This meeting of the House Resources Committee will now come to order. It is now
125 p.m. Friday January 30th, 2026 in capital room 124
Members present are representative Colom representative Hall representative Mears representative Prox
Representative Elam
Representative Sadler co-chair representative Diber and myself co chair representative
Let the record reflect that we have a quorum to conduct business
Please take this time to silence your cell phone for the duration of a meeting. Thank you
I'd like to thank Cheryl Cole and Andrew Gianoti from records and Zach Lawhorn from the Juneau
LIO for staffing the committee today.
Today in resources, we are holding introductory hearings on two bills, House Bill 247, Climate
Change Response Fund and grants from Representative Josephson and House bill 258, Statewide Spay
The Department of Environmental Conservation is on the line to answer questions about both bills on
the agenda today, and the Department Of Fishing Game are also here on House Bill 258.
So first up, we have House bill 247 from Representative Josephson.
This is the first hearing on this bill in House Resources.
Representative Josefson, welcome to House resources.
Please join us at the table and begin your presentation.
Thank you co-chairs and committee. I'm Andy Josephson house district 13 itself Midtown and Anchorage
With me is my staff Joe mihan
Who has a powerpoint and is prepared to help me in answering any questions? We hope that you have
I want to thank you for the opportunity
chair chairwoman for to present this bill
This bill we think is vitally important.
We don't dispute that it can be considered provocative, certainly in terms of its funding source.
But we thing this is where the world is going, and we can show, unfortunately, that that's true.
House bill 247 is an important reform to the way in which the state pays for disaster relief.
Recently, legislative research reports that the state has spent $361 million during the
last 20 years on disaster relief funding.
That may sound, well, one level it's bad, divided by 10, perhaps it is only in the range
of $20 million per year.
As you will see, the trend line on these expenses is not favorable and the State's cash position
For example, looking at just one year, in House Bill 53,
the operating budget for fiscal year 25, last year's operating
budget, arguably two years ago.
The state needed to spend $29 million, just a supplement
would have been funded for disaster relief in that single year.
So to give you an illustration, and you'll
see that this happened two-years in succession.
The legislature in that year appropriated, in FY 25, appropriated $20.5 million.
The governor vetoed $7. 5 million, leaving the account with $13 million but
it had to be supplemented because of disasters, declared disasters by $29 million
making the entire year's appropriation $40 million and as I learned yesterday.
We call it the entire year's appropriation, but often these books remain open.
So, for example, yesterday I learned from DMVA that the costs associated with the 2018 earthquake
are not closed. They're not finalized. So these things can fester and go on. In the current year
FY26 the appropriation was funded at 23.3 million just as he had in the previous year the governor
vetoed 10. 3 million leaving the appropriations at 13 million. But now in our supplemental bill
the Governor has asked for 40 million dollars of course a lot of that attributed to typhoon
And you'll see that in the PowerPoint, the unfortunate trend is there.
You can see, that our funding is wholly inadequate and is a huge imposition on the overall budget.
Note that, in FY22, this state spent nearly 60 million on disaster relief.
That was the year of typhoon Merbach.
Our state budget can no longer sustain the growing cost of disaster relief,
nor deal constructively with its erratic and unpredictable nature.
Interestingly, I had a research up in the Terry Miller building
helped me with some of these numbers.
And they provided a link to say a report for the general
for the GAO in Congress, and that report is called the Unmet Needs
of Environmentally Threatened Alaska Native Villages.
This report was prepared by the ANTHC,
the Tribal Health Consortium.
That 200-page report concludes that of our 229 villages, a 144-quote-face some degree
of infrastructure damage from erosion, flooding, and permafrost degradation and a perilous
combination of all three.
The report in question, which I'm happy to get for you, concludes there is an $81 million
annual funding gap to meet unmet needs in rural Alaska.
Importantly, we've all heard the mantra that a penny today is worth a pound of cure is relevant to this report.
So the report notes that, for example, investment of $1 in hazard mitigation saves $6 in recovery costs.
Extrapolated, the Report concludes that if we funded it 80 million a year,
And I can find that time, $25.8 million.
We've all heard about these sorts of statistics.
So it's certainly easier to do the mitigation and
preparation in advance.
Now to the bill.
adds a new law as $4,355,400 to create a $0.20 per barrel surcharge.
Now that's where the pain is.
And no doubt, we don't suggest it's not provocative.
It will be provocative because...
The industry currently pays five cents per barrel for prevention and response through the spill prevention response fund, and it's paid that amount for a long time, so there's, there is a familiarity for the industry with it.
There was a 95 100s of a penny surcharge actually tax increase added to the motor fuel tax, which was designed to buttress spar as well.
That's paid by you and I and not so much directly the industry, but the
industry is used to the five cents and it makes the argument that it's contributing to
the clean up of spills, it didn't necessarily cause.
For example, a dry cleaning site that has had a leak.
Spar may come in there, DEC and do a clean-up.
And that's certainly not a direct cost associated with the
industry.
You know, fundamentally, even though we all enjoy energy to heat our homes, to fly to
other cities,
to fuel our cars, you know what's sort of...
Obvious about this bill is that there's a connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate related disasters
So HP 247 would add 20 cents per barrel surcharge
These funds would go to the general fund and be available for a new climate change response fund noted in section 9
Folks available, for that fund would be NGOs tribes municipalities and the like
and we'd be happy to talk about those as well.
Eligible organizations could apply for those funds.
I would note that a question may arise about,
in the worst case scenario, don't we get relief from FEMA?
I think we're going to learn that in some instances,
FEMA does quite well, although there's lots of literature,
we can share this with you, that as you know,
if you watch the news and I know you do,
The future of FEMA is very, very uncertain and unclear.
And in addition, sometimes the state does not get, for example, the 90 percent it craves in compensation from the federal government.
It may get 75 percent, which sounds great until you're talking about tens and tens of millions of dollars.
So we believe that this surcharge is appropriate to apply in throughput.
Just a couple other comments, the bill, as I noted, would free up revenue.
So the state could use that revenue for other important functions.
And I'm reminded by staff upstairs that actually this concept of effectively taxing throughput
In 1967, had a disaster relief fund generated from an establishment of a $10 capitalized
initial fund, 1967 legislature established a 10-dollar disaster-relief tax on employed
persons and a 1% disaster oil production tax.
I just want to read one thing and I'll close, it's from the report I noted from A-N-T-H-C.
And here's how their executive summary begins.
Today, and mind you, this bill is not just for rural Alaska.
But they write today, Alaska Native communities
are on the front lines of climate change.
These communities are disproportionately impacted
by harmful climate-driven environmental trends
and extreme events.
Alaska native economic, social, and cultural ways of being,
which have served so well for millennia,
are now under extreme threat
to an accelerated environmental change,
the magnitude and severity of this problem
can be difficult to comprehend.
In jeopardy are not just buildings,
but the sustainability of entire communities and cultures.
Madam chair madam chairs, I'd be happy to try to answer any questions you have
We then have a PowerPoint from mr. Meehan. We have invited testimony from a dr. Steiner a
Leading scientist in this area
Thank you. I had
Representative elam. Thank You. Uh, thank you for presenting here today with us
I guess my my first question is is can you help me to to understand the difference between a surcharge and?
And kind of a tax, it sounds like a 20 cent per barrel tax.
But you're using the term surcharge.
Is it, what's the difference between a
tax and a sur charge in this scenario?
I could obfuscate and dodge, but there's virtually none.
The current term in law is surcharged.
And when you talking about SPAR and its
spill prevention response funds,
it is imposed in laws as a search charge.
If somebody, for example, a member of the press that is in this attack,
I'd say, yeah, it's essentially a tax.
Follow up, please.
Follow-up?
How much revenue do you anticipate generating from this particular tax?
Through the chair, and I apologize for not saying that before,
the fiscal note is consistent with weak thought,
and that's around $33 million a year.
Now, I think Dr. Steiner will tell you.
not without cause that that may not be enough and I've just read some statistics from the
last two fiscal years that support that it isn't and this report from ANTHC says it
isn t says we need 80 million a year. But I think that um it's important that we understand
this is no longer just I'm tempted to say sort of a nuisance account that
This is now a major component of our budget.
Thank you.
Representative Sather, then Representative Prox.
Thank You.
I understand this is for the initial presentation,
and I want to let the sponsor of the opportunity
to make his case, but through the chair.
The sponsor, it's the front acknowledges
the controversial nature of The Bill,
and that's just fair, really.
But to me, this based on the premise
that climate change, the purported reason for The Fund,
is I'm going to say it right.
caused by man and specifically caused
by oil and on the basis that there
should be some nexus of cost,
cause, or cost payer even though we
don't have dedicated funds.
What evidence do you offer to justify
a $30 million program that the oil that
passes through the Trans-Laska pipeline
justifies trying to change climate change,
trying address climate, change?
Through the chair, Representative Sadler,
what Mr. Meehan and I didn't do,
Mr.. Meehan is a scientist as well. I would he would be embarrassed to hear that but he worked for a fishing game on
their critical habitat and
Sanctuary a program for decades, and so he's exposed to a lot of this information
but
Every day I read about the nexus between those two things and
We didn't that is Joe and I did not prepare
I mean, you couldn't bring enough documents in here to make the case.
You would run out of room in this room, right?
So we didn't prepare for that specific answer.
I think Dr. Steiner off the cuff could do a much better job.
Representative Prox?
Yes, I guess I would.
I'd like to hear the rest of the presentation,
but will there be time allotted after the presentations
to bring up some of these questions?
Absolutely.
I think so.
Madam Chair, just as a preface, or a perface.
Dr. Steiner will note probably that recently,
I thing in the last year, the state of Hawaii,
which is often a leader in this area,
particularly on, for example, it's trying to get 100%.
a clean air renewables, right?
I think that reps of mirrors may know something about that as well,
but about Hawaii's efforts.
But they've recently passed a $33 million surcharge.
If I may interrupt, I did mean that to extend the debate.
I prefer to hear the rest of the presentation
Ma'am chair, will there be time after the presentation mr.. I'm sure if I might
Josephson whether there's time is up to the co-chair
I wasn't providing anything to add to that debate. I was just noting that Hawaii has a
100 million dollar tax on
On mitigation and disaster relief imposed on its principal industry tourism
And dr. Steiner will tell you in the research to it. Well the the literature supports that other states are doing this as well
Thank you, Representative Josephson, seeing no further questions if you'll proceed with the presentation
Mr. Mihan
Madam chair for the record Joe Meehan
aid for
Representative, Josephsen and I'd like to briefly go through how spill
247 and some of the details that representative Joseph son hit upon
Clearly our climate has changed
With the floods, mudslides, avalanches, coastal and riverine, erosion, various sorts of storms, loss of glacial, glaciers, wildfires, certainly it's in the headlines constantly, reminders to us.
Many of us have likely been impacted by these severe weather events over the years.
Despite Mr. Warner's wish or perhaps his suggestion, HB 247 would not change the weather.
But what it would do is establish a fund to help Alaskans mitigate and abate climate impacts.
It would be funded by a new oil production surcharge.
It will authorize the Department of Environmental Conservation to administer a grant program.
And lastly, it establishes a process and criteria for awarding those grants.
To gain a general idea of the financial impacts of these severe weather events on our state
We looked at climate-related state disasters declared disasters between
2004 and
2024 in that time period there were 78 climate related
Disasters declared in Alaska 10 of which were due to wildfires
During that period, there was
233 million
state dollars spent on those disasters, in addition another $367 million federal dollars
that were spent in those disaster.
And just as a side note, for non-disaster wildfires during that time period, there was
just over a $1 billion spent fighting those wildfires, that included both state of Alaska
And looking at those disasters over time, the red line that you see on this graph indicates the number of disasters through the years, 2004 to 2024.
You'll see the highest number disasters declared in any one year was 2002 with 13 of them.
The bars on the graph represent the funds that were expended on those disaster,
the blue and state funds, and the green is federal.
And both in the numbers of disasters each year and the funds spent
are represented by the black trend line on this graph.
And if we were to extend that trendline out into the future,
which most scientists and people involved in climate change,
discussions and research indicate it's going to keep climbing into
the feature.
We have a question from Representative Mears.
Thank you through the chair to Mr. Meehan, so going back to the last slide or two.
So I don't believe that our disaster declarations necessarily include wildfires.
Wildfires that aren't disasters is again another chart that adds on top of this
So this is only part of what we're dealing with and we were seeing those wildfire trends also
Rise over time as we are having climate change and effects on our forests
Representative mirrors through the chair. Yeah, that is correct. Um, only ten of the 78
Declare disasters since between the time period 2020
2004 and 2024 were wildfires, and many more wildfires that were not declared state disasters.
Representative Klum.
Thank you, Chair, through the Chair.
So I'm not understanding your black trend line.
Oh, I mean, it doesn't go on top of the highest.
It's not doesn' put the lowest in context.
Not only anything, I'm just wondering, how did you draw that black line, what was the basis of the trend?
Representative Callum through the chair, that's a statistical line that, to be honest, Excel.
Puts into the program in all likelihood based on a regression analysis and I am not the statistician
So I can't go any further than that to explain it, but it basically looks at the variations for each year
and trends over time
Yeah, I was just looking it I don't know it doesn't really look like it's going up
It's doing like this depending on the year
So, I just wanted to see if that was based on actual statistics, or thank you.
Please proceed.
So going into some more of the details of HB 247.
It will amend AS 43 to add a new surcharge of 20 cents per each taxable barrel of oil,
It also creates a climate change response fund within the general fund.
And the new surcharge may be allocated to the fund as representative Josephson said,
we anticipate $33 billion annually to be generated from this sur charge.
Based on the fiscal note from Department of Environmental Conservation, approximately 4% of that fund would be used by DEC to administer the Fund.
And lastly, this portion would establish rules
for reporting and paying the surcharge.
HB 247 also amends AS44-46,
which would amend the duties of DEC
to administer the new fund
and also administer
the Climate Change Response Grant Program.
Lastly, it establishes a process and criteria
for administering the grant program.
Some details of the Climate Change Response Grant Program.
It would be open to non-governmental organizations, political subdivisions of
the state, and tribal governments. It could be used to build, repair,
upgrade, or improve capital assets or other infrastructure.
It will establish eligibility criteria by the applicants to
meet a threshold for anticipated or real risks from climate change.
It also
The applicant would have to secure and maintain adequate property loss insurance and have a
preventative maintenance plan.
A D.C. would set priorities based on these criteria, which would include protect and
improve public health, protect, improve climate change resiliency, and to mitigate environmental
damage and loss of life and property caused by adverse weather events and climate
So, in summary, HB 247 is a proactive approach to protect our communities, infrastructure, economies, environments, and lifestyle.
As has been noted, studies have shown that for every $1 spent, it proactively saves $6 in response.
contracted by the Denali Commission, found 144 communities in Western and
Interior Alaska face high or moderate risks of infrastructure damage from
natural hazards. And our sighted figures only reflect declared disasters, impacts
from climate-induced factors are likely much higher, and has also been pointed
out the future FEMA funding and assistance is uncertain, highlighting the
And with that, we would happy to answer any more questions.
All right, Representative Prox.
Thank you.
I think it's important to note you mentioned that every dollar spent returns $6.
And that's on average, I guess, maybe.
But it is not true, because this is a problem with FEMA and
everything else that is taken away from consumers.
A dollar spent over here might not do any good and a dollar over
here, might do a hundred to one return in the future.
Have you thought about that management part of it?
Does that make sense that every dollar
spent, that's a misconception or not the right way to look at it.
misconception as a 61-year-old person, whether it's exercise,
whether its car repair, all of those typical things we engage in in life,
my experience is that a smart investment is the early investment
and that you avoid and forgo other costs.
Mr. Mihan cited to one source that said it was six-to-one
This document from A&THC also cites six to 1 it cites to a second document called the multi-hazard
mitigation council 2019, right so
You know I
Assume that if there had been a better investment in protecting the only good and kip duck
they would have survived in better shape.
But before you continue, Representative Prox, we heard a presentation from Brian Fisher
when we, in a tribal affairs and joint meeting that we had, was that yesterday?
Yeah.
The days all went together, and that was what he also stated, six to one.
If you spend a dollar in mitigation, or in preparedness.
before a disaster happens but why it's important is if you were an insurance
company you would and FEMA is basically an
insurance company that the money is disconnected from the customer. If you
were in insurance companies and you wanted to ensure somebody's house you
for somebody that's located in a flood zone or near a river. Similarly, well a good example
is if you want to insure an auto, the auto insurance rates in Juneau
are considerably higher than the auto insurance rates in Fairbanks.
Why?
Because there's more accidents in Juneau.
Why, because there are hills and snowing in icy streets.
And there were roads.
But the insurance companies look at where their cost is driven.
And they don't just raise their rates for everybody
so that they can cause more people to locate in areas
that are higher risk.
and my main objection with this approach to it is that we, I think we do have to respond to
the changing climate. I'll call that. But if we just continue to replace things
and not associate the cost of replacing something there, we're going to spend way more than is
That's the fundamental flaw with the approach that we have here.
And then we'd have to get into, we said this was a surcharge and it's dedicated to climate change.
Well, have you answered the constitutional question of a dedicated tax?
Just, if I might, through the Chair, President Prox, on the second point, it is not dedicated,
it was designated.
Yeah, if I might, yeah, it's not semantics because as we saw with a higher education investment fund, which I hope to replenish these funds can be used for other purposes.
Representing.
Are you done representing.
Yeah.
We're not going to win that one.
So through the chair, Ratrosus, and I would say before I ask my question,
you know, in your introduction, you stated that we enjoy our energy,
but no, this is life and death for Alaskans.
We need energy to keep our houses warm.
It's not like we're just enjoying it.
We actually need the energy
to to our house is warm, so I take a little issue with that.
I understand there's some flexibility with some of the
And I think we're all aware that oil companies, LNG, those things are giving us a stable base load.
So anything that would disincentivize more production or business investment, I'm a little wary of that.
But I wanted to ask about the way it's set up.
So you created this new climate change response fund.
Why not just put the money in the disaster relief fund?
Why create a new one?
And I guess maybe this you answered this but basically
they don't have to use it for climate
change.
They can it looks like they can they may
the state want, like we could move the funds around.
But if it's really supposed to go to this one mission, just curious on how you set up the fund and why you said it up that way.
Through the chair, my use of the word enjoy was only meant to mean we all benefit from.
So none of us have clean hands when it comes to burning fossil fuels, very,
very very few of those.
Committee's Substitute or Amendment to the Disaster Relief Fund.
This was modeled as a surcharge that would be in the hands
of the Spill Prevention Response Agency,
which is a division within DEC.
And it was designed to, I suppose, provide a little more
directed purpose as to as the intent of fund.
There's nothing really that would prohibit what you're saying so those are my thoughts
So what what would so?
I'm thinking you have santas
They're net zero
That the whole mission of their company is that and they're actually kind of being punished for something that they are not contributing to
What do you do with a company like that?
Through the chair, I'm aware of
their Australia boards directive
And I think they're involved for example. They're interested I
Think in things like the carbon offset program
I guess I would need some evidence that they've actually reached that goal. I appreciate they have that go
That's credit worthy.
Well, they were in our committee just not too long ago and said they
were, so that's why I brought it up.
Well it would be a difficult carve out to use in this bill.
And would I think begrudged by other contributors.
But I take your point.
I haven't given any thought beyond that.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank You, Representative Sadler, and then Representative Meers.
Thank, I need to come to the defense of my colleague from North Pole that it's true.
We are constitutionally prohibited from dedicating funds with a couple of notable exceptions.
And we tend to deal with that by having designations in the budget, which I'm sure you're well aware of.
And, we have special funds that may be used for the announced purpose, but which also may and are used to divert to other purposes.
And the sponsor listed some concern that this is a rather large dipping into the revenue stream of the pipeline.
and to provide another such a skirting of the medication.
So therefore, my concern that those who might view this
as seeing the oil industry in the pipeline
as depockets for anything,
we'll see much justify that fear.
I wanted to be respectful and hear the presentation,
but it's gonna be a big lift
to try and get me to take $33 million a year
for an ill-defined thing to buy.
To provide money to grants to NGOs.
Sorry.
Thank you, Representative Sather.
Representative Mears.
Thank You Madam Chair.
I'm processing that a little bit, but I think I'll take my
So through the Chair to Representative Josephson, I think your role here as the operations budget co-chair for finance,
I'll take advantage of that knowledge.
So you'd mentioned as an example that we already have surcharges and other funds that
we use for an associated purpose.
So this bill prevention response.
Generally for similar purposes, as the money is being generated from, but there's other
ancillary uses, our vehicle rental tax, we just got out of our TNR budget finance subcommittee.
We utilize the vehicle, rental, tax for our state parks, amongst other things.
So I'm sure you've got many more examples of how we have anCillary things that we use funds for.
To me, looking at tying a per barrel oil surcharge to climate change, there are certainly non-anthropogenic
sources, volcanoes being, you know, towards the top of the list. There are indirect anthropogenic
sources like wildfires that are further spurred by climate changes. But fundamentally, oil,
Oil is large chain carbon when combusted carbon dioxide, natural gas, CH4 methane.
There's decades worth of research, which I am more than convinced by.
Changes in the atmosphere are leading to global changes we're talking about in
the SEOC meeting yesterday.
Atmospheric rivers is not something we talked about in Southeast years ago.
The changes that are happening in Northwest Alaska,
where CAAS is binding to shores later, melting of permafrost.
All of those things have got scientific research tied
to additional carbon in the atmosphere.
Barring that research, even just not looking at that, the economic trends.
the economic trends of those impacts on natural disasters and on wildfires is something that's
increasing. And I think as the operating budget chair looking at how do we fund our changing needs
is appropriate. Thank you.
We are back on record in house resources. I just want to note that we do have
Invited testimony on the line. We've Rick Steiner of Oasis Earth is here
So we'll proceed with invited testimony and if there are further questions afterward, we can address them then
Mr. Steimer, please put yourself on-record and begin your testimony
Madam chair, thank you very much. Can you hear me okay? Yes, he can hear you
All right, excellent. Well, thank you very much for the opportunity to comment briefly on HB 247
As this bill would be a historic investment
And Alaska's future I offer my strong support for its passage in summary my testimony will be this
climate disasters in Alaska are increasing fact
Impacts and costs are increasingly this will go on throughout this century
Alaska communities know exactly what they need to do to better prepare for and
To prevent the worst impacts of these they already know this
They just need the money to to sell
The feds are cannot be relied on to continue to cover
response costs
And in the future and by the way FEMA almost always pays for response not for prevention preparedness
HB247 starts to fill the pipeline here, to provide that sort of money that our communities desperately need to prevent storms like Halong and Murbok from becoming the disasters that they became.
And it's time to put Alaskans to work solving this, either climate hardening in the communities or relocating.
and I think we know which ones those are and i think it's time for the legislature to stop
looking away from this issue and the question the end question here would be if not this bill
if and what where what would it be the revenue stream we would pull from to help these communities
we need government's responsibilities to look out for
the well-being of its citizenry
and this is one way to do it. Very quickly climate disasters we know are increasing some
are very fast moving like storms, floods, wildfires, landslides and some are
very slow moving, like permafrost, thaw subsidence, fish and wildlife declines and such,
but all could be devastating and costly. These will get worse throughout the century and lives
and livelihoods are at stake. Estimates of costs in Alaska vary from
over this the remainder of the century vary from four to five billion dollars in climate
costs if though if there's adequate mitigation measures and a patient measures put in place
that cost cuts in half that's pretty significant savings of billions of dollars and the one to
six ratio that representative josephson and uh joe bham mentioned earlier is solid uh that
While we can't prevent these storms like halong and merbach, we
can prevent them from becoming the disasters that they have become.
If we had had adequate mitigation in place before halang, as
Representative Joseph said, much of that damage simply would not
have occurred.
desperately need substantial government support to do what they can to better prepare for
and to prevent the worst impacts. That's precisely what HB 247 begins to
do. We need to get the money in the hands of
and put Alaskans to work doing what we know how to do.
We're not gonna stand by with our hands in our pockets
and watch our communities fall apart
and the houses drift away into the Bering States.
We are gonna do what they can.
So we need state support,
our community needs state supports to that.
So to borrow from the movie, Jerry McGuire,
it's now time for you, the Alaska Legislature
to show us the money.
Other states, as Representative Josephson mentioned,
are doing just that,
Hawaii, New York, Vermont have climate funds.
Maryland, Massachusetts, California,
New Jersey, legislatures all have
climate fund bills pending an in consideration.
The Hawaii Climate Fund, the representative,
Joseph mentioned earlier the fee,
the tourism fee tax just went into effect
earlier this month, January 1.
And it raised the hotel tax from 0.75%
to 11 percent. So it raised its tax on its primary industry, the state of Hawaii,
over 10 percent to ostensibly, hopefully, in the State of Hawaiʻi's view,
taken $100 million a year to fund its climate adaptation program.
By comparison, HB247 proposes a 20-cent per barrel fee tax
of a $60 per barrel oil price.
So Hawaii's raised its tax 10%,
HB247 proposed to raise the tax here
far less than 1% on oil.
Without doubt, too, Alaska is at far more greater risk
from climate disasters than any state in the nation.
And we, as we've mentioned, we can no longer rely on federal government to pay 100% of
our needs.
FEMA may go away and may start paying 50%, leaving the rest of the burden on states.
We'll have to see.
HP247 funds can be used to leverage and match federal funds to draw in more federal support.
And importantly, the state has already identified much of what needs to be done.
The legislature's own climate commission in 2006 and 2007 identified many of these things.
The Palin sub-cabinet with their immediate action working group and the Alaska Climate Change Strategy
and identified the measures that need to put into place.
But then the State has done absolutely nothing since then.
to prepare for or prevent the worst impacts of this.
And that's, to me, into many of us, many
of our friends in Western Alaska,
that represents a catastrophic failure in government.
Today, you all have a chance to correct this tragic failure.
The 20-cent of barrel fee, I think,
Representative Josephson mentioned,
would be about $30 plus million a year.
And importantly,
This is many that money goes directly to jobs in Alaska communities across the state.
Let's not forget that.
Also, you might in conclusion, Senator Murkowski recently said after Halon
that the time to have dealt with this would have been 20 years ago,
the best time and the next best times right now.
So we have a chance to do that,
You know, we cannot kick the can down the road on this issue any longer.
If not this bill in this revenue stream, then what?
Again, government's responsibility, it's sole responsibility.
It's to look out for the well-being of its citizenry.
If we're not looking at climate change impacts to our communities,
then we are failing tragically.
If we can't come together to do this at this point in time,
then I'd say shame on all of us.
So I'll just respectfully ask that you all move this bill to the floor,
have a robust debate and move it to passage,
and then hopefully the governor will sign it.
I will close with that and be available for any questions.
Thank you, Mr. Steiner.
Representative Sadler thank you to the chair mr. Steiner I've received numerous communications from you over the years
Asking for legislation very similar to this. I'm just curious to ask for the record
What what role would you play in crafting guiding and advancing this particular bill this time around?
None what's wherever I sent my bills as you know
Representative sadler to every legislator my proposals
For the last at least ten years each year
And it was a slightly different version than what
Representative Josephson drafted and introduced.
My proposal was that the Department of Community
and Regional Affairs administered the grant.
DCRA used to have a program called the Alaska Climate Change
Impact Mitigation Program, ACCIMP,
that funding has gone away.
DCRA might be a more logical, this is more of a community infrastructure and housing issue
than it is an environmental issue. So, you know, that's pretty much it. And again, I did,
I started proposing this 19 years ago when Senator Murkowski said the best time to
That's indeed what I tried to do, and here we are today. Had we done that then, established a fund
and invested properly in adaptation mitigation prevention, I think we'd be pretty well done
with it by now and the damage caused by Halon and Merbach simply would have been much, much less.
Thank you. Thank You. Representative Mears.
Thank you through the chair to Mr. Steiner.
So you mentioned, one of us mentioned the Hawaii fund source
is through tourism dollars.
You'd also mention there are similar funds set up
in Vermont and New York and perhaps other places as well.
Do you know where they're looking to fund these funds?
through the terror, yes, I believe they're all funded
through an oil surcharge.
That even though there is not many of these states
are not oil producing states, except for Hawaii's.
Hawaii uses a tourism tax, flat, plain and simple.
It's their tax in there.
And I think instead of looking at it as a punitive tax
in some places,
I'd think they are looking as punitive, tax.
regarding oil production or oil use, but Hawaii did not look at their tourism tax,
as a punitive tax on tourism, although tourism does have a climate footprint,
a carbon footprint. No question about it. But they're looking at it as
a logical revenue stream, if not tourism then where?
Where can that money come from to government to take care of this very legitimate need of its citizenry?
And I think that's primarily
the the view that I have with a oil surcharge here in Alaska. This is not necessarily a punitive tax.
It's looking at this is a logical place to get a revenue stream and start taking care
of our communities in western and northern and interior Alaska
We have to find a place for it from somewhere. So thank you
Thank you. Representative Prox.
Yes, thank you through the chair.
You mentioned
Hawaii taxes tourism and
If one accepts the argument which for this purpose, I will the tax on tourism
Gets to the root cause of the need for a response. Were it not?
for tourism, all the infrastructure that you need to protect would never have been built
in the extreme, or it would have built differently.
So why don't we take that approach on taxing the direct consumption that is causing the
Tourism being one, you would, um, a fishing lodge needs to be built next to a body of
water that is at greater exposure to damage from, uh, flooding, weather-caused events.
activities that cause the need for the response if there wasn't something there
you wouldn't need to respond respond why would we not take that approach to
make it directly more directly cause are connected to the cause of the
recent the needs for their response I don't know if that question was directed
If I understand your question correctly and I'm not positive that I do, sure, there's
various revenue models that one could consider, that the committee could
consider that, the legislature could, consider. But the bottom line is, we have
to find substantial revenues to, from the state of Alaska, to begin dealing with
preparation and prevention and mitigation,
for these climate disasters that all of our communities,
every single Alaskan, is at risk from.
And that includes wildfires, landslides
that are devastating and fatal oftentimes
for glacial, deep buttressing of unstable rock slopes
and floods and storms and wind damage.
I mean, think about it if we had that sort of funding
available before Halong.
And we've been able to go in and anchor the house,
simply anchor, the houses to their foundations
and put some more storm surge barriers around the village
and maybe raise emergency generators out of the flood zone,
things like that.
There would have been minimal or far less damage.
So as far as a revenue model,
I'd have to leave that to the economists,
the legislature, and you find folks to think through
I believe Representative Josephson chose the oil surcharge for logical reasons.
I think that has always been our proposal.
You could do a tourism tax.
You can do agriculture tax that wouldn't generate a lot.
And other industries, you know, but I
think the logical place for this to start with would be an oil
sur charge.
And again, that is what most other states
are using are looking at at this time is my understanding thank you thank
you I had a question about the fiscal note okay uh we have Teresa Melville on the
line the director of the division of spill prevention and response with the
department of environmental conservation I think representative colomb has a
Oh, did you want to finish?
Hold on one second.
Does anybody else have any further questions for Mr. Steiner?
Okay.
We'll go ahead.
Thank you.
Thank You, Mr Steinder for joining us.
Thank for hearing my comments.
I appreciate it.
Thank.
Thank you chairing through the chair miss Melville. I I'm looking at the fiscal note and it looks like the first year
It says 1.2
a little over a million dollars for
The cost of this, but then it jumps up to 11 million
And I am not sure
Why is am I reading that wrong or can you just kind of walk through that fiscal?
Note and how much this
What cost to set up this climate change fund?
For the record, this is Tracy Melville, Director of the Division of Civil Prevention and Response
and representatives through the chair.
What we looked at is the first year of this program, we would be basically setting up
the parameters, the rules, hiring staff to be able to do that.
The only staff member that we did not look at putting on adding to staff would have
because we figured that we would not have any income from this until year two, which would be FY 28.
If you look a little further down, the new income for that would
be $11,416,000 and we looked at $10 million of that going out in grants in the first year.
the under FY 28, it's in the upper box.
And then in this second year,
we would look at having more income
and then as the years progress,
looking at being able to produce more grants
to be able assist.
Uh, follow-up,
follow up.
So you don't think that it doesn't look like
You don't have any increases over the years to the cost of administering the
The fund you think it's going to be static
Through the chair at the the way that we kind of looked at it with a 33 million dollar
Progression that would we were trying to do very safe in in those estimates
So, leaving it at 30 million would be the extent of the income that we would have should,
because, and also, in addition, it says that the funding could be used for other purposes,
so we did leave a little room in there.
Yes, so you're anticipating the revenue that this fund is creating that's going to be covering
the cost to DEC. You would be using that money to cover the costs of administering the fund.
Through the chair, the first year we would need general funds to
cover 1.2 million and that would
be for setting up services, just putting the program in place.
And then because we would have no income in the first year and then in
the second year we will have income from the surcharge and be able to use those
monies and that would cover the grants and our operating costs.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank You.
Representative Elam, did you?
No, I'm okay.
Thank.
Okay.
Seeing no further questions, we will set this bill aside. Thank you representative Josephson and mr. Mihan for
Joining resources today. We're gonna take a brief at ease while we set up for the next presentation my thanks to the
We are back on record in house resources next up. We have house bill 258 from representative staff
This is the first hearing on this bill in House resources representative. Stop. Welcome to house
Resources, please join us at the table and put yourself on-record and begin your presentation
Thank you, madam coach here and with your position. I'd like to bring up my staff too and for the record
My name is represent will staff I represent East fear banks for
Wainwright in Madre Road, House District 32, and this is my staff.
Good afternoon, for the record Elizabeth Brexford staff to representative staff, thank you.
And with the permission of the co-chairs, I'd like to be able to just give an overview of
the bill and kind of what it does and then I'll turn it over to my
staff Ms. Rexford for this sectional.
So what is the nucleus behind HP 258?
state-wide spay and neuter assistance program and fun.
Basically, our state struggles in more areas than I had ever thought with controlling populations of mainly cats and dogs, mainly
cats actually. Communities across Alaska, especially rural and more remote under
So these challenges end up causing public health and safety issues.
Animal welfare issues, they put downward upward pressure on municipal budgets.
Animal shelter, occupancy, and capacities.
And the purpose of the bill is to focus on prevention rather than reaction.
So what's the best way to start a decline in these populations is
to get them spayed and neutered so they can't breed.
is a idea that was brought to me by a constituent that you're going to get to hear from today.
And it's designed to help reduce the long-term costs associated with these explosions and
populations of feral dogs and cats.
So the program, as a nutshell, it is flexible and voluntary.
It's administered by the Department of Environmental Conservation.
It's designed to partner with veterinarians and nonprofits and tribal entities and municipalities
at animal shelters, and really in most organizations that are really willing to try to tackle this
problem, that for so long is kind of unaddressed in many of the communities of Alaska.
It establishes a voluntary funding mechanism and includes a special request, spay and neuter
license plates, which I think is really cool, I'm sure there will be a happy picture of
That's obviously pre-spay and neuter, just to let everybody know.
Voluntary permanent fund dividend contributions through, I see a pick-let gift,
so there's a lot of I think people who are very passionate about
animals in the state and they'd be more than willing to help contribute to
solve this problem if they had an opportunity to do so through their
permanent funds dividend distribution. And of course donations and grants.
So the funding tools are designed to really minimize the impact the
be able to start funneling kind of needed resources to these issues and many of the
committees that I think pretty much all of you at the table combined are
represent. And with that, I'll take it over to Ms. Rexford for the sectional
So, for section one, section 1 creates a new section of law establishing the statewide
spay and neuter assistance program, the state wide spays and
neoter assistance fund, and the eligibility criteria for participation.
It assigns the DEC responsibility for developing regulations, promoting public education awareness
on the program and fund and submitting an annual report to the legislature.
Section 2 addresses the Board of Games' regulatory authority to prohibit the live capture, possession, transport, or release of native or exotic game by allowing municipalities to adopt an ordinance addressing feral cats and dogs.
And issuance will follow existing special request plate statutes.
This creates a voluntary public facing way for Alaskans to support the program.
Section 4 sets the special requests plate fee at $100 and
directs the net proceeds from those plates to the spay and neuter assistance fund.
Section 5 allows municipalities to adopt ordinances permitting capture possession and transport of feral cats and dogs for spaying, neutering, and vaccinating before release.
Municipalities are not required to do this.
This section just creates an option for communities that choose to pursue humane population control practices at the local level if they choose too.
into statute under the Program Receipt section.
This is what allows license plate revenue donations grants and
other receipts to legally flow into the fund.
For section 7, 8, and 9, they are technical and conforming changes.
Together they add the necessary statutory language so
the funds can exist on the pick, click, give list.
Receive voluntary permanent fund dividend contributions.
I think I'm missing a page.
These sections simply allow the fund to participate in existing PFD contributions, the voluntary
PFC contribution system.
Section 10 requires the EC to submit the first annual report by January 10th.
Section 11 sets effective date for January 1st, 2027.
The other questions for representative stop
Representative Sandler
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Through the Chair, Representative Staff,
I'm looking at section three of the bill,
which says basically it's a one-time charge
for the specialty plates.
I think there are a lot of other specialty
plates had to be issued and paid for every two years,
unless there's an exception.
The statute would create such an exemption.
Just curious, if there is a need for this money
and it is an ongoing need, why would the special plate
fee be a onetime only on initial issuance?
Kind of a technical schedule thing, but still.
Through the chair to rep Sadler I thank you for the question. I'm not actually sure if you're correct
I have specialty plates on my truck and I've only bought them once now
I need to do the registration, but I never had to pay a fee outside the initial time for
the plates. Of course, those are purple heart plates
I don't know if that's different but i'm NOT aware that you would have to be multiple
To ease every couple of years to hold specialty plates. I think it is just a one-time fee
Question came a quick ahead of chance to dive through the statute. So we'll get back in it. Thank you
Representative Mears
Thank You through The Chair to Representative Stop.
I'm looking at Section 5 which allows municipalities to adopt ordinances allowing for the capture possession and transport
The feral cats and dogs for The purpose of Spain neutering and vaccinating before release
I believe this is known as TNR or Trap Nuna release
Are we not allowed to that in the state at this point through the chair to representative mirrors?
Okay, this is where the happy conversation turns a little sad. So fish and game regulation is catch and kill basically
So this, is you know, or this probably a relatively challenging portion of the bill and I you
Know, I just kind of want to see the need for spay-neuter resources
So it's actually a section that I'm okay with being removed
but
people should know that.
I think it's a good conversation to have on the record
like municipality is basically,
that authority is under the board of game currently
and that's kind of their policy through the chair.
Thank you, Representative Stapp.
And just so folks know
that we do have the state veterinarian
from DEC on The Line, Sarah Coburn.
We also have Shondry Perry, the director of the...
Division of Environmental Health Department of environmental conservation and in the room we have Ryan Scott the wildlife wildlife director from ADF and G
So if there are questions for them as well
Representative clum. Oh, I had Dibert in The Q and
Coach our diver
Thank you through the co-chair
Thank You for bringing this bill forward as a co sponsor
and growing up in
rural communities as a child.
Our rural community's really struggle with having pets,
and the pets having multiple litters
of puppies mainly, so
any way to help communities in this way is really terrific.
And I just purchased a new car,
and I did get a vanity plate with the nice
the fireweed flowers and it is a one-time payment thanks thank you coach your
diver appreciate the comments and a co-sponsorship representative cool thank
you chair through the chair representative staff thank
you for bringing this forward I would say I live in Anchorage and we have a
definite feral cat
issue, they're killing all my birds in my yard. So I appreciate it. I want to clarify what you
just said. You're saying right now that the the animal control and the muni and let's say an
anchorage only gets the power to take those stray cats or dogs from fishing game. Through the chair
Fairly positive that that's the policy of the board of game
But I know that there are experts in the room that I can hopefully defer to to ensure that
I am right and when I say and they are nodding
Yes, okay, so I'm correct in my thing. I thought I was a little bit shocked too. Yeah, by the way
So follow follow and maybe this is a department question man. And like just looking at the logistics so from right now
This is this bill telling me needs they have to capture spray spay or neuter or
Would continue what they're doing like who decides what? They do with those cats and dogs now
This passes. Yeah through the chair to represent cloned
Excuse me co-chair to represent a column the bill basically just allows municipalities to make up their mind on what they want to do
Currently, they don't actually have that authority
And I can I've said on the record that's actually through the board of game
That's where that Authority comes from municipalities and actually they have the authority to change the policy
And i'm gonna look back and make sure that that is indeed correct
There we go
Okay, thank you. Just for the records. Yes, thanks
If I don t
Well, we also have invited testimony, so maybe we'll proceed with invited
testimony and then if there are any further questions for the sponsor we can
address those then. So with that we have in the room for invited
testimony Nick Lajaines of the Fairbanks North Starboro Assembly. Mr. Ljainis
please join us at the table and put yourself on record and begin your
testimony.
Hi, thank you.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee.
My name is Nicola Janice.
I'm a member of The Fairbanks North Star Borough Assembly, which has brought this HB 258 forward as a legislative priority for our borough.
That actually went on to get support from the AML as well.
I'm also the president of straw for dogs.
It's a nonprofit organization that provides resources to dogs living outside all over Alaska
to provide free insulated dog houses straw, veterinary care, rehoming, life-trapping of
lost pets and food, all being done with unpaid volunteers. I am here today because I generally
will be a better place with the passage of HB 258, the statewide spay and new program.
As a lifelong 53-year resident of North Pole, I am no stranger to the challenges of living life
in Interior Alaska. But Alaska is vast and every region, coastal, rural, urban faces its own
unique hardship. We design solutions to meet those specific challenges where we live and work.
Today, I want to call your attention to a problem that many Alaskans may not see every
day, but one that affects every region of our state, including the communities each of
you all represent.
And it sounds like some of you are familiar with this problem.
Alaska is quietly facing the compounding consequences
of overpopulation of stray and unwanted animals.
These consequences are real and serious bites on and injuries
on humans, spread of harmful and sometimes deadly disease,
health and behavioral problems amongst animals due
to inbreeding, significant financial strains
on communities and families, generational trauma for children
An alarming rate to burn out, compassion fatigue, and even suicide amongst volunteer
animal advocates.
While this problem is most visible in rural communities, where veterinary care is often
limited or non-existent, we'd be naive to believe it does not affect the entire state.
The Latsons are known for helping one another, even when we disagree with our neighbors.
We step up to help when someone is in need.
Living in extreme conditions teaches us that our actions or inactions can have immediate
consequences.
That value of looking out for our neighbor runs deep in our state, but I'm here to tell
to what our nonprofits are capable of doing
and the devotion they put in to animal advocacy.
Let me be clear, our network of nonprofit rescues
and municipal shelters are not feeling quite the opposite.
These organizations are driven by passion, ingenuity,
Cheer determination. They routinely accomplished the impossible with limited resources many of you witnessed this first-hand when animal welfare groups rallied during the typhoon hollong
Risking their own safety to rescue
218 dogs animals whose owners were instructed to leave behind
Over the decades, these groups have built extraordinary partnerships with veterinarians,
air carriers, shipping companies, and with each other.
Flights have been diverted from scheduled flight plans to pick up injured animals, flown
into anchors or prayer ranks to receive veterinary care.
They make these things happen.
Generally often, in time sensitive situations, 365 days a year, they do this without complaint,
Even the strongest army in these reinforcements are animal advocates are fighting a battle
that cannot be won through rescue alone.
They need prevention.
This is why I'm bringing you not just a problem, but a solution.
HB 258 is that solution!
By supporting spay and neuter services statewide, this bill addresses the root cause of animal overpopulation,
reduces long-term costs to communities, improves public health and safety,
and these are the emotional and financial burden carried by volunteers and municipalities alike.
On behalf of your constituents and beyond half, on behalf
of those who cannot speak for themselves, I respectfully ask for your support on HB 258.
Thank you, Mr. Lagina.
Are there questions from the committee, Representative Mears?
Thank You through the chair.
Thanks for being here.
We got to meet earlier, and I share that I've been a foster,
and fostered well over 100 cats.
I wanted to ask specifically about the TNR.
There is one cat that i had in all that fostering that, like,
no quarter with humans and I understand the desire from a rescue organization there I really feel
that but I also appreciate the perspective of fishing game and i'll like hear from them about
that later but what are your thoughts on that particular aspect of the bill yeah so you know
feral or stray dogs and cats that they are captured, you know, spayed or neutered, and
then, be able to be adopted out, ideally that would be great.
But with the way some of the animal population scrolls being taken care of now, in certain
Hopefully, we won't have that bad of a stray and overpopulation.
Thank you through the chairs.
So how strong are your feelings about including that provision in the bill for dinner?
No, I'm for removing that part of the Bill.
Absolutely.
Seeing no further questions, are there, oh, representative Prox?
First question, is there additional invited testimony?
No.
Okay, very good.
So yes, through the chair, no question at all that there is a problem that needs to be addressed.
up a state administered agency to do the work.
And in Fairbanks or the North Pole,
North Star Borough area,
there are quite a number of animal rescue agencies.
There was one that she was underfunded,
I think overpassioned and under funded.
But nobody complained about her being there
for about 20 years until it just got ahead of her.
as opposed to there's quite a few complaints about spending 30 million dollars on a new
dog pound. So we get resistance, just automatic resistance when the government does something,
and I have to admit that seems like great plenty of money to spend on the dog pounds.
So is there some way to have the funding source, maybe even an organization that is not
associated with all of the regulations that go along with it when you get either the state or the local government's involved.
Through the chair, to Representative Prox, it sounds like the question is, is there other funding sources other than the pick that give and the license plates?
What?
Yeah, sort of there are lots of different funding sources my
My reservation is the part of this that brings
the state into the distribution because then there's going to be regulations and
I think I better understand your question now
So what we have in what? We have going on right now is I kind of
Mentioned it as as an army of nonprofits if you will
currently doing this work through the compassion, through donated funds,
through fundraising, and things like setting up span,
For example, they'll have an announcement for a community to say,
Bethel, hey, we're going to have a fan-neuter clinic this weekend.
Make sure you round up all your neighbors, bring their animals in.
We're gonna go to the high school gymnasium floor, and we'll spend a bit of a bunch of.
So yes, this work is currently being done by an army of very passionate people.
And I think that
It's not hodgepodge, it's all.
It is each individual nonprofit by colleges doing what we can.
With the program, there will be some orchestration.
I think it is important to have, you know,
typically any time you get state or government involved,
I respect what you're trying to say there, Mr. Prax.
to put up this program to have some structure, some orchestration amongst the groups that
already, you know, chomped out the bit to attack this thing. I think it will, it'll just make
it that more efficient and get the compounding results that we're all looking for.
Are there any further questions for, for Mr. Lajinus?
Seeing none, thank you so much.
I believe Representative Meers has a question for
Mr Scott, Mr Scot.
If you'll join us at the, at
the table, state your name for the record
and wait for
the question. Thank you.
I imagine there's two pieces to this one you feel really good about and the
other one maybe not so much. Could you share with us how you're feeling on
generally the whole encouragement of spaying and neutering as well as if you
can convey. I know it's if it is a board of game issue it might not be yours but
what concerns are with returning spayed and neutered animals once they can no
Through the chair, I represent Mirza.
For the record, my name is Ryan Scott.
I'm the director with the Division of Wildlife
Conservation for Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
Two good questions.
One is certainly a,
I think that the primary concern of the department is
feral cats and dogs. There's other species as well, and the impacts that it's having to on wildlife populations.
We had an example of birds, but small mammals are also a significant concern.
Larger mammals with dogs, you can imagine that big dogs have the ability to actually take larger game animals.
So any opportunity to
slow that reproduction
is good. The focus is
good, and I think that that's a
this is a problem that recognized
worldwide. Certainly is talked
about a lot lots of literature about
it. Lots of estimates on the number
of birds and small mammals that
are killed by specifically
feral dogs and cats in the
United States.
The
The challenge is the board of game regulations, where the legislature has given authority
to the Board to propagate regulations involving game when we talk about feral animals, other
concerned game animals under Alaska statute, and then we have several regulations that
address them.
It's very clear in the administrative code that these animals can't be captured and
then re-released.
out into the, you know, out and to the wild or I'm going to use the word public as well.
Obviously, the legislature can make that change.
Should you like to do that? But that's the crux of the department's,
you Know, concern. There is a regulation.
There's also a biological component and a concern that I can tell you that the board of game has received numerous, numerous requests like this
to provide for trap capture.
trap, neuter, spay, and release, it's never been adopted by the board.
Follow up. Thank you through the chair. So does the Board of Game have the ability to make that decision now to allow the return of animals or is that in statute?
Through the Chair, I represent Mears. They do have
Thank you. Representative Prox.
Thank You through the chair. Does that regulation apply to
individuals that might be trapping? Oh, we will assume high trapping
strays. They have a live trap by their garage
and we're not supposed to release them. Through the Chair Representative
better plead the fifth from this point me too thank you for any further
questions for anybody for mr. Scott mister the
Mr. Leginas and the Departments for joining us here today
We are going to set an amendment deadline for House Bill 258 to Friday February 6 at 11 a.m
And we'll plan on public testimony that same day
That completes the agenda for house resources committee
Meeting today, our next House Resources Committee meeting is Wednesday, February 4th, 2026 where we will hold an introductory hearing on House Bill 271 from Representative Fields related to royalties in the kitchen lights unit of Cook Inlet and receive a related presentation from Hex Fury.
The time now is 2.55 pm and this hearing at the House Resource Committee is now adjourned.