 83
SHORT TITLE: CITIZEN ADVISORY COMM ON FEDERAL AREAS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RAUSCHER
02/27/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/27/23 (H) RES, FIN
02/27/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/27/23 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/15/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 49
SHORT TITLE: CARBON OFFSET PROGRAM ON STATE LAND
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/27/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/27/23 (H) RES, FIN
02/20/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/20/23 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
02/22/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/22/23 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
02/24/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/24/23 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
02/27/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/27/23 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/01/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/01/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/01/23 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/08/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/08/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/08/23 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/10/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/10/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/10/23 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/13/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/13/23 (H) Heard & Held
03/13/23 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/15/23 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
RYAN MCKEE, Staff
Representative George Rauscher
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave the sectional analysis for HB 83 on
behalf of Representative Rauscher, prime sponsor.
ROD ARNO, Policy Director
Alaska Outdoor Council
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony during the
hearing on HB 83.
TINA CUNNING, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony during the
hearing on HB 83.
TED SPRAKER, President
Alaska's Kenai Peninsula Chapter of Safari Club International
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony during the
hearing of HB 83.
KEN HUCKEBA, representing self
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 49.
KASSIE ANDREWS, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 49.
MATT JACKSON
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 49.
LYDIA SHUMAKER, representing self
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 49.
TODD LINDLEY, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 49.
BERT HOUGHTALING, representing self
Big Lake, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 49.
KARA MORIARTY, Lobbyist
Alaska Oil and Gas Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 49.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:03:00 PM
CHAIR TOM MCKAY called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. Representatives Saddler, Wright,
Rauscher, Mears, Dibert, McCabe, and McKay, were present at the
call to order.
HB 83-CITIZEN ADVISORY COMM ON FEDERAL AREAS
1:04:20 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 83, "An Act reestablishing the Citizens' Advisory
Commission on Federal Management Areas in Alaska; and providing
for an effective date."
1:04:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, as prime sponsor of HB 83, paraphrased
the sponsor statement [included in the committee packet], which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
House Bill 83 reestablishes the Citizens' Advisory
Commission on Federal Management Areas in Alaska
(CACFA), which sunset in 2021, and sets a new sunset
date of June 30, 2031. The Commission is made up of 10
public members, one Senator, and one Representative
who represent "the diversity of users and uses of
federal land in the state" and are appointed by the
Governor and Legislature. CACFA was first established
in 1981, shortly after Congress passed the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)
comprehensive legislation governing all federal public
lands in the state. Under the balanced compromise
Congress crafted in ANILCA, 104+ million acres (on top
of the ~100 million acres already set aside) were set-
aside in permanent federal ownership as conservation
system units (e.g., parks, preserves, wildlife
refuges, wilderness areas) while at the same time
enabling Alaskan's to maintain their traditions,
accommodate the social and economic needs of the
state, provide a range of land-use and land access
rights, safeguard opportunities for responsible
resource development, and facilitate continued
improvements in transportation and utility
infrastructure. The provisions of ANILCA plus those of
the Alaska Statehood Act and the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act mean that most Alaskans are regulated
under a unique and extremely complex regulatory web.
For the decades that CACFA operated, it was an
independent and impartial source of information and
center for advocacy on Statehood, ANCSA, and ANILCA
issues that impact all Alaskans. CACFA helps Alaskans
navigate complex regulations and to works with federal
agencies to ensure Congressional intent is implemented
with respect to Alaska's interests. Among many things,
the Commission holds hearings to collect public
comment on decisions that affect them; disseminates
information about historical and new regulation to the
public, the Executive branch, and the Legislature;
monitors the Federal Register and regularly submits
written comment in response to actions that affect
Alaska; and helps Alaskans navigate federal permitting
processes. While the State's ANILCA program and CACFA
both monitor federal actions, CACFA is the only entity
that represents the views of Alaskan citizens
concerning federal land management plans within the
state. The last state audit conducted in 2020
concluded that "there is a continuing public need for
the commission." As time passes, institutional memory
and ANILCA expertise is lost at both the federal and
state level. An active CACFA is critical to ensure
that this critical knowledge is preserved, remains
accessible to Alaskans, and can be used to defend
Alaska. Furthermore, without CACFA, there is no
organized center for through which individuals can
channel their concerns to the higher levels of
government making important land use decisions that
impact them. CACFA is an essential tool to ensure that
Alaskans have a strong and powerful voice in what
happens in our state.
1:09:52 PM
RYAN MCKEE, Staff, Representative George Rauscher, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Rauscher, prime
sponsor, gave the sectional analysis for HB 83 [included in the
committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Sec 1. Amends AS 44.66.010(a) creating new
subsection (15) reestablishing the Citizens Advisory
Commission on Federal Management Areas in Alaska,
setting a new sunset date of June 30, 2031.
Sec 2. Amends AS 44.66.010(a), technical change:
Removes subsection (10) where CACFA's previous sunset
date (June 30, 2021) was listed.
Sec 3. Incorporates transition language to the
uncodified law of Alaska establishing the initial term
lengths of new appointments to the commission.
Thereafter, the term limits outlined in the
Commission's statute will take effect.
Sec 4. Sets an effective date of July 1, 2023.
1:11:05 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced the committee would hear invited
testimony.
1:11:26 PM
ROD ARNO, Policy Director, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC),
provided invited testimony on HB 83. He stated that from 2007
to 2016 he had been appointed as a commissioner to the Citizens'
Advisory Commission on Federal Management Areas in Alaska
(CACFA). Before this, beginning in the early 1990s, he had been
AOC's executive director. In these roles, he said, he had
supported the ability of Alaskans to comment on federal land
management programs, which includes the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service (NPS), and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. He expressed the importance of the public
having a contact point with federal land managers, as federal
lands comprise over 60 percent of the state, and resource
management plans are carried out yearly. He stated that CACFA
had provided forums for the public and lodge owners to speak
with commissioners while having the federal land managers in the
room. He added that CACFA helped work out conflicts, preventing
litigation, and made sure that access provisions in the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) were being
followed by the federal land managers. He stated that there are
numerous inholdings within areas of federal lands, with the
majority being part of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA). He stated that during CACFA's tenure its commissioners
would be available in public meetings in rural and urban areas.
1:14:57 PM
MR. ARNO continued that CACFA had worked on several projects,
pointing out it had recommended the petition by the state to the
federal government concerning the transfer of management
authority of federal lands. He commented that there had been
only two executive directors for CACFA since the 1980s, and
"both of them did an excellent job" with little compensation.
He continued that both directors had contacts with federal
managers, helping resolve conflicts, which was good for
residents of the state.
1:16:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER requested an explanation of the benefit
to the public by having CACFA. He asked for an example of a
situation where the public may have been unaware of CACFA's
influence.
MR. ARNO responded that, with the help of Alaska's congressional
delegation, CACFA was able to promote local hires for federal
land agency jobs. He stated that individuals who lived on the
federal lands were given the opportunity to be the first hires
in these agencies.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER, with a follow-up question, asked for a
characterization of the federal agencies' attitude towards
ANILCA.
MR. ARNO responded that this is documented in several federal
court cases where CACFA was not able to work with federal
agencies. He suggested that through the federal government's
rulemaking, it is taking over the state's ability to manage.
Pointing out the latest instance of this, he stated that NPS
might ban bearbaiting in preserved federal lands. He explained
that the bearbaiting issue is just one piece, as NPS would give
priority to subsistence hunting and fishing, but it would not do
any predator/prey management. In other words, NPS would not
allow management to increase harvestable surplus on federal
lands. He said, "That's kind of like an empty promise of
subsistence," as this would allow populations to fall back to
the low-level equilibriums seen without management. Per this
latest rulemaking, he expressed the opinion that it is
"perfectly clear who the park service has listened to." He
provided another example from 2015 on the issue of management in
[the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge]. On the issue of banning
bearbaiting, he said NPS had related that 70,000 comments were
submitted in favor of banning bearbaiting and management. He
expressed the understanding that 99.9 percent of the comments
were from individuals who were not residents of Alaska. He
stated that after the rule had been reversed in 2020, another
35,000 comments were submitted opposed to the reversal. He
stated that NPS related it was following the mandate of the
nation. In reaction to this comment, he said, "I find that
pretty hard to believe, with 70,000 comments one time, 35,000
the next time that they perceive ... the nation does not agree
with hunting for a food source."
1:20:05 PM
MR. ARNO, in response to a follow-up question, said if CACFA is
reinstated, access would be the biggest issue. He referenced
the 20,000 miles of land under the [federal] Revised Statute
(R.S.) 2477, which had included the old mining trails in the
state. He remarked that the state needs more access and pointed
out the expense of sending supplies to small villages and the
expense of medical access there. He argued that the access
would not have to be a paved highway or in the R.S. 2477 lands,
as it could be on an ice road. He stated that during the later
part of his time on CACFA, before the sunset came into effect,
the issue of obtaining more access, even for snowmachines and
signage, was an important one. Through work with AOC, he said
he has continued to pursue this and ensure adherence to the
guarantees given in ANILCA.
1:21:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed appreciation for the testimony.
He noted the large fiscal note. He questioned whether spending
the money on the front end with mediations and negotiations
would be better than spending it later on lawyers, court cases,
and travel to Washington D.C.
MR. ARNO responded that when the expense of litigation is
considered, including AOC's expenses, the requested funding to
reinstate CACFA is very little. During his time with CACFA, he
said the executive directors were able to resolve a number of
issues between individual Alaskans and federal agencies without
litigation. He suggested if a new executive director could be
found who is as competent as the last two, for the same money,
the money would be well spent. In response to a follow-up
question, he stated that "without a doubt" the federal overreach
in Alaska has increased without CACFA. He stated that since the
recent administration took office in Washington D.C., and
without CACFA to make comments on these plans, there has been an
"assault" on the land management plans in Alaska. He stated
that he has been able to address some issues without CACFA, but
he does not have access to the state's federal agency
connections. He expressed the opinion that the overreach by the
federal government has gotten worse, and without CACFA, the
state is unable to address this.
1:25:53 PM
TINA CUNNING, representing self, paraphrased from her written
testimony [included in the committee packet], which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
I worked in the State's ANILCA program from its
beginning in 1981 for nearly 30 years in
implementation of ANILCA. Since retiring in 2010, I
am part of a team that conducts ANILCA training.
Recall the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971
called for study of federal lands to set aside 80
million acres in special conservation status. For 9
years, there was considerable angst all across Alaska
about what would be in the final "D-2" bill as it was
called, e.g., how would the millions of acres in
conservation units affect remote villages; access for
hunting, fishing, and subsistence; development of
private and state inholdings; need for utilities, etc.
When it became evident that Congress was going to pass
a bill setting aside many more millions of acres in
special conservation designations than originally
envisioned in ANCSA, the Alaska Legislature and
Governor worked with a broad representation of rural
residents, businesses, communities, AFN, and industry
to adopt a bottom line, a list of seven consensus
points for Alaska. Negotiations in Congress led to
bipartisan adoption of ANILCA in 1980 that included
unique protections for the traditional way of life and
uses of federal lands in that consensus list. In 1981,
the Alaska legislature established CACFA so that
Alaskans could be kept informed as ANILCA was being
implemented and to protect public uses of federal
lands as Congress directed in ANILCA. CACFA was
invaluable in helping individual Alaskans work through
federal requirements such as commercial permits for
air taxis, sled dog tours, and hunting guides; access
to inholdings; and for cabins needed for subsistence
and trapping. In the 40+ years since passage of
ANILCA, most Alaskans and government employees have
forgotten the special provisions for public uses that
the Governor, legislature, ANCSA corporations, rural
residents, and Senator Stevens and Congressman Young
fought so hard for. Most Alaskans do not read the
Federal Register every morning with their coffee, but
that is exactly what the CACFA Executive Director did
in order to watch for actions that impacted ANILCA's
implementation. Without CACFA there is no one to help
Alaskan's navigate red tape or appeal decisions if a
federal manager simply says no. In contrast, the
State's ANILCA program cannot help individual
Alaskans. It coordinates with federal agencies on
behalf of ANILCA provisions of concern for the state
agencies in federal management plans, regulations, and
other actions. As an independent Commission,
administration politics do not interfere with CACFA's
defense of individual Alaskans' rights or other
provisions adopted by Congress in ANILCA. The Alaska
legislature was wise in establishing this citizen
forum to help Alaskans meet their social and economic
needs promised in the final deal Congress adopted.
Every passing year without CACFA results in lost
opportunities for Alaskans, and conflicts over uses go
unresolved. I strongly support reauthorization of
this independent Commission for the benefit of all
Alaskans in implementing ANILCA as Congress intended.
1:30:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER requested an example of a beneficial
situation where the public may have been unaware of CACFA's
influence. In an additional question, he asked about the future
issues CACFA should be addressing, if reauthorized.
MS. CUNNING responded that CACFA has helped hundreds of guides,
operators, and trappers get their permits. She pointed out the
[Legislative Budget and Audit Committee's 2020 audit report] in
the committee packet documents CACFA's activities in the last
few years of its existence; however, she stated that many
activities were not documented. For example, she pointed out
that when trappers were told they could not have cabins in rural
Alaska, they did not know the regulations or the agency to
contact, so they would just accept "no" as the answer. She
stated that it is hard to count the protections for individuals
in these situations. She referenced the achievement in the
local hire project, as ANILCA was able to bypass the federal
hiring system to recognize the qualifications in local Alaskans.
She stated that federal agencies were able to hire hundreds of
seasonal employees through this process. She stated that when
the federal government attempted to cancel this program, the
detrimental effects for rural Alaskans and federal agencies were
realized. She stated that CACFA had made a concerted effort,
which resulted in Congress allowing the program to stay in
effect.
MS. CUNNING, addressing future issues CACFA should focus on,
stated that ANILCA is being reinterpreted, as it is not the
public process originally envisioned. She stated that federal
agencies are now using online systems for public comment
periods; however, most people in the rural areas are dependent
upon local meetings, posted notices, and information provided
through village councils and other local administrators. She
noted that local discussions with federal administrators are
declining, as CACFA had been very effective in ensuring there
were local discussion groups. She commented that this is not an
anti-federal government sentiment, but a comment on the positive
effect of proactive communications between federal agencies and
Alaskans. She stated that ANILCA is bipartisan, with many
requirements for consultation and coordination between various
entities, and this part is being diminished. She said that most
Alaskans are unaware of this and do not know how to defend their
rights.
1:35:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER commented that the Alaska Public Lands
Information Centers were another accommodation for Alaska, and
these have joint funding through the federal government and the
state. He questioned whether the state and federal governments
should share the cost of CACFA.
MS. CUNNING responded that there would be no reason for the cost
to be shared. She explained that, by regulation, the federal
government has processes for taking public comments and appeals;
therefore, there would not be a reason for the federal
government to help fund CACFA.
1:36:33 PM
TED SPRAKER, President, Kenai Peninsula Chapter of Safari Club
International, gave invited testimony on HB 83. He pointed out
the expertise of the previous two testifiers. He shared that
the Kenai Chapter has around 150 members, with its annual
fundraiser expecting around 500 attendees, while the Safari Club
International Alaska Chapter expects around 900 attendees for
its fundraiser. Referencing difficulty working with the federal
system, he stated that when he was on the Board of Game many
people came with questions about access, in particular trappers
who had problems building line cabins on federal lands. He
stated that he had related that the Board of Game was not the
right avenue for these questions, and the individuals would
often "give it up." He stated that when the individuals were
directed to CACFA, the advisory group was able to help them. He
voiced the opinion that the most important up-coming point
concerns the NPS's proposed rule for [banning bearbaiting]. He
stated that there would be many questions if this goes forward.
He gave the example of a guide in Alaska with a concession for
three game-guide areas, with two of the areas on federal land.
The new rule would leave this guide with only one area for
hunting bears, and he suggested because of this the guide's
business would fail. He expressed the concern that without
CACFA, institutional knowledge will be lost. Because ANILCA is
extremely complex, he suggested that over time, federal managers
would do "what they want," and tax dollars would be spent
fighting this in court. He stressed that CACFA needs to be
reinstated as a go-between organization.
1:41:12 PM
CHAIR MCKAY questioned whether CACFA would replace outside
consultants, hired either by the legislature or by individuals.
If so, he questioned whether there would be more power to fight
this activity.
MR. SPRAKER, in response, stated the federal issue has
escalated, and reinstating CACFA would save the state lawyer
fees over time.
1:41:55 PM
CHAIR MCKAY questioned the time it would take for CACFA to be
functioning.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER answered that the proposed legislation
could be enacted on July 1, 2023, and the commission could start
business after appointments are made.
1:43:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, in response to Representative Mears,
stated that the funding is set up for staffing, similar to the
past.
1:43:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER pointed out the fiscal note shows a range
23 Large Project Coordinator position. He questioned the past
executive director's location and pay range.
MS. CUNNING responded that the answer to the question is covered
in the audit report and expressed the belief this position's
range is 21 or 23. She said when the commission was originally
established it had more staff, but after reinstatement in 2007,
only one full-time executive director position existed with the
ability to hire one full-time assistant. She stated that CACFA
was attached to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for
administrative purposes only, as DNR did not have oversite. She
stated that in the past, once the commissioners were appointed,
an executive director would be hired. She remarked that the
fiscal note specifies a Large Project Coordinator position. She
suggested that there should be some discussion about this.
1:47:12 PM
MR. ARNO added that CACFA was first housed in the DNR office in
Fairbanks. The offices were then moved to the airport in
Palmer. He said the onus was on the commissioner of DNR to find
a space without additional expense. He expressed the belief
that the job was a range 23.
1:48:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DIBERT questioned why CACFA was allowed to
sunset.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER responded that last session the
reinstatement of CACFA had passed through the House, but it did
not make it through the Senate Rules Standing Committee, so
there was a gap year.
[HB 83 was held over.]
1:49:52 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:49 p.m. to 1:53 p.m.
HB 49-CARBON OFFSET PROGRAM ON STATE LAND
1:54:23 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the final order of business would be
HB 49, "An Act authorizing the Department of Natural Resources
to lease land for carbon management purposes; establishing a
carbon offset program for state land; authorizing the sale of
carbon offset credits; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee, adopted as a working document on 3/8/23,
was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 49, Version
33-GH1372\S, Dunmire, 3/3/23, ("Version S").]
1:54:25 PM
CHAIR MCKAY opened public testimony on HB 49.
1:55:28 PM
KEN HUCKEBA, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
49. He argued that no legislator authored or sponsored the
bill, and it is being rushed for emergency passage. He
expressed disbelief that the establishment of carbon credits by
the state would not be connected to the World Economic Forum
(WEF), or the environmental, social, and governance (ESG)
[directive]. He expressed the understanding that the WEF's goal
is the "complete cessation of fossil fuels." He stated that
Anew [Climate] and Verra are both nongovernmental organizations
which would profit from the carbon credit currency and are
partners of WEF. He pointed out a series of articles titled,
"ESG in Alaska DNA," in the Petroleum News, which was authored
by a previous commissioner of the Department of Natural
Resources. He said, "It would be hard to believe that these
sentiments are not shared with or known by the administration."
MR. HUCKEBA continued by voicing the idea that "ESG is simply a
new method for socialism and Marxism," which is contributing to
the "obliteration and cessation of fossil fuels." He noted that
the [proposed legislation] does not mention further review,
control, audit, or inspections; therefore, the commissioner and
director would have all control, and the WEF partners would do
the credit evaluations. He expressed the opinion that engaging
in carbon trade is a "grift" because it would create a tax,
which would be on individuals and companies producing goods and
services, with no benefit. He opined that the Willow Project is
an example of these policies, as "extremist" WEF lawyers were
able to delay and degrade the project with "their unprecedented
and mysteriously never-argued inclusions in an already-approved
environmental impact statement."
1:58:16 PM
KASSIE ANDREWS, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
49. She began by questioning the inherent net value of carbon
dioxide. She concluded that carbon dioxide has no value as a
commodity because it cannot be consumed or used to heat homes.
She questioned why [the proposed legislation] is being
acknowledged because carbon dioxide is not a part of the
economic system of supply and demand. She suggested that if a
net gross domestic product were not being created, there would
be a subsidy paid by taxpayers. She pointed out that wind and
solar projects do not function without subsidies.
1:59:30 PM
[Due to technical difficulties, the audio was indiscernible, and
the testimony resumed at 2:14 p.m.]
2:00:09 PM
MATT JACKSON, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC),
stated that SEACC has worked in depth on forest management
issues on federal and state lands in Southeast Alaska for more
than 50 years, and through this work, the council has acquired a
good amount of institutional knowledge. He expressed agreement
with some of the testifiers and the governor that HB 49 and
carbon offset programs would have nothing to do with climate
change; however, he continued that SEACC believes carbon credits
could be a useful tool for land managers and a revenue source
for the state. He stated, if the proposed legislation goes
forward, SEACC advises that to enter into the carbon registry
there would need to be more requirements, as obtaining forest
inventories and sustainable forest certifications. He added
that having forest management data sets should also be a
requirement. He expressed the hope that the legislature takes a
realistic look at the cost.
MR. JACKSON continued that SEACC is making two suggestions to
improve the proposed legislation's ability to maximize the
revenue the state would receive from the sale of carbon credits.
He suggested that the lease be increased from a 55-year program
to a 99-year program. He stated there is a premium in
permanence in longer-term projects, as they would bring in more
revenue. In a second point, he suggested that the proposed
legislation include the concept of "leakage." He said this is
an industry term for carbon, which was stored in one place but
leaked because of emission activities elsewhere. He gave the
example of the state selling carbon storage in the Haines State
Forest, while reducing timber harvest there. However, if the
timber harvest on Prince of Wales Island increased, this would
be leakage. He described leakage as an essential concept in
carbon markets, and preventing this is an essential part of
valuable carbon offsets. He continued that addressing leakage
in the proposed legislation would increase the revenue of
potential carbon credit programs. He thanked the committee and
offered to provide resources and answer any questions.
2:03:12 PM
LYDIA SHUMAKER, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
49. She paraphrased from a written statement [included in the
committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Firstly I will be addressing SEC 38.95.430 for the
offset revenue fund on page 6:
As explained in the hearing on Monday the 13th, the
revenues would not be going into the permanent fund
but would go into a separate fund to pay for the
expenses of this boondoggle. Although the chair
chooses to hold this public testimony before receiving
the up-dated fiscal notes, we can see that there is an
expected expense to the people of Alaska of One
Million, Eight Hundred Sixty-Seven Thousand, Eight
hundred dollars ($1,867.80) across the three fiscal
notes. Now, if HB 50 was any example, the fiscal notes
will be walked back in order to encourage this bill to
be forced through the legislation. However, if the
work was put in before this bill was presented, it
should be safe to assume this is an accurate cost,
singularly for the one-year period of 2024. Also note,
there is no expected revenue presented still because
this entire scheme is too unknown to have accurate
numbers. Secondly, I will be addressing Page 6 under
definitions; item number 4 "Carbon offset project";
Last Friday, we heard in testimony (given by a
conflict of interest), that if Alaska makes it a law
to manage the forests in a manner different than what
we currently are, that could disqualify us from the
carbon capture market. By Definition, this bill must
install a "framework legislation" that DOES change the
law as it clearly states ".. similar land and resource
management measures that mitigate greenhouse gases by
increasing the carbon stock on state land". This is
placing the carbon fiat market into the law, by
definition, as a priority which will inherently alter
the way Alaska manages the forests, voiding the goal
of the legislation.
Lastly, I will be addressing points made by your own
invited public testimony, which are companies that
work with the World Economic Forum:
1) Although this framework states 55 years, it
has been expressed that the market preferred time
span is 100 years. Alaska has only been a state
for 64 years, and should not get married to a
fiat currency and WEF market for almost the same
length of time. We have come a long way in 64
years, and if our legislators were really pro-
Alaska, we would be seeing an increased amount of
growth in the next 55 years.
2) We cannot use forests that are inaccessible
due to terrain grade. Also, companies would
prefer to clear-cut instead of clearing a
percentage due to cost. There is simply not
enough PRACTICALITY in this bill to even consider
joining this "new green deal" replacement.
3) Everyone tries to reference the native
CORPORATIONS as a shining light for this bill. I
would remind you that the GOVERNMENT is NOT a
CORPORATION.
4) Lastly, joining any carbon fiat currency is
ESG and the people of Alaska view this just like
porn. If you don't want to support human
trafficking, don't watch porn or partake in that
market. If you don't want to support the ESG
poverty that we KNOW happens, don't partake in
this market.
2:05:52 PM
TODD LINDLEY, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
49. He stated that the proposed legislation has been referred
to as the "tree bill;" however, he expressed the opinion that it
should be called the "density bill," because trees per acre
would be used as the metric for measuring the amount of carbon
offset; thus, the higher the tree density, the more carbon
offset. He stated that this would set up a framework for
companies to offset their carbon emissions by leasing the
state's forest. He referenced Anew Climate's whitepaper study
on Alaska's forest, identifying 300,000 acres for a pilot
project. He estimated that the average density of the state
forest is 113 trees per acre. Converting this to barrels of
oil, he related that 300,000 acres of forest in Alaska would be
worth 14,000 barrels of oil. In other words, he explained that
Alaska's forest would become an asset [for companies outside of
the country]. He continued that for the forests to be on the
exchange, they would have to remain in protected status. He
voiced the opinion that Verra, a company that manages carbon
offsets, is a WEF partner. He continued that Verra also
confirmed it is a nonprofit; however, it is incorporated in
Columbia. He questioned why a foreign entity would be giving
invited testimony to the committee and petitioning support for
legislation in the state. He argued that the legislature was
negligent by not performing due diligence on Verra. Based on
the proposed land usage and taxation, he argued that HB 49 needs
to be removed from the ledger completely.
CHAIR MCKAY requested that Mr. Lindley forward information on
the whitepaper study he referenced to the committee.
2:08:29 PM
BERT HOUGHTALING, representing self, testified in opposition to
HB 49. He expressed disgust that the legislature has "bought
into this ESG scam." He questioned whether the legislators are
being paid by WEF to push "this Green New Deal scam."
CHAIR MCCAY interjected that no one in the committee is
receiving "any kind of compensation," and he challenged the
statement.
MR. HOUGHTALING recommended that the legislators "take their
horse blinders off and quit looking at the carrot the federal
government keeps pushing at the end of the stick." He suggested
that invited testifiers had been indoctrinated by WEF. He
expressed suspicion that the rules would be changed because
carbon credits would be under the control of WEF, not Alaskans.
He said, "I wish we could be more like Saudi Arabia, who was
able to accomplish $161 billion in sales of oil in this last
past year." He compared this with $14 billion in oil sales in
Alaska. He stated that Saudi Arabia's cost for production of
oil is $6 per barrel, while it is $68 per barrel in Alaska.
Calling the legislation "a scam," he voiced the idea that it
would increase everyday costs, and the discussion needs to be
tabled or disregarded completely.
2:11:35 PM
KARA MORIARTY, Lobbyist, Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA),
provided testimony on HB 49. She stated that AOGA represents
the majority of the companies that are exploring, developing,
producing, transporting, marketing, and refining oil and gas in
Alaska. She stated that AOGA's mission is to advocate for the
long-term viability of the oil and gas industry in the state and
it "applauds" the governor's efforts to continue Alaska's
tradition of responsible and innovative resource development.
She continued that AOGA supports an approach that incorporates
carbon-offset programs into voluntary carbon-reduction targets.
She recommended that the final framework of a carbon-offset
program should be consistent with Alaska's constitutional
principles of preserving multiple-use land access for all
Alaskans, and this should be maintained through future
administrations. She stated that Alaska is uniquely positioned
to be a leader in the emerging carbon-offset industry, and AOGA
looks forward to learning about the process and the proposed
legislation.
2:14:20 PM
MS. ANDREWS repeated a portion of her earlier testimony that had
begun at 1:58 p.m. and was interrupted because of technical
difficulty.
2:15:09 PM
MS. ANDREWS, continuing her testimony, stated that even if wind
and solar energy are not economically viable, they are
defendable because of the electrical output provided. She
expressed the understanding that legislators have made comments
concerning that tax credits "may be the single biggest incentive
for companies to participate" [in the carbon market]. She
concluded that tax credits are the only reason the proposed
legislation exists, so this would be "another government subsidy
with a fraud rating of 90 percent." She questioned the need for
the [proposed] legislation, as it would allow companies to come
to the state and "partake in this fraud." She voiced the
opinion that the state is being lied to on this topic, comparing
it to the process that helped [the federal government enact the
Affordable Care Act]. She reasoned that when debate begins in
defense of what something is not, the concept is fundamentally
flawed. She likened this to the claims that the proposed
legislation is not ESG or connected with WEF. She said, "People
are not stupid and honestly that is what the supporters of this
bill are depending on."
2:16:44 PM
CHAIR MCKAY, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony.
2:16:53 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:16 p.m. to 2:17 p.m.
2:17:20 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that HB 49 was held over.
2:18:05 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:18 p.m.