Senate Community & Regional Affairs, 4/16/26, 1:30pm

Good afternoon. I call this meeting of the Senate Community and Regional Affairs Committee to order. Let the record reflect it is 1:36 PM on Thursday, April 16th, 2026. We have present today Senator Olson, Senator Dunbar, myself, Senator Merrick. There are 3 items on the agenda for this afternoon: SB 250 on data centers, SB 210 regarding cultural education, and HB 125 on membership for the Board of Fish.

First is the second hearing on Senate Bill 250, Data Centers Utilities, by Senator Tobin. We heard an introduction of this bill last week. Senator, if you and your staff would like to join us at the table and start with any opening comments before we have invited testifiers.

For the record, my name is Lukey Gail Tobin, uh, and I serve the people that live in Senate District I. For the record, my name is Louie Flora and I'm staff to Senator Lukey Gail Tobin. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for bringing this back before the committee today. We have several invited testifiers that we have asked to keep their remarks to 3 to 5 minutes, and so we do hope that you give them warning when they are getting outwards of 3 minutes so that they are able to wrap up. Otherwise, we are happy to answer any additional questions or provide any additional insight into the intent and the hope of this legislation.

Thank you, Senator. Questions? Seeing none, we will move right ahead to invited testimony. We have 4 testifiers today. The first is on teams, Dr. Sidney Leeneman, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Renewable Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy.

Welcome, Doctor. If you could state your name, affiliation, location, and begin your testimony.

Hi there. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. For the record, my name is Sydney Linneman, and I am a data center and energy policy expert, and I currently advise large-scale data center development in New Mexico as well as across the western United States. And as you've heard, I used to work at the U.S. Department of Energy, where we spent a lot of time thinking about data center issues, as well as being the Deputy Cabinet Secretary at the New Mexico Environment Department, where I oversaw permitting for large industrial and commercial projects, which included data center. Um, and I am here to testify in support of SB 250.

Um, I'm going to provide you with a little bit of the, the insights that I've gained by watching this unfold here in the lower 48. Um, and then we'll stand for questions. So the— I think that the biggest issue for us when we think about data centers is that the issue is already here. These are really— these issues are unfolding in real time across the country. And what I I have seen is a lot of states that were very much unprepared for the scale of investment that we are talking about, um, and for the scale of sort of industrial needs that, that come along with these data centers.

So even today, um, in New Mexico, we're seeing gigawatt-scale data center proposals, and some of those are aspirational, some of them are real, and you kind of don't know which is which. Um, we are also seeing utilities managing unprecedented new load and interconnection requests. And these really are largely from data centers. I think the other thing that is really interesting and of great potential for people who care about communities and care about renewable energy and affordability, data centers are really willing to spend kind of any amount of money to build power fast. And I'm sure if there is a data center person on, they will tell me I'm completely wrong, but what I have seen is that they're willing to invest in technologies that are not the cheapest if they can get online the fastest.

So, for example, if an interconnection process is too slow, they'll just build behind-the-meter generation plants and not have to worry about interconnection or a lot of, like, state permitting that could slow things down. And what we're also seeing— and, you know, if you look at a newspaper, you'll see this almost every day— there's a lot of concern from regulators and communities about cost, reliability and system impacts.

And really every region in the lower 48 is facing this to some extent, and some are really, you know, prepared and have great— enacted— have enacted really great legislation like SB 250, others less so. And so, you know, what I think we see New Mexico, states in the West, Alaska grappling with is if trillions of dollars are going to be invested, how do we make sure that those investments help the people of Alaska, rather than creating a risk for existing customers. And Alaska really has kind of a narrow window to decide what kind of policy they want and what they want their grid and their industrial customers to look like. So, you have a ton of Alaska energy experts that are online today, so I'm gonna kind of skip over my background on the rail belt.

And just start talking about the provisions of the bill that I think are kind of most important. So I think the biggest item from my perspective as someone who's, you know, very concerned about affordability, especially energy burden, is that costs incurred from serving a data center can only be recovered by that data center and not from other customers. And very often this, you know, a provision that would prevent passing on these costs would come in a contract or would be required to be included in an interconnection request rather than having it be actually built into law. And it's— so it's really easy to get around the provision to make sure that people are not having to pay for upgrades to these systems. Um, so these rate— ensuring that that is built into any rate proceedings, um, I think is really key to starting off on a level playing field.

The bill also adds two additional firewalls, which I want to, um, talk about a little bit. The first is that transmission built specifically for a data center cannot be classified as a backbone transmission for cost allocation. So this is something that we've seen in the Midwest, in Ohio in particular. These data center transmission lines can be designated as backbone, and it allows you to— it allows data centers to get around requirements in other states that make it so that the public does have to pay for those transmission lines. The other thing that I've seen, and I've seen this here in New Mexico, that the— that these data centers will very often try and break up into smaller pieces.

So, the generating assets will be in different areas, and this allows them to split one large project into smaller pieces. And so, this allows them to get to data centers and generating sources to get around a lot of air permitting regulations and cost recovery generations. Um, and I think this committee in particular likely knows Alaska's in the midst of an energy crisis, and this is really not the time to be rolling the dice, um, on having giant new demand being required of the grid. So this bill, um, requires that in all data center agreements that the building of the data center and the required, um, electricity generation will not increase the risk of inadequate fuel supply. It prioritizes renewable generation, which I mentioned it can be often built much faster.

It requires energy storage, which often in data centers is required just to meet the power demand of like peaks that they see. And from my experience at the DOE, this is really the structure that you need in place to have data centers and generation for them that's built in a way that supports community. And I think I'm probably getting very close to the end of my 3 to 5 minutes, but I do wanna just talk briefly about community benefits— benefit agreements. What we've seen in a lot of states is that without this being put into some sort of enforceable form, it can be very easy for the community benefits to sort of like flitter away over time. And we wanna make sure that those are really front and center.

For us, it's things like waste heat recovery, making sure that when a data center is put in, in a rural area, which they are here in New Mexico as well, that there is digital infrastructure and broadband improvements. And by putting all of these enforceable requirements into statute, you make sure that this is, that the community benefits is really the core of one of these proposals and not just a voluntary measure or something nice to do. So in closing, I'll just say SB 250, in my view as an outsider, doesn't say no to data centers at all. It just says no to hidden subsidies, to fuel risk, to reliability costs that would, would potentially be absorbed by Alaskans. But shouldn't be, right?

These are very, very profitable companies. They can afford to build their own transmission. Having these rules in place only creates a more reliable structure for the data centers developers to abide by rather than make— closing the door to it. So with that, because I'm very sure I was over, I'll pause and take any questions that you have. Thank you.

Any questions from committee members? Seeing none, thank you, Doctor. We appreciate you being here today. Next in the room, we have Nils Andreassen, the Executive Director of the Alaska Municipal League. Welcome to the committee.

If you could place yourself on the record and proceed with your testimony.

Okay, that right? Oh.

Sorry, thank you. Uh, good afternoon. Uh, for the record, Nils Andreasen, I'm the executive director of the Alaska Municipal League. I'm going to focus today on community benefits agreements, which are policy frameworks for state and local governments to use in relation to large projects. I was first introduced to CBAs in Greenland as part of a mining development, and very common across the Arctic, Greenland, Canadian communities often use them, and actually very common across the US, but in Alaska, very new.

So this is— it makes sense to be having a conversation about CBAs in relation to data centers or anything else that requires high energy use development. We recognize that Alaska's got unique energy constraints and infrastructure costs. And ultimately, what we want to make sure is that in addition to kind of broader economic impacts, that there's benefits in the public interest. And that's what CBAs allow us to do. So a CBA is negotiated between a local government and a company, and it outlines and kind of bundles together all the expectations that a local government, property owner, governing body entity has of that company.

So it's less about de-risking and more about maximizing benefits to Alaskans, is the way that I think about it. And there's ways to include, you know, additional guardrails and so on within a CBA. But ultimately, it's about how does— how do my residents within this community benefit in a variety of different ways?

It's not an adversarial instrument or even legal, or not necessarily legal. It is structured as an MOA, a memorandum of agreement, or can be. Public policy is, you know, I think we're talking about here, can identify what the goals of a CBA should achieve, but it doesn't have to get really specific about what goes in one. That can be left up to individual jurisdictions. Ultimately, it provides predictability and transparency so that when residents come back and say, "How did this data center— how did a big project— what did it do for me?" you can point to, "Here's progress that's been made and benefits that have been achieved." I'm not going to speak too— so much on the high energy use elements.

It sounds like there are other experts who can do that. But it's worth noting that anything that requires high energy use or any large development project will place some additional strain on transportation, infrastructure, housing, broadband, and other public services. And so what we're trying to do is translate those impacts in this project into correcting for mitigating some of the impacts and achieving benefits for the community. There's lots of examples at the national level, and like I said, international level, that these don't have to be— everything, they're not going to look the same for every community or for every project. It's really site-specific.

If it's a smaller project or a smaller community, there are different needs. So making sure that there's proportionality. Often a CBA is focused on infrastructure and utilities impact and making sure that that's mitigated and there are benefits on the other side. And that these are really good ways to bring government and the company or a project to the table early so they can negotiate through through and make sure that there's not conflict later. So it's a great way to advance projects more quickly versus end up in litigation further on down the line.

It's a standard practice, like I said. It thinks about early on a lifecycle approach. So what goes into construction, operation, and decommissioning? All of those are components of a CBA, and basically it runs a local government and company through. How will this impact us, not just now as you're building it, but for its entire life cycle?

And how are— how is this project contributing to the host communities? It can often include local hire provisions or other types of workforce development provisions and contributions to education. But those are significant areas where we've seen CBAs actively include provisions. For Alaska, it's policy-led, so you, I think, at the state level can set broad frameworks for what a CBA can look like, but it makes sure that they're not negotiated on an ad hoc basis. It provides for predictability for the developer and consistency across projects.

Again, we're thinking not just about the project, but how the project relates to all the other systems within a community. And so that's part of the dialogue and the negotiation that occurs. It introduces an element of accountability, not just to residents and to the government, or to the local government, but to the state, so that you can see how your policy is measurable and tied to performance that you hope to achieve from the development occurring. They should be flexible, and that small communities or local governments can participate without overextending capacities. You might want to think about things like what technical assistance should we offer, should the state offer, or others.

AML could offer technical assistance in their negotiation so that local governments in their negotiation aren't overwhelmed by, you know, sophisticated project developers. Ultimately in this, the government is a facilitator. They're bringing a project to the table and working through, again, how to make sure there's good benefits. So for Alaska, at the state level, you've got some policy guidance, I think, that this bill introduces. And you can think through and sketch out, I think, how— what kinds of benefit categories could be included within a CBA without directing or micromanaging what ultimately ends up in them.

And this all kind of comes— connects back to existing permitting and review processes. So I think I will just wrap up there, that ultimately this is about achieving public benefit, and economic development is one element, but there's more to it when we're thinking about the more significant and kind of broader impacts that these projects have on a community or region. Thank you. Senator Dunbar. Thank you, Madam Chair.

And this is a question for you, Nils, but for any of the other presenters too, just really quickly. You probably saw there was an op-ed from the Anchorage Daily News basically saying that we shouldn't regulate— it's an oversimplification— basically we shouldn't regulate data centers. Do you have any thoughts or responses to that op-ed? Did you get a chance to read that op-ed? Senator Dunbar, through the chair, no, uh, I didn't, unfortunately.

Um, and I probably shouldn't comment on it right now, but I think that the best practice is to make sure the development occurs within your jurisdiction, uh, has appropriate oversight. That is what we've seen elsewhere in the world and nation. Very good. And I guess I would just leave I'll leave that question out there if anyone— the next two presenters want to touch on it. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Certainly. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Andreassen. We appreciate your testimony today. And on Teams, we're joined by Gwen Holdeman, the director of the Alaska Center for Energy and Power.

Ms. Holdeman, welcome to the committee. If you could state your name, affiliation, and location and begin your testimony. Thank you. Um, so my name is Gwen Holdeman. I am the chief scientist at the Alaska Center for Energy and Power.

At the University of Alaska Fairbanks. I'm joining you this afternoon from Fairbanks, and I'm not testifying in support or opposition to this bill. My purpose is mainly to provide information to the committee expanding on the written comments I previously provided to the committee at the, at the request of the bill sponsor, Senator Tobin. I want to make 3 specific points. First of all, we've done some analysis comparing the approach in SB 250 to other states.

States. As Sydney alluded to, there's a wide range of approaches from a policy perspective. Secondly, there is existing experience with large industrial customers in Alaska, mostly the focus being on a rail belt and the mines and the Golden Valley Electric Association service territory. So I wanted to touch on the experience that we already have there and then some of the unique circumstances in Alaska that should be taken into consideration when either amending or adopting this legislation. Says quickly, I'm starting with other states.

SB 250 is very much aligned with this broader national trend toward protecting ratepayers from the impacts of large data center loads. Traditional utility regulation was really designed for incremental load growth and not so much for single customers that can really reshape or impact the entire system. And that's really why there's this perception or reality that traditional cost-causer, cost-payer as a principle, which is really a major tenet of our regulatory system, may not be enough to protect that kind of cost shifting that could occur from data centers to existing customers. And so while there's been increase, though, in Alaska, increasing interest in Alaska from data center potential developers. Alaska hasn't so far been as impacted in many other places in the country because both of our high energy costs, limited supply, and we're also a little bit of a cul-de-sac or a backwater in the global data superhighway.

So things like latency and reliability are a pretty big issue up here. So many states are pursuing similar approaches, but SB 250 does go a little bit further with the belt and spender's approach than most, translating that cost-causer/cost-payer principle into very detailed statutory requirements that assign not only the cost but also a lot of the risks. And that's where this, this bill is a little bit different than what's been done in other states. So assigning those risks to the data center as well, including fuel supply risk, reliability, backup power constraints, and those are assigned directly to the data centers. As I mentioned, I have done a little bit of analysis looking at other states.

I'm going to skip those right now, though I'd be happy to provide those in writing later if the committee is interested. I do want to make the point that we do have existing large industrial customers on the rail belt grid, and understanding a little bit about how those interact with costs for other ratepayer classes I think is informative for us. Fort Knox mine, Kinross Fort Knox up in Fairbanks, represents about between 15 and 20% of Golden Valley's total system load, and that's by far the largest single customer on the Golden Valley system. The Pogo Mine near Delta is a little bit smaller, but between those two, it's a very substantial part of the Golden Valley load. And there's been previous analysis done that were they not here and were not a major baseload customer for Golden Valley, that customers here might pay up to 40% more for electricity, and we already have some of the highest rates in the state here in Fairbanks.

And so the reason for that is basically because those large industrial customers are helping beyond the increase in fuel. If you're excluding the fuel costs, they have relatively modest incremental costs excluding fuel costs, and so you can spread those fixed costs for operations across all of those additional kilowatt-hour sales. And that helps bring down the cost for everybody on the grid, everyone that's sharing in the system. Iceland is another good example of this. It has large industrial loads, mostly aluminum smelters, but they also do have a number of data center customers that are similar in that both of those are not really interruptible loads.

And so Iceland was able to finance some very large energy infrastructure projects like the Karanhukur Dam in eastern eastern Iceland through long-term power purchase agreements that were established with those industrial customers early on. And when that debt was eventually paid off, it's resulted in very low-cost power for everyone on the grid. And so right now, Iceland is this very heavy industrial loads. They sell 5 times more power per capita than the rail belt grid does. It's a very similar-sized grid.

But, and so it is one of the most energy-intensive countries in the world. Almost no fossil fuels. It's all hydro and geothermal. But they've built these big projects, and those industrial customers have been very instrumental in enabling low cost of power for everyone on the grid. Right now, residential consumers pay about 10 to 12 cents per kilowatt hour for power, and commercial customers, including small businesses, are significantly less than that.

[Speaker:KATHRYN_SULLIVAN] And so, the last point I just really wanted to make is that there are some unique circumstances in Alaska, and one of those are that we have these grids that are limited in size. And so, one of the things that could really benefit Alaska, and that's a little bit different than the lower 48, is this idea that if we're able to grow our load and we're able to keep up with building out additional lower-cost generation, there is the potential for meaningfully reducing costs for residential consumers as well. And so I do think that while the intent of this legislation is not to, not to prevent us from having data centers, I think we do need to be a little bit cautious about making sure that there's not a potential missed opportunity here. The way the bill is written right now, there's a lot of incentives for data centers to self-generate, and that could create a bit of a missed opportunity for us to look at how they could actually benefit residential consumers and other existing customers. And so I think that's mainly what I wanted to share.

I will say that some states are taking a little bit more of a slower or more cautious approach of trying to understand this problem and the effects on their system. For example, in California right now they're doing some pretty in-depth studies looking at this cost-shifting issue, the issue of stranded assets and infrastructure impacts. And so that could also be something that might be worth considering moving forward, is doing a more thorough analysis on the actual impacts and the potential opportunities that might exist as well. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Holguin.

Any questions from committee members? Seeing none, we appreciate you being here. Our final testifier is on Teams, Erin McKittrick, an independent energy analyst. If you could state your name, affiliation, and location for the record and proceed with your testimony. Hello.

Uh, for the record, I'm Erin McKittrick, an independent energy analyst I'm in Seldovia, Alaska, and I also hold a seat on the Homer Electric Association Board of Directors, but I do not represent them and am speaking today on my own behalf. And so I'd like to testify in support of SB 250. So in recent years, as you've heard from some of the other testifiers, there's been a proliferation of legislation and rate proceedings all across the country seeking to protect consumers from rate increases due to data centers. And this is because while electric rates are theoretically based on a cost-causer-cost-payer framework, the way that's historically been implemented and works is somewhat poorly set up for this new world of data centers because it's based— and, um, as Gwen pointed out, it's based on a past world where pretty much you had slowly growing loads in all categories where infrastructure expansion serves everyone. Um, and under that paradigm, selling power to more users decreases prices for everyone else because you take this infrastructure, you spread out the fixed costs among more kilowatt hours, and it's cheaper for everyone.

But that model can break down in the case of a data center where you have one or a handful of customers adding a really enormous load with big new infrastructure requirements. To a background load that's otherwise mostly flat from other users. And so under that traditional way that rates are designed, you know, the costs of the new infrastructure are divided between all the different buckets and types of customers based on the details of their usage. And so if one new customer needs some— a bunch of stuff built that otherwise didn't need to get built at all, everybody's paying some portion of that. And so that's kind of that, you know, a little bit of— it's a little confusing, you know, because more load can make things cheaper and it can make things more expensive.

And the reason consumer protections are necessary for data centers particularly is because of the way these rate structures work and how adding one big new user can kind of break the old model. And another part of that is, of course, you know, if one or more of these projects doesn't go through and the utility has already built stuff expecting it will happen or will use more than it did, then that can leave the other customers kind of on the hook for those infrastructure costs. And one thing that's really not so much of an issue in most other places but is here is our current rail belt energy crisis. Most of our, you know, most of our costs are fixed, but about a third of a rail belt bill on average is fuel and purchase power costs. And that's coming from limited quantity legacy contracts and assets.

So you have Bradley Lake Hydro. It only makes a certain number of kilowatt hours. You have—. Choogatch owns a gas field that only has a certain amount of gas left. Legacy Hilcorp contracts have certain maximums.

And so in our current situation, a data center coming on could lead to fuel shortages, which would be a real problem. And under what most people expect will be a more expensive import paradigm soon, you're going to dilute that legacy, somewhat cheaper fuel with new, more expensive fuel, and the existing customers will then have higher fuel costs than they would have had without a new user. By default, which is something this bill is seeking to address. And so none of that is inevitable. The Golden Valley's contracts with the mines were mentioned, and back when those mines were getting set up, they did have, you know, complicated contract negotiations, and there were a number of provisions in there to try to protect Golden Valley's customers from having to pay costs, especially if the mine, you know, didn't go through or didn't, you know, come online as it was expected to.

And so there's precedent for that here, too. And so I think that by kind of creating this framework ahead of time, you're not going to stop data centers necessarily. But you're going to have them hopefully set up in a way that they're beneficial to the other consumers on the grid and hopefully lower everyone's costs rather than the reverse.

And that's all I have, and I can take any questions. Yes, thank you, Ms. McKittrick. Questions? I see none. Thank you for being with us today.

And I will now open public testimony.

Is there anyone in the room wishing to testify on Senate Bill 250? Seeing none, is there anyone online? Seeing none, I will close public testimony. Any closing comments from the sponsor?

Once again, for the record, Lukey Tobin, Senator for District I. I just want to thank Thank you, the committee and Madam Chairwoman, for hearing this legislation again. Really, the focus of Senate Bill 250 is to really address the potential significant impacts that Alaska might experience from hyperscale data centers. We know that our state already welcomes, uh, and enjoys some smaller types of, uh, data center projects, particularly those that are deployed or potentially used as infrastructure. And our legislation is not to impede those uses. It's simply to ensure that communities have the tools needed to protect these public assets, such as their energy and water without necessarily de-incentivizing private business growth.

We're really excited about the opportunity that this legislation presents, and we know we have heard several suggestions from stakeholders, testifiers, and from committee members on potential amendments to legislation, and we are happy to work with anyone and everyone to ensure that this is the strongest piece of policy put forth that really allows us to protect consumers and Alaskans while also building out a system that is predictable, stable, and really supports this emerging industry. Thank you, Senator Hoeven. We're going to take a brief at ease.

Back to order at 2:10 PM. I'm going to reopen public testimony on Senate Bill 250.

For invited— or for public testimony, we have Jennifer Hyde from Fairbanks. Jennifer, if you're online— it sounds like you've dropped off, so we will try to catch you at the next hearing. I will close public testimony. We will now set Senate Bill 250 aside and take it up at a future hearing. Next, also from Senator Tobin, is Senate Bill 210, Indigenous Cultural Heritage Education.

If you and your staff, Jason Ritter, would like to come forward, place yourselves on the record, and begin your introduction of this bill. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Once again, for the record, Lukey Tobin, Senate District I. For the record, Jason Ritter, staff to Senator Lukey Gail Tobin.

And we will take a brief moment here, uh, as he will set up, because I know he has a PowerPoint presentation. That he likes— he would like to walk through. However, I would like to introduce the legislation to you as we go through those activities. So earlier this year, I had the opportunity to interview UAA Professor Emeritus Gunnar Knapp, and in our wide-ranging discussion, Professor Knapp and I had a robust conversation about our fisheries and the politics of fisheries management. And Professor Knapp noted that Alaska really needs well-informed local leaders to be able to understand the complexities of our great state, the needs of our people, and of course, about the global politics of fish.

Now, I personally have been thinking a lot about Professor Knapp's words in conjunction with everything else that I've read and learned while pursuing my master's degree in rural development from the University of Alaska Fairbanks, while I was working on the Alaska Reads Act, and now as I work on my PhD in Indigenous Studies. From the work of folks like Ray Barnhardt and Oscar Quagley to that of the former chancellor of the UAA Rural and Community Development Program, Bernice Joseph, and the Rural Systemic Initiative, which really sought to develop school curricula and pedagogical approaches that incorporate traditional ecological knowledge and local knowledge of indigenous peoples, including unique ways of knowing, into our public education system. The decades of research before us really tells us that all students benefit when they are— when their education system is rooted in their place and their community. The research tells us emphatically that students of color specifically see significant academic growth and gains. However, we know all students' outcomes improve when they learn about the place in which they live.

We know that these students become better stewards of the land in which they live and better civic— and increase their civic engagement. Those students become curious about their own identity. They learn about who they are and where they are from. They become more connected in their communities and they become better informed about the world around them. We also know that when you have an education system that is rooted in place and community, students are more likely to show up to school.

They improve their test and assessment scores. They're more likely to graduate, and they're less likely to engage in the criminal legal system. And we also know that they have higher lifetime earnings. Now, Alaska has worked for a very long time to reform our public education system so that it is rooted in place and community, that it has culturally responsive pedagogical approaches. We have school districts across our state that engage with our tribal communities.

They talk with the diverse populations that live in and around their schools and community. And of course, we know our educators connect cultural activities in the classrooms. So Senate Bill 210 is really what I like to think of as a prudent policy approach. In 2017, our State Board of Education adopted the Alaska Education Challenge. In that, they have 5 stipulations that they would like Alaska to lead on.

One of those we have worked on in this body and we passed through the Alaska Reads Act, which is to support all students reading at grade level by 3rd grade. There are 4 other stipulations that really speak to SB 210. Second on the Alaska Education Challenge was to increase career, technical, and culturally relevant education to meet student and workforce needs. The third is to close the achievement gap by ensuring equitable education rigor and resources. The fourth is to prepare effective education professionals, and the fifth is to improve the well-being of students through school partnerships, communities, and tribes.

That's what Senate Bill 210 seeks to do. It builds off a body of research that emphasizes the critical need to train our educators in place and community-based practices while emphasizing tribal collaboration and consultation. We know that well-prepared educators are the cornerstone of the classroom, and we want those educators to be able to incorporate indigenous ways of knowing into their pedagogical approaches and to work with the community to ensure that all students feel seen and heard and valued. Now, one of the things that we also know is that high-quality educators, educators who are trained in different and new pedagogical approaches, really meet the education outcomes that have been identified by the National Center for Education Statistics Office of Educational Research and Improvement. They showcase that when an educator is well prepared to be in communities and is rooted in place, that they are long— they are retained longer and therefore become more adept and well qualified in the work that they do.

SB 210 builds off the work that is already being done in Alaska, and it codifies this into state policy. The federal government's Elementary and Secondary Education Act requires communities that have significant Indigenous populations to work with tribes and have meaningful consultation. SB 210 simply aligns this federal requirement in state statute. It continues the work also of those who wrote Alaska Standards for Culturally Responsive Schools and supports the work of the Alaska Reads Act in Alaska Native language learning. Now, personally, I think it is time for bold state policy that affirms every child's right to learn about the land in which they live upon and the people who have stewarded that land since time immemorial.

That is the cornerstone of who we are, and SB 210 focuses on prudent practices, teacher preparedness, professional development, and community relationships. We have a brief presentation for the committee, and we also have two invited testifiers— excuse me, we have three invited testifiers who can speak to the critical work that is being done in our schools today on ensuring that we have meaningful consultation with our tribal communities and also culturally responsive education options in our schools. Thank you, Senator Tobin. Any questions? Seeing none, Mr. Ritter, if you'd like to present your PowerPoint.

Uh, thank you, Chair Merrick, uh, and members of the committee. For the record, Jason Ritter, uh, staff to Senator Lucy Gayle Tobin. SB 210 makes a single amendment to AS 104.03.015, the foundational statute governing Alaska's public education system, to anchor tribe partnership, uh, and culturally responsive education in statute.

The statute is where DEED's regulatory authority, district goals, and school priorities originate. DEED's own Alaska Education Challenge, as Senator Tobin mentioned, already identifies culturally relevant education, tribal partnerships, and closing the Alaska Native achievement gap as state priorities. But none of that appears in foundational statute. Without a statutory home, implementation has been uneven and discretionary. 21% Of Alaska's public school students are Alaska Native.

Their heritage currently has no recognition in the state's core education law. This bill carries no fiscal note and does not create a new program. It anchors something DEED is already doing and already spending money on and makes that investment more effective.

Section 1 adds a new subsection B to Alaska Statute 14.03.015, and it does 3 things. It affirms that all Alaskans should have the opportunity to learn about Alaska Native and American Indian cultural heritage in a culturally responsive manner. It directs local educational institutions to work cooperatively with tribes when providing instruction, setting educational goals, or adopting rules. And direct school personnel to consult and contract with local tribal entities. There's no prescribed curriculum.

The bill is simply providing a framework and a pathway.

This bill preserves local control. It establishes statutory intent without dictating content. Districts and tribes determine what that partnership looks like in their communities. Deeds culturally responsive standards have existed since 1998 with no statutory foundation, and this bill provides that anchor. Research supports teacher community alignment as a factor in student outcomes, and tribal entities are the appropriate source for this content.

The bill creates a direct local connection rather than a top-down curriculum mandate.

SB 210 is a narrow statutory fix. There are no new programs or new costs. It gives Alaska's education system the statutory foundation it needs to serve every student and does so by trusting our communities to lead. In closing, I ask for your support of Senate Bill 210, and I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Ritter.

We will now move to invited testimony. First, from the Alaska Federation of Natives is Director of Government Relations Kendra Kloster. Welcome, Ms. Kloster. If you could state your name, affiliation, and location and begin your testimony.

Hello. Good afternoon. This is Kendra Kloster. I work for the Alaska Federation of Natives as the Director of Government Relations. I'm originally from Wrangell and Juneau, but live here in Dena'ina Lands in Anchorage where I'm raising my 3 kids.

I am Tlingit Raven Kiksáadi, something that is very cherished to me and very much a part of my identity. I want to just talk a little bit about Senate Bill 210 and the importance of this and why our board at AFN has voted to support this legislation. We feel it's very important to make sure that we are teaching culturally responsive education into our system and for our kids. We're encouraging our schools to work closely with local tribes, providing teachers with the tools and knowledge to understand indigenous perspectives, which are ensuring students, all students, they're learning more about our history, language, contributions. This is important to academic success and cultural preservation.

We know our connections to home are incredibly important for all of us. And I can speak to this just personally as well from my own kids. I remember my daughter, one of the things she came home and when she learned about the Junior Native Youth Olympics being offered in her school, she came home very excited and said, "Mom, I want to do this. I want to learn more about my culture and who I am." And she joined JNYO and has been thriving in that, in that community and that they have built there.

She wants to learn about all the different indigenous cultures across Alaska, and she has stated this to me numerous times. And I really think that this is part of our engaging our culture. When we go fishing and we do all of our activities, as I always do with my kids, I really think that having that in our school system is beneficial. To all of our kids and really placing them in the home. My other personal point I want to bring forward that I constantly remember, um, going to school, I remember my Alaska history class.

I learned mainly about Russia, and that has always felt like such a disappointment to me and such a loss. When they're there taking a history about Alaska and that was what the whole course was supposed to be about, and it really missed the mark where I did not learn about our indigenous cultures. And while I had that opportunity through the way I grew up and through my family and through my grandmother, it really did not reflect what Alaska history was. And so that has really stuck with me through my entire life, and I just was really shocked by that. I just want to say in closing, I hope that we will— you all consider passing Senate Bill 210.

Advance this legislation. It's incredibly important for our kids to understand the cultures here in Alaska, and I think it's beneficial for all of our kids. And working with our tribes, who are just an incredible wealth of knowledge, and they'll really bring that connection into Alaska and encourage kids to go to school and to be through there. Um, the other point I just want to touch on is we have been doing a lot of different studies. We had a recent Department of Corrections study came out, and within that study itself, it also said culturally-based programs and other— at— for youth is one of those important pieces that put kids on a really good path.

And so, I think that this speaks to a number of different things in ensuring that we are supporting our kids and that we are providing this education for them and connecting to home and connecting to each other. So, gunalchéeshawa. I appreciate it. Thank you, Ms. Kloster. We appreciate you being here today.

Next is Terri Walker with the Northwest Arctic School Board. If you could state your name, affiliation, location, and begin your testimony.

Madam Chair and members of the committee, for the record, my name is Terri Walker. Superintendent for the Northwest Arctic Borough School District. I am a tribal member of the Village of Buckland and live in— currently live in Kotzebue. Thank you for the opportunity to follow up in support of Senate Bill 210. I want to emphasize that Senate Bill 210 is not creating something new.

It is strengthening what we already know works. This bill ensures that school districts work in partnerships with tribes to develop curriculum and activities that reflect the cultural heritage of our students and communities. In our district, we're already doing this work. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] And culturally sustaining practices. SB 210 supports and expands these efforts by ensuring that collaboration with tribes is consistent, meaningful, and embedded in how we educate students.

Our schools are strongest when they reflect the identity, language, and lived experiences of the students we serve. Providing a cultural component to education for Alaska Native Alaska Native students is not something different or extra. It's the same opportunity that Western students have always had. They read and see their history, their culture, and their perspectives reflected in what they learn every day. SB 210 simply ensures that all students in Alaska are afforded the same connection and relevance in their education.

This bill is about preparing students for success, not just anywhere, but in the communities they call home. When students see themselves reflected in their education, they are more engaged, more confident, and better prepared for their future.

Right now, we are working to build a comprehensive approach to student education that provides them with the opportunities to help their— our communities grow and to understand what jobs are available and can be created. Using this approach to learning will help both students and the teacher recognize the issues around them, giving them the opportunity to find real-world solutions to improve their communities. Our people are problem solvers. They know how to think in ways that have helped them to survive in our harsh environment for thousands of years. So passing this information down to our students and building a bridge between Western and indigenous ways of knowing will create stronger communities.

Communities where partnerships are built between the school and the people living there. SB 210 creates a more equitable and effective education system for all students, Alaska students, by honoring indigenous knowledge and strengthening partnerships with tribes. I respectfully urge your support for SB 210. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Superintendent Walker.

I see no questions. Our final testifier today is David Badavello with the North Slope School District. Welcome to the committee. Please state your name, affiliation, location, and begin your testimony.

Good afternoon, members of the committee. My name is David Wadivelu. I'm the superintendent of the North Slope Borough School District based in Utqiagvik. As you can probably hear from my accent, I am not from, originally from Alaska. I'm from Australia.

I've been married into the community on the North Slope for 20 years. I have 3 Inupiaq children, 2 of whom are currently in our school system. I thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of SB 210. The North Slope Borough School District has a longstanding commitment to culturally responsive education. It's, it's work that is not new for this region.

It's deeply rooted in the values, the knowledge, and the lived experience of the Inupiaq community and the communities that we serve. For many years, in close partnership with our local communities, we have intentionally designed instructional systems that ensure our students' identities, their languages, and their histories are used as assets in the learning process. As educators, we should be striving every day to deliver a system that is relevant and coherent, a system that ensures that the lived experiences of our students are visible in the curriculum. A system that requires the curriculum to be delivered by educators who have knowledge of the community and the culture that they are working in. SB 210 will ensure that the narratives of resilience, the narratives of thriving in this unique Alaskan landscape, are woven into the identity of all Alaskan residents, which makes the oldest narratives of our Native communities even more important.

And more relevant to all students. As an educational leader that's implemented these types of programs across regions and countries, the first step is acknowledging that many educational systems were not originally built to reflect or honour the voices, the histories, or the ways of knowing of the students that we serve today. The impact of that history and those systems on our students is known to everyone in this room and is still being felt in our schools. Because of that history, the delivery of authentic integrated curriculum that reflects the histories and voices of local communities is not optional. It's essential to re-engaging our students in learning, to repairing trust with communities and building systems that are truly responsive and sustaining.

SB 210 supports courses that ensure students will see themselves in their learning while understanding the relevance of education to their lives and their futures. In addition, language programs, including immersion—these are critical supports for academic success, social and emotional wellbeing, and cultural relevance. As we're all aware, language is not only a means of communication, it's a carrier of identity. Worldview and connection. Our teachers that learn even some part of the Inupiaq language in the region or the cities or the villages that they're teaching find stronger connections with the community, stronger connections with the region, and therefore feel more deeply engaged.

And the net result is a greater engagement leads to retention. We firmly believe that a culturally responsive pedagogy is essential to strengthening student engagement, belonging, and long-term educational outcomes for our region and our state. As our administration has implemented a more rigorous and authentic implementation of this approach, the approach that is indeed within SB210, we have seen year-on-year improvements in attendance, year-on-year improvements in literacy, and importantly, year-on-year improvements in school climate connectedness data. SB 210 supports our efforts to ensure education is anchored by Alaskan history, celebrates community partnerships, and focuses on ensuring that every student has access to an education that reflects who they are and where they are living. I recommend and thank the committee for considering SB 210, and I'd be happy to take questions.

Thank you very much, Superintendent. I see no questions. We appreciate your testimony today. We will now offer the floor to the bill sponsor for any closing comments. Senator Tobin.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Once again, for the record, my name is Lukey Gail Tobin, Senator for District I. So I introduced this bill based on research that I have been conducting for the last 15 years. Indigenous education for all is policy in Montana, Minnesota, There are similar practices in Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona, all states that have large Indigenous populations, but much less of the population size in Alaska. We are one of the last states to consider such legislation.

Now, the reason this is important to me is, although I am not Alaskan Native, I spent my earliest years and rooted in a community that my education system had skin sewing classes, elders in our lunchroom, We had opportunities to be exposed to Indigenous languages and ways of knowing, and it has led to my personal academic pursuits all the way to the degree that I am currently pursuing, which is a terminal one in Indigenous Studies. It has also opened doorways for me. I did not know about my family's heritage, about the things, uh, that make me who I am, and learning more about the Indigenous communities that have stewarded the land in which I have been a privilege to live upon has allowed me to learn more about my family's heritage and the reasons that my family's practices are the way they are. The dynamics of how we prepare our hair, the way that we prepare the foods for our cultural practices and important days. This is an opportunity for us to really talk about who we are as Alaskan, as Alaska.

Much of our community and cultural practices are rooted in the Indigenous ways of, Indigenous ways of knowing that make Alaska great. So the last piece that I just want to really hyperfocus on is the component in this bill that is about professional development. Many of our communities enjoy educators who are not prepared to teach here in Alaska. Now, while I believe that we need to increase our locally grown educators, we know that's not is not necessarily going to be possible for many years to come. Anyone who comes to Alaska, we want them to understand who we are and we want to be able to retain them in the work that they do.

And the best way to do that is through professional development and by creating deeper connections with community. SB 210 creates the framework for that. It codifies existing practice and it is a very clear foundation for every student's education experience here in the state. State. Thank you so much for the opportunity to introduce this legislation.

We look forward to working with the committee on any amendments or changes that are recommended to the policy, and we hope for its swift passage. Thank you again. Thank you, Senator Tobin. Senator Dunbar. Thank you, Madam Chair.

And, um, already I'm, I'm already a co-sponsor of this legislation, so I don't ask this, uh, I don't think it needs an amendment, but I just want us to build the record a little bit, um, the public record on Page 2 of this bill, it says local educational institutions shall consult and contract with local tribal entities. And when I hear local tribal entities, to me that means the tribes themselves or associated nonprofits. And those tribal entities are federally recognized. And I just want to make sure that that's sort of the interpretation that you have, or if you have an alternative one. So we're not talking about, you know, someone can't just found a nonprofit and declare themselves a tribal entity.

There has to be some kind of process. And the ones we generally use is the federal recognition. And then there are a variety of kind of their associated organizations like health organizations. So I just want to hear your thoughts about that term tribal entities. [Speaker:DR. MELISSA LEE] Thank you, Senator Dunbar.

Once again, for the record, Luki Tobin, Senate District I. Through the chair, to respond to your question, that is accurate. One of the components we recognize is that many communities do have indigenous nonprofits that work within their areas. They also may have education, regional education associations or health associations that are tribally affiliated but not necessarily part of the recognized federal tribe or recognized tribe. Additionally, not all of our tribes in Alaska are federally recognized.

And so we want to ensure that while this is rooted in local knowledge, it also allows for a broad, a broad community group to provide that input and insight. One of the things we did want to ensure was the language around the local component, which is again on that line 2 of page 2, is to ensure that there is no space of where an education institution may go and contact or consult with a tribal group that is not rooted in their local place. Follow-up, Madam Chair? Yes, follow-up. So it sounds like you do want a broader definition than just federally recognized, which I think is totally acceptable.

Is there any protection from, you know, again, somebody sort of declaring themselves a tribal representative even when the tribe itself and the sort of more established tribal or nonprofits that represent most of the folks there don't consider them. And I just, I just think about some of our school districts have done things that maybe not all of us agree with, I'll put it that way, um, to be circumspect. And, uh, I just want to make sure that we're not getting any sort of rogue contracting. Do you have any thoughts on that? Once again, for the record, Lukey Tobin, Senate District I.

Through the chair, Senator Dunbar, I recognize what you're saying, and some of those questions may be able to be clarified in regulation, as we want to ensure that there is a definition that is broad enough that we include all local indigenous groups that work within this area, particularly in education spaces, but also is tight enough so that you don't necessarily have someone going to Florida to purchase curricula or to use curricula that is not rooted in our indigenous ways of knowing. Very good. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Hovind.

We appreciate you being here. And we will set Senate Bill 210 aside for further consideration, and we will move on to our last agenda item, which is House Bill 125, Board of Fisheries Membership, by Representative Jimmy. Representative, welcome to our committee. If you and your staff, Rachel Gunn, would like to place yourselves on the record and introduce your bill.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Good afternoon, Committee of the Committee of Regional Affairs. Before I begin, I'd like to congratulate you, Senator Dunbar, on your new arrival and wish your child nothing but good blessings. Thank you. Today, Chair Merrick and committee, today I I am bringing House Bill 125, which is to bring balance to the Board of Fisheries, to have every group, user group, have a seat equally.

That would mean to have 2 subsistence seats, 2 commercial seats, and 2 sports fishing The Board of Fish right now is appointed by the governor and then confirmed by the legislature.

And we trust in that process.

And I come from the village of Tuxuk Bay. My family represents the oldest fisheries in Alaska, subsistence.

Families come together every year to work on subsistence fish. Grandmothers teaching grandchildren. I remember, I have very fond memories of my grandma showing me how to process the fish equal, uh, correctly. But I'll admit, the older I get now, I see it more as a competition that I can outgut, outcut, and braid fish faster than my Auntie Paula, but I have to report to this day to no avail.

But I just— so, but I just want to share why I want to carry this bill. On my— while I was on my campaign trail, I'd be traveling from what villages I could from Tuksek Bay, which is up the Kuskokwim River. Which was a handful of villages, Tuntutuliak, Quinhagak, Nunapichuk Iik, and I pretty much heard the same thing over and over again from constituents there. And the one thing I was asked was, if you are elected, can you just change the month we can fish, which would be from July to June.

Why June? It's because in June there's no rain, there— it's just perfect weather for drying fish. Whereas in July, which the Board of Fish has designated, um, fishing allowed in my district, July is rainy, it's moisty, it's not a good season to be drying fish, because we dry our fish on fish racks. And when fish come— when it rains, it becomes moisty and the fish develop mink, which is, in Yup'ik, it's mold, which in the end result causes a lot of family to just throw away the fish because it's not edible, it's not storable for winter, it becomes rotten. So a lot of labor of love gets lost in that way.

Um, but, you know, and it also causes people to spend— taking time to spend money on gas fuel prices, having to travel a long distance from their own villages, which is designated by the board where you can fish also. And, um, that's one of the— that's the main question I was asked, can you change the month? I'm a legislator, I cannot change that, but the Board of Fisheries can. Um, and the Board of Fish, like I said, they did— they can tell us when to fish, where to fish, and, um, where, but Like I said, my family come— is the first user group subsistence, and we need to be represented equally on the Board of Fish.

Today we know there are challenges with fishery— fisheries in Alaska with climate change.

With diseases, with acid in the water, rust in the water. But my people who have been doing this forever, practicing subsistence, can bring back knowledge in how we can look to move forward for generations down to bring back fish to the waters.

Their voices deserve to be heard in making the decisions to bring back healthy fisheries to our future, to 7 generations down, and passing that knowledge on. Koyaanisqatsiin. Today I have invited testimony from TCC Chairman Chair Hildebrand and former Akwesasne Tribal Council Chair and Elder Fritz George online for testifying. Thank you, Representative Jimmy. So we will move to invited testimony.

First is Fritz George. Mr. George, welcome to the committee. If you could state your name, affiliation, location for the record, and begin your testimony.

[Speaker:Fritz George] Hello, ma'am.

Well, my name's Fritz George, and I've been a fisherman, subsistence fisherman, for all my life, since I've been able to help check the set net and pull in the net after drifting on the Kuskokwim River.

In those days, subsistence fishing was not regulated as it is today. Nowadays, there's always patrols going back and forth.

In those days, we filled up the smokehouses since every family had a dog team. That was before snow machines were invented.

Families still need— families' need of subsistence for food is still being practiced, but constant closures catch up with rainy season, which causes salmon to spoil.

Salmon runs on the Kuskokwim Organic River. We blame high seas trawlers and area and commercial interests of fishery for the decline of the salmon species.

It is not just a result of the climate change.

To be fair, across the board, I support this legislation for, uh, um, waterfowl to, uh, appoint a couple of subsistence fishermen, just like the— and a couple of sports fishermen and two from commercial.

And in closing, this Board of Fish have closed the Yukon River King Salmon subsistence fishing for 7 years. If they can do that, why not close crawfishery and intertidal commercial fishery for 7 years and see what happens to the salmon runs. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity. Thank you, Mr. George. We appreciate you being here.

Next is Tanana Chief Conference Chairman Sharon Hildebrand. Ms. Hildebrand, welcome to the committee. Please state your name, affiliation, location for the record, and proceed please proceed with your testimony. Sharon Hildebrand, Chief Chairman, Tanana Chiefs Conference. Thank you, Chief Merrick, and members of the Senate Community and Regional Affairs Committee for hearing this important legislation today.

And a huge thank you to Representative Jimmy for introducing HB 125. I want to confirm that you can hear me fine. We can. Please. Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for introducing HB 125, Fisheries Membership. [SPEAKING NATIVE LANGUAGE] I'm Sharon Hildebrand. I was born and raised in Nulato by my grandparents. I was recently elected as Chief Chairman for Tanana Chiefs Conference. It's a tribal consortium representing 37 federally recognized tribes and approximately 18,000 Alaska Native people that live, work, and subsist on the 1,400 miles of the Yukon River and the Upper Kuskokwim River drainages and their tributaries.

As you know, Alaska has what has long been called the subsistence priority, which is written into state statute. The Board of Fisheries has changed without with providing subsistence before all other uses. So while we all know this to be the law of Alaska, let's take a quick look at the numbers. According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, all of the wild resources harvested in the state of Alaska in 2017, commercial fishing accounted for 98.6%.

Subsistence accounted for less than 1% of fish and animals harvested. Of that 1%, which equates to about 46 million pounds of food, to about 25% is consumed in urban Alaska and 75% is consumed in rural Alaska. This is significant because subsistence is the food or rural Alaska. Subsistence provides social wealth for our people. Our people do not just count what's in their bank, but how much they have in their freezers, how much they put away for the winter, including their moose and salmon harvest.

How does this relate to the membership on the Board of Fish? Historically, the makeup of the Board of Fish has been skewed to be over represented by commercial interests, and the ADF&G budget is overrepresented by commercial interests too. So by the numbers, subsistence is less of a priority and more of an afterthought by the state of Alaska. The Yukon River is experiencing one of the worst salmon crisis on record. In-river managers have implemented closures gear restrictions, and emergency orders.

And subsistence harvests in many communities have been reduced to nearly zero. I want this to sink in. In some river communities, subsistence harvests had been reduced to zero. In my own community of Nulato, the Middle Yukon had implemented its own self-moratorium to not fish. This was done before the moratorium was even issued to no fish.

Our people understand the importance of providing natural resource management of their own resources. This has provided our natural resources to continue to this day. The reality is that 87% of Alaska Natives identify salmon as their top subsistence food, but 64% are not satisfied with their access and 82% say lack of access harms their well-being. In response to these hardships, the TCC Board of Directors unanimously passed Resolution 2025-17 directing TCC to advocate for stronger salmon protections. And we are not alone.

Sports fishers are experiencing new limits. Personal use fishers are experiencing new limits as well. The access to fish for everyday Alaskans on and off the road systems in both urban and rural settings is at stake. It is absolutely a statewide issue that affects the health and identity for all Alaskans. For the people of the interior of Alaska, salmon shapes how we teach our children, relates to the land, and carries our knowledge forward.

Thinking back to when I was just back at home in Nulato for potlatch, even in our own potlatch ceremonies, we didn't have much salmon to share with one another. We were honoring our past loved ones who had passed on, one of them being my own son and my mother.

In our communities and in our tradition, it's important for us to share these natural resources with our relatives and friends to for helping us in our time of need. Because of the less salmon stocks, we're unable to carry forward that tradition of sharing.

That is one of our Athabascan values. It is one of our inherent Alaska Native values. Since 2020, salmon runs on the Yukon River have collapsed, forcing repeated subsistence and commercial closures. A river that once brought families together now sits silent. Salmon once made up as half of the annual subsistence harvest.

Families now must replace salmon and rely on expensive store-bought food that cannot replace nutritional or cultural importance of wild salmon. To keep people fed, TCC purchases and distributes more than 120,000 pounds since 2022. [SPEAKING NATIVE LANGUAGE] The health impacts are significant. Between 2019 and 2023, prediabetes among the Alaska Native patients increased by 70%. For many families, the emotional toll is heavy.

Elders worry that without fish camps, our kids won't be able to know how to live in the traditional way anymore. HB 125 provides an opportunity to provide equity for multiple user groups: sport, commercial, subsistence, and science, to ensure that the decisions made by the Board of Fish are representative of all Alaska. I'm here to tell you that what is good for subsistence users is good for all of Alaska. Our elders teach us to harvest with humility and respect. Take only what you need, leave enough for others, and honor the place you harvest.

Lawmakers have a responsibility to ensure Alaska's fisheries policies reflect fairness, transparency, and our constitutional obligations to sustainable yield and maximum benefit for all Alaskans. Alaska subsistence fisheries are in front of the line fighting for abundance of wild resources for our state, and they deserve adequate representation on the Board of Fisheries. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Hildebrand. We appreciate your testimony.

I see no questions. With that, I will go to Representative Jimmy. Any closing comments? Um, I would like to thank the Committee of Regional Affairs for listening to House Bill 125. I also wanted to thank those who spoke, Chief TCC Chairman Shannon Hildebrand and former Akatsiok Tribal Council Member Fritz George.

And if you guys ever wanted to come out to Tuksook and see how to subsistence, and I invite you all to come out. Thank you. Wonderful. Thank you, Representative. I see nothing further from the committee, and with that, our agenda is concluded.

We will post next week's agenda soon. So with that, at 2:56—. 2:57 PM, we are adjourned. Thank you.