Senate Labor & Commerce, 5/13/26, 1:30pm

Good afternoon. I call this meeting of the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee to order. Let the record reflect that it is 1:39 PM on Wednesday, May 13th, 2026. Present today are Senator Dunbar, Senator Gray Jackson, myself, Senator Merrick. I will say that on our agenda today, we have confirmation of governor's appointees, Senate Bill 250, data centers, utilities, House Bill 363, alcohol, patriotic organizations, club licenses, HB 244, CNA training, SB 268, sick leave exemption fish processors.

HB 155 has been removed from today's agenda. First, we will take up consideration of the governor's recent appointments to the Board of Massage Therapists, the Real Estate Commission, and the Board of Social Work Examiners. We'd like to thank these folks for volunteering to serve on these boards. We have— first up, we have Karun Kobden, who has been appointed to the Board of Massage Therapists. Ms. Kobden, please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin to give us a testimony on why your experience and interests would like to serve on this board.

Oh, thank you, Senator. Yes, my name is Caron Kobden. Um, I am a lifelong Alaskan. I grew up here in Fairbanks and spent 10 years down in Juneau back in the '80s. I served as executive assistant to Ben Brustendorf.

So I, I know those halls well and really enjoyed my time there. I'm a mother and a grandmother, and I'm somewhat retired now, although I, I run a vacation rental business part-time. You know, I've always been interested in serving as a state board member. I think I've got a pretty broad range of skills that will be helpful to that, including administration, higher education, small business management, and healthcare. In fact, for the past 20 years, I managed a local orthopedic clinic here in Fairbanks with my husband, who is a board-certified orthopedic surgeon.

Um, he passed away several months ago, and I'm sort of at a point in my life where I'm exploring new interests and opportunities for growth. So when this opportunity came along, I was very enthusiastic to apply. I've been around orthopedics for a long time, so I understand how important massage therapy and other supportive therapies are for individuals with the musculoskeletal and joint issues, and also how important it is that standards of care are met to ensure, you know, best practices for patient care. So, um, yeah, I'm very excited to serve, and I appreciate the opportunity to do so.

Thank you very much, Ms. Cobden. Vice Chair Merrick has passed the gavel to me. This is for the record, Senator Jesse Bjorkman. Senator Dunbar has a question for you, but first we will welcome our recording secretary, Carrie Tupow, and our LAO moderator, Susan Quigley, and we will also welcome Senator Yunt. Senator Dunbar has a question.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr.— I'm sorry, Ms. Cobden, for offering to serve. You have a very sort of varied background, a lot of different roles, it appears here. My question is sort of around residency. I know you said you were a lifelong Alaskan, but I'm curious if— well, do you have a relationship with the city of Sedona?

And I just asked that because I don't know if it's you or someone else with the same name, I have an article here from 2021 that identifies that person as living, a resident of Sedona. And so I just wanted to see if that was the same, if you were she.

Sure, Senator. Thank you for that question. Yes, I spent quite a bit of time in Sedona over the last, oh gosh, 30 years back and forth. My husband and I at that time, were involved in vacation rentals, which I currently continue to manage. But my residency is absolutely in the state of Alaska.

So, and I don't spend quite as much time in Sedona anymore now that my husband has passed because that's where, you know, he and I both spent a lot of time. But no, I'm clearly an Alaskan resident. So, but I'm sure there are many, you know, I did so much real estate and, you know, a lot of work in Sedona, Arizona, so it wouldn't surprise me that that would appear in my record. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, Senator Dunbar. Are there any other questions for Ms. Cobden?

Ms. Cobden, thank you very much for being available today for a presentation and questions. We are going to move now to Ms. Lise Buchholz, who has been appointed to the Real Estate Commission. Ms. Buchholz, thank you for joining us today. Please state your name and affiliation for the record and give us a brief statement about your experience and interest in serving on the Real Estate Commission.

Oh, I'm so excited and honored to be able to serve on the Real Estate Commission. I've been in the real estate industry for the past 2 decades, starting out as the first home warranty company coming up to Alaska from Louisiana. It's really interesting because no one had heard of home warranties when I came up here. So in order to get the realtors to entertain buying them, I received my teacher's certificate in real estate to be able to teach realtors ECE and VCE required courses so I could have 5 minutes to talk about how a warranty, a home warranty could benefit a homeowner. Uh, I turned that from 100 sales to 3,700 sales a year, going all the way, uh, from all over Alaska training realtors.

And then I was recruited into the real estate industry to actually, uh, manage, uh, Jack White Real Estate in 2007. Let's see, that was 2012 that I started doing that for 4 years, and I was commuting. I live in the Valley, which is.

Washilla, and I was commuting to work every day for that 4 years and finally decided to get my own real estate license and start selling real estate to stop from having to commute daily.

I am pro the bridge. Anyway, we need a separate road. But I want to thank you for allowing— listening to this. I have been serving on boards for a long time, even when I was in New Orleans. And even was appointed by two presidents of the United States.

As you can see on my resume, I worked for the Small Business Administration under a presidential appointment. It was strictly volunteer and it was all about regulatory fairness and then ended up being the chairperson for Region 6 of the United States serving on that board. So I started over Louisiana And then in the next 4-year term under the new president, they named me as chair. And from there, I just, I love serving and helping and, and making a difference. If I'm on a board that things aren't changing for the good, or we're just talking and nothing's happening, I don't have an interest there.

I just love being involved. I'm the past president of Alaska Realtor Association for the entire state. I was president first in the Valley and became Realtor of the Year, and I was wondering what I could do to even help more. And then my interest was to serve on the commission. So I hope you consider me strongly.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Buchholz. Are there any questions from committee members?

Seeing and hearing none, Thank you again for joining us today. We appreciate you spending time to talk about why you're passionate about the Real Estate Commission. Very good. Next up—. Thank you.

You're absolutely welcome, ma'am. Next up, we have Ms. Judy Kendall, who has been appointed to the Board of Social Work Examiners. Ms. Kendall, please state your name and affiliation for the record, and please give us a brief statement about your experience and interest in serving on the board. Good afternoon. My name is Judy Kendall.

I've held a master's degree in social work since 1989. Most of my work has been in the community setting, working with families and adults as well on issues related to substance use, homelessness, and behavioral health issues. I moved to Alaska about 3 years ago from Henderson, Nevada, and I was employed by Providence Hospital. Currently, I serve as the Director of Residential Services at Alaska Child and Family. And thank you for your consideration, and any questions I'd be happy to answer.

Thank you very much, Ms. Kendall. Are there any questions from committee members?

Hearing and seeing none, Ms. Kendall, thank you so much for being available today. We appreciate you talking to the committee. Thank you for your consideration. Bye-bye. You betcha.

All right. Well, that includes the list of those 3 nominees that we had referred to the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee. We thank all of the people that have been appointed for their willingness to serve and participate in the regulatory process that governs each of their licensed professions. May I have a motion, please? Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I move to advance the names of appointees referred to the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee for consideration to the joint session of the House and Senate for consideration. Is there any objection? Hearing and seeing no objection, the names will be forwarded to a joint session for consideration. I remind everyone that a signature on this report does not reflect the intent of any members to vote for or against the confirmation of these individuals during any joint session. We'll take a brief at ease while we sign the paperwork and set up for the next bill.

Brief at ease.

We're back on the record. It's 1:53 PM here in Senate Labor and Commerce. Next up, we have House Bill 363, sponsored by the Honorable Representative Louise Stutes. This is our first hearing on the bill. To present the bill, we have the bill sponsor, Representative Stutes, and her staff, Jane Pearson.

Please join us at the table and put yourselves on the record and please begin your presentation of the bill. Thank you very much, Chair Bjorkman, and good afternoon committee members. Nice to see you. I'm Representative Stutes and I represent Kodiak, Cordova, Seward, and several small coastal communities. And I really appreciate the opportunity to be here today to present House Bill 360.

This bill came from an idea from the Seward American Legion, Post Number 5. So this is about veteran organizations. They are a nonprofit, not-for-profit organization, and they are— the intent of them is to preserve and promote celebrating national pride and advocating for veterans. Soldiers and their communities. The American Legion was the first patriotic organization in America, and it was chartered and incorporated by Congress in 1919 after World War I.

Its role is to advocate for veterans and to work towards securing veteran benefits, such as the GI Bill and the establishment of the VA healthcare system. These organizations provide a unique place for soldiers, veterans, and their families and their guests to socialize by providing community spaces for like-minded Alaskans. And I will tell you the two things that House Bill 363 accomplishes for these patriotic organizations. First, it allows patriotic organizations to sell alcoholic beverages to members of other patriotic organizations incorporated under Alaska's Nonprofit Corporation Act and possessing a club license under Title IV. That's the alcohol title.

These organizations are defined in the bill as three patriotic organizations that currently hold liquor licenses. They include the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the AMVETS, which is American Veteran Organizations. This.

Allows for better parity between veterans and active duty military personnel. Under the law, active duty military personnel may be served alcohol in patriotic organizations. However, the current law does not allow veterans who are members of other patriotic organizations to be served or go into these organizations if you're not an active member. So if I'm a— if I were in the service and I were a member of the American Legion, but I'm not a member of the VFW, I would not be allowed to go in and be served at the VFW. This is a reciprocating portion of the bill.

So if you're a member of one, you're allowed to go into the other. Secondly, House Bill 363 allows for patriotic organization during a permitted event to serve liquor as well as beer and wine during the event. The event must occur at the club's licensed premise and in accordance with the terms of that event permit. Under current law, patriotic organizations are only allowed to serve beer and wine to guests at these events. So if it's an event that's open to the public, it has been permitted, it is on the premise of the organization, and I as a vet were to go in and I were to take my, um, my committee chair here, Jane, with me, Jane would only be allowed to have beer or wine as opposed to spirits.

And this allows for spirits to be served to her as well, and it really makes a huge difference. As an ex-bar owner, to keep track of when you are serving as the bartender. Oh my goodness, are you a member? Are you not a member? Especially when you're open to the public.

And this would alleviate that. You would be able to serve beer and/or spirits to anybody that participates, provided the organization has gotten the proper permits for the event. House Bill 363 focuses on making patriotic organizations more congenial and welcoming places for active military personnel, veterans, their guests, and for them to congregate there. The success of these organizations depend entirely on their active membership, participation, and volunteerism. These organizations belong to the people and they serve and the communities in which they thrive.

They're a great organization. Doggone it. Anyway, that's what Bill 363 does, and it's really good for the communities, it's good for the people that live there, and it's definitely good for our military. Thank you. Very good.

Thank you very much, Rep. Stutes. Are there any questions from committee members?

How dare you. I don't see any questions.

That sounds good. Pretty simple, straightforward. Appreciate you bringing the bill. Oh, thank you. I really, I really appreciate it.

And I guess it's just so touching because here we are back in that situation where we have active members at going to war again, we need to take care of our military, and this is one way we can do it, and their families. Very good. So thank you. Thank you. We'll go to invited testifiers now.

First up is Mr. Mike Calhoun from American Legion Post 5 in Seward. Mr. Calhoun, please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your testimony. Yes, thank you, Senator. Uh, my name is Michael Calhoun. And I am the full-time manager and second vice commander of American Legion Post 5 here in Seward, Alaska.

Most excellent. I, um, I started this process with, uh, Ms. Suits, uh, a number of years ago to try and alleviate some issues, and she's basically done a great job of stating that. Um, Post 5 is the only veterans organization in Seward. Seward, as you know, is a small community, and we get visitors from around the state, um, all year, particularly in the summer, but all year round. And so this would allow us to give full access to our club, um, and its activities to VFW members and AMVETS members that come to visit Seward and, and don't have an organization of theirs here in town.

The other one is on the event permits and the allowance of serving our full bar when we have special event permits, which were basically— and I'll try and make this really short— were designed for nonprofits that don't have a bar or a social area like we do, say a Chamber of Commerce or somebody that wants to hold an event, a fundraiser. And so they're allowed to have a beer or wine, you know, service going. For us that have a full club license, it does make it a lot more difficult when we have an event like the Polar Bear Jump-Off Festival or the Fourth of July activities here in Seward, which you all are aware is a very large thing. And we use these type of events as fundraisers and membership drives. And so this would allow us— this would ease the job of our bar staff if we were allowed to serve our full bar at these open events that we have gotten permits for.

And I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Calhoun. Are there any questions from committee members?

Hearing and seeing none, thanks again for joining us today. We'll go next— we'll go next to Mr. Justin Mills, Commander of Jack Henry Post 1 in Anchorage. Mr. Mills, thank you for joining us. Please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your presentation.

Yes. My name is Justin Mills and I am the commander for Jack Henry Post 1, which is in Anchorage, Alaska.

So I am speaking as the commander of American Legion Jack Henry Post 1 here in Anchorage, and also as a younger post-9/11 Army veteran who cares deeply about the future of veteran service organizations in Alaska. I'll be direct. Organizations like the American Legion, VFW, and AMVETS are not private clubs. They're not just private clubs. At our best, we're community institutions.

We support veterans and military families. We host memorial and patriotic events. We sponsor youth programs. We provide a place of fellowship, and we help veterans connect with their— outside of their time in uniform. But we're also operating in a very different environment than these organizations were built for decades ago.

Many posts are trying to maintain aging buildings, manage rising costs, recruit younger veterans, and remain relevant in their communities. That's not easy. If we want these organizations to survive for the next generation, we need laws that recognize how these actually function today. As I understand it, House Bill 363 makes two practical changes. First, it allows members of our patriotic organization to be served in another patriotic organization without requiring separate reciprocity agreements.

That makes sense. A veteran who belongs to the VFW and Vets for American Legion both should be able to walk into another patriotic organization and be treated as part of the broader veteran community. Second, the bill allows patriotic organizations under a proper nonprofit event permit to serve all alcoholic beverages at permitted events, not just beer and wine. That matters because these events are often how organizations like ours raise money, bring the community into our building, and support our mission. We host events that are patriotic, charitable, and civic, and community-focused.

Those events help fund the real work supporting veterans, maintaining our facilities, sponsoring youth and scholarship programs, and continuing service in the community. This bill does not remove accountability. The proceeds from these permitted events still go nonprofit organizations, not to individuals. That is important, and I support that safeguard. For us, this is not about alcohol for alcohol's sake.

It's about sustainability. It is about allowing patriotic organizations to operate responsibly, host legitimate community events, and generate revenue that supports veterans and keeps those institutions alive. As a younger veteran, I believe this bill helps make our organizations more accessible and more welcoming, and we want the next generation of veterans to join, volunteer, and lead— carry these organizations forward. We have to give posts the ability to evolve while still honoring their mission and tradition. House Bill 363 is reasonable, narrow, and practical updates.

It supports veteran service organizations without removing nonprofit accountability or other funding processes. On behalf of American Legion Post 1, I respectfully ask you to support this bill. Thank you for your time and support of American and Alaska veterans. Thank you very much, Mr. Mills. Senator Dunbar has a question for you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Not a question, I just— for transparency's sake, I should mention that I am a member of Jack Henry Post 1. Uh, and on the floor, I'll— if and when this gets to the floor, I will, um, have the conversation about whether there is a conflict or not. I don't think there is.

As I receive no economic benefit from these activities. But, uh, um, I guess I'll say thank you, uh, Justin, for your testimony, and, um, just wanted to be transparent with folks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Very good.

Any questions?

Seeing and hearing no questions. Any wrap-up comments, Representative Stutes? No, I just really appreciate it. You're welcome. Well, at this time we'll set Senate— uh, House Bill 363 aside for our next meeting when we'll take public testimony and move the bill.

Take a brief at ease while we set up for our next item. Brief at ease.

We're now in Senate Labor and Commerce here in the most beautiful capital city of Rainy Juneau, Alaska. Our next item is Senate Bill 268, brought to us by the Honorable Senator Gary Stevens. This is our first hearing on the bill. To present the bill, we have the staff to the bill sponsor, Mr. Tim Lampkin. Mr. Lampkin, welcome back to Senate Labor and Commerce.

Please put yourself on the record. And begin your presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Tim Lampkin, staff to Senator Stevens. Before you should be Senate Bill 268, version T. This is a bill that was presented to us at the request of the seafood processing industry sector. We're here simply to shepherd this bill through the system. I will defer to our invited testimony, Ms. Julie Decker, to help support this bill.

Most excellent. Thank you very much. Are there any questions for the bill sponsor? Hearing and seeing none, we will bring forward Ms. Julie Decker from the Pacific Seafood Processors Association. Welcome back to Senate Labor and Commerce, Ms. Decker.

Please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your presentation of the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Julie Decker for the record. I will read some testimony and then speak to some of the committee substitute changes since the last committee meeting, but I know a lot of the members are the same, so mostly for the chair's benefit.

I am with Pacific Seafood Processors Association, or PSPA, and we do strongly support this bill. PSPA is a trade association which represents the major seafood processors in the state. 47 Facilities in 22 different coastal communities, and they buy from thousands of commercial fishermen in almost every fishery in almost every, every region. Alaska's seafood processing sector operates under very unique, challenging conditions. Processing facilities are often located in highly remote environments where workforce availability, housing, transportation, operational continuity, and servicing of commercial fishermen are all tightly interconnected.

These realities require policies that are carefully tailored to the industry structure while still supporting the health and benefit of employees. This bill, SB 268, reflects a balanced approach. It recognizes the intent of the voter-approved paid sick leave initiative while also addressing the distinct nature of seafood processing operations and their connection to commercial fishermen. In the original language of the ballot measure, an exemption was made for commercial fishermen, agricultural and aquacultural workers, and even shrimp handpickers.

By aligning seafood processors more closely with the original exemptions provided by law, this legislation requires the interconnected nature of fishermen and processors in the Alaska seafood industry. It ensures that commercial fishermen will continue to get uninterrupted services and provides greater consistency of application across similarly situated industries. This legislation is necessary not only to align seafood processors with the original exemption provided in law to fishermen, but also to fix an unintended consequence of the ballot measure that's highly problematic for seafood processors. Certain mandatory requirements of the ballot measure combine to create strong financial incentives for workers to misuse the mandatory paid sick leave at the end of a season. In particular, the following 3 mandatory provisions combine a strong incentive— combine to create a strong incentive.

The first is the accrual of paid sick leave up to 56 hours. The second is the use-it-or-lose-it provision. And third is there is no practical way for employers to ensure employees are sick. So for seasonal seafood processing workers who are interested in this intensive work periods and long hours with significant overtime wages, The mandatory provisions create a strong financial incentive for workers to utilize the paid sick leave during the final couple weeks of the season before they lose it. If a sufficient workforce is not in place during the season, processors cannot fully operate and continue to serve fishermen.

Prior to the ballot measure, full-time seafood processing workers already received paid sick leave as one of many benefits, including health insurance, provided by seafood processing companies, which help the seafood industry compete for a dedicated and quality workforce in rural communities. Seasonal employees are provided different benefits, including transportation, meals, and housing. There are already existing practices and incentives to prevent employees from working while sick, particularly for food safety purposes. In conclusion, uh, SB 268 supports workforce stability and operational planning in an industry that already includes very high risk and unpredictability of wild fisheries. Predictable and workable leave policies help employers maintain safe and efficient operations while continuing to provide thousands of jobs and purchase fish in an efficient manner from thousands of commercial fishermen.

We appreciate your time, and I wanted to, to talk now about the changes to the CS and what that does. Through conversations with our association and Senator Dunbar in the previous committee, there was iterative discussion of ideas to to further narrow this, the original SB 268. And so the CS does narrow it and it defines seafood processing workers. It reduces the overall paid sick leave accrued to seafood processing workers from 56 hours to 48 hours per year. And then it limits sick leave accrued and used each month to 12 hours.

And then the last thing is it provides a probationary period of 30 days in which no sick leave can be used the first 30 days. And I'll be open for questions. Thank you very much, Ms. Decker. Are there any questions from committee members?

Senator Dumbaugh. Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't have a question. I was sort of— I think everyone on this committee, or 4 of the 5 members, have already seen this bill and heard this discussion.

But I'll just say very briefly, you know, in general, I support paid sick leave. And I didn't want to have a bill go forward that, um, that limited or repealed the ballot initiative. However, um, uh, Ms. Decker and the PSPA have made, I think, persuasive arguments about the end of fishing season and the unique challenges that they face when a bunch of sick leave is accrued and folks have to— and folks will take it at the end and effectively shut down or significantly limit some of these fish processing plants. Uh, and that is where this came from. And I do believe, um, On page 2, line 29, the limitation on 12 hours per month essentially ends that concern.

Folks can take up to 12 hours in a month, and so you won't get the same kind of lengthy accrual. And so, I hope that this helps the industry, which I think we all understand is having a lot of challenges right now, while simultaneously protecting at least some paid sick leave for these seasonal workers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, Senator Dunbar.

Any further questions or committee discussion?

Seeing, hearing none. Thank you very much, Ms. Decker. We appreciate you being here. At this time, we will set Senate Bill 268 aside for further consideration at a future meeting. We'll take a brief at ease while we set up for our next So, brief it is.

We're back on the record. It's 2:17 PM here in Senate Labor and Commerce. Our next item for today is House Bill 244. Brought to us by the Honorable Representative Jubilee Underwood. Representative Underwood, please join us at the table and provide us a brief recap of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. Um, a brief recap is this is extensive training, not necessarily extensive. Right now CNAs only get about an hour of training for Alzheimer's and dementia for behaviors and how to treat and deal with patients. And right now there's a robust, um, education that's already been created, which is great. This is zero fiscal note to to the state.

This is just codifying it. It has well-rounded support for CNAs to get that training before they get licensed, and I think it will greatly help our elderly community. So that is the gist of the bill. Excellent. Are there any questions for the bill sponsor?

Hearing and seeing none at this time, we will open public testimony on House Bill 244. Is there anyone in the room or online who wishes to testify to this item?

We have one person on the line, Maria Serrano. Miss Serrano, please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your testimony.

Ms. Serrano, can you hear us?

Oh, sorry, I had you all on mute. Oh, no worries. I'm sure the beginning of your presentation was awesome. Um, could you—. Yeah, it was great.

And could you please start over? My apologies. Please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your testimony. Yeah, absolutely. Um, good afternoon, my name is Maria Serrano.

I'm the development manager with Alzheimer's Association based here in Washington I'm here in support of House Bill 244. I really do believe in strengthening the CNA training, especially around dementia care. I think it's incredibly important as Alaska's population continues to age, especially in the role that I'm in. We see how much families and people living with Alzheimer's are relying on compassionate, well-trained caregivers. So better training means better care.

So thank you for your time. I encourage that support. Very good. Excuse me. Very good.

Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else in the room or online who wishes to testify to House Bill 244?

We have one testifier who is being loaded into the system as we speak. Also available for questions after we're done taking public testimony is Deputy Commissioner from the Department of Commerce, Glenn Saviors.

Up next is Marge Stoneking. Ms. Stoneking, please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your testimony, please.

Thank you, Chair Bjorkman, and members of the committee. For the record, my name is Marge Stoneking, Advocacy Director with AARP Alaska, testifying in support of HB 244. Thank you for hearing this legislation to address provider training requirements for certified nursing assistants that inform the quality of care for Alaskans living with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. AARP Alaska is a champion for family caregivers, a member of the Alaska Dementia Action Collaborative, and a strong supporter of building a dementia-capable workforce. And HB 244 advances all three of those priorities.

As Alaska's population ages, more families are affected by Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, and direct care workers are increasingly called upon to respond to complex cognitive and behavioral needs. HB 244 is a thoughtful, practical bill that modernizes CNA training to reflect those realities by ensuring that CNAs receive core competencies in dementia care. Better training benefits everyone. It helps CNAs feel prepared and confident in their work, improves quality and safety for residents and patients, and gives families greater peace of mind and support for family caregivers. It can also help reduce avoidable crises, staff burnout, and turnover—challenges that are especially acute in Alaska.

From AARP Alaska's perspective, HB 244 supports both quality care and a stronger caregiving workforce, and we respectfully urge the committee to advance it. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Thank you very much, Ms. Stoneking. Are there any questions from committee members? Hearing and seeing none, is there anyone else in the room or online who wishes to testify?

Hearing and seeing none, at this time we will close public testimony. That brings House Bill 244 back before the committee. Representative Underwood, do you have any closing remarks? I just appreciate your time. Thank you for hearing this.

Thank you, Mr. Lewis. You're welcome. Any final committee discussion? Seeing and hearing none, what are the wishes of the committee? Mr. Chairman, I move to report House Bill 244, version 34-LS1207/A, from committee with individual recommendations in the attached zero fiscal note.

Is there any objection? Seeing and hearing no objection, House Bill 244, version 34-LS1207/A, as in Anchor Point, is reported from committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note. We'll take a brief at ease while we sign the paperwork and set up for the next bill. Brief at ease.

224 Now here in Senate Labor and Commerce. Our last item today is Senate Bill 250, brought to us by the Honorable Senator Lukey Yel Tobin. This is our second hearing on the bill. During our first hearing, we had a presentation of the bill and we took invited testimony. Testimony.

Here to provide a brief recap of the bill is Senator Tobin's staff, Mr. Louie Flora. Mr. Flora, if you could please join us at the table and state your name and begin your brief recap of the bill. Thank you for bringing the bill up, and Senator Tobin apologizes for not being at the committee today. My name is Louie Flora. I'm staff to Senator Lukey Tobin.

Senate Bill 250 does a number of things, and I'll run through them very quickly because a number of you have heard this bill before. Senate Bill 250 is a proactive policy. It's needed to address impacts before conflicts arise, as we've seen in the lower 48. It's a balanced approach. It supports economic development while protecting communities and ratepayers.

And the provisions of the, the bill that prevents cost shifting so families and small businesses don't subsidize private projects reinforces the cost-causer-cost-payer principle already used by.

Regulators. It requires data centers to pay full infrastructure costs, and it specifies that contracts must not risk fuel shortages for utilities. It also requires— limits natural gas use to emergencies and testing for backup power. In the community benefit arena, it requires the community benefit agreements before construction, and those agreements will include waste heat recovery plans, broadband infrastructure, contributions, digital equity support, and water use plans as well. And in general, it ensures that data centers benefit Alaskans, not burden them.

And it's a forward-looking policy to align investment with public interest.

Thank you very much, Mr. Flora. Are there any questions for committee members?

Mr. Flora, I think I saw a letter from the Chugach Electric Association with some suggested ideas about the bill. Do you have any comment on that letter? Through the chair, Louis Flora, staff to Senator Lucy Tobin. We did receive a number of comments from the Chugach Electric Association. We've been working directly with them on incorporating language in previous versions of the bill and are very happy to work with them to see what we can accommodate in this current request.

So we will work directly with them as we go through the process. Excellent. Very good. Available online for questions is RCA Commissioner John Springsteen. Are there any questions for Mr. Springsteen?

Hearing and seeing no questions for Mr. Springsteen, we will move now to public testimony on Senate Bill 250. Is there anyone in the room or online who wishes to testify? Come on up, ma'am.

Thank you very much for waiting so long for us to get to this bill. We appreciate that you are here. Could you please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your testimony? Hi, my name is Maggie Drapeau. I'm a local here in Juneau, Alaska.

Um, I'm coming with concerns with all these data centers that are popping up in Alaska and what considerations are being taken for locals.

I had to have my husband help me because recalling my thoughts is kind of hard when I'm anxious, so I wrote it down in a couple paragraphs. A data center would require enormous amounts of energy in the wintertime. AELNP here, our local energy resource, needs to burn diesel to provide enough energy for all of Juneau. With the skyrocketing cost of diesel, a data center would drive up our utility bills, especially during the wintertime. With all essentials rising in cost, including rent and food, and skyrocketing power bill would cripple many of Juneau residents financially.

We want a transparent understanding of the amount of energy that a data center is expected to use and expected utility cost increase that would occur during our rough winters. Like, this last winter was just awful. It was bad. Um, we are also concerned about the enormous amounts of water that a data center requires to remove heat. The— these cooling systems consistently use huge amounts of water to function.

They are just filled up once and function forever thereafter, and function there forever thereafter. We want a transparent understanding of the expected water usage of a data center and how much capacity Juneau's water system is able to provide. I'd also like to note that we've heard data centers that were considering building recycled water facilities to assist with water usage have been shelved in, like, different states have been shelved. So if we could have, you know, a facility that can recycle their water versus consuming all of the water and, you know, our resource.

We as a society have functioned without data centers and we're being pushed these— be pushed on with these centers and, you know, what did I write? Sorry.

I want to know like what kind of impacts these data centers are going to bring to locals and communities because, you know, we only have a finite amount of resources in our state and these giant corporations are just going to be sucking them up. So that's it. I have a question. Are you in favor of or do you oppose this bill? I am in favor of— from what I was listening, I'm in favor of it.

I just feel like there needs to be more done about data centers. And so, sorry. No, Maggie, thank you so much. 37 Years old, this is my first public testimony, so it's all new. You killed it.

Great job. Thank you. Very good. Any further questions? Thank you.

No, you're good. No worries. All right, we'll go online now to Sydney Bidwell. Ms. Bidwell, please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your testimony.

Hi there, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Sydney Linneman, and I'm assuming you want me now, but if I'm wrong, correct me.

Sydney Linneman, you're next. We'll take Sydney Bidwell next. Very good. Oh gosh, I'm sorry. It's okay.

Great. No worries. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Sydney Linneman.

I am the former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Renewable Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy. I'm now a clean energy consultant working with data centers and power providers in the lower 48. Um, I'm also a proud former Alaska State Senate staffer, and I'm very, very pleased to be here in strong support of SB 250. So you all know a lot better than I do because I have moved out of state, sadly, that you are in an energy crisis right now. Data centers are coming for Alaska.

Um, that makes it sound a little ominous, but you have a lot of the resources that they want in the cold weather.

I want to just share a quick anecdote with you on something that I saw happen in Virginia, and Virginia was a state that was not ready for how data center— data centers infrastructure was going to affect their own grid. So, in July 2024, the data centers in Northern Virginia cut their power so suddenly, like to the scale of cutting off a million homes all at once, that grid operators almost lost control of that system. And that's because data centers' power needs go up and down so quickly that even turbines in some cases are not able to be responsive to that. So, we call this a byte blackout, which is very cute— a cute name for something pretty bad. Because Virginia did not have cost allocation framework, their power supplier Dominion projected that in response to this, they would need to do a transmission upgrade green project that would cost $67 billion.

So that's about an increase of $159 a month for your average power bill, up to $308 a month for your average power bill by 2035 if nothing was done. So that means for every single family that is, uh, that is powered by Dominion, they were paying 20— they would pay $2,600 a year to subsidize companies like Amazon and Google. Virginia was able to fix this after the fact. Texas was able to fix this. They did it also after the fact.

Excuse me. And Ohio did too. But they all came in too late. You all are at the, I think what I would describe as the beginning of your data center journey. And you have the opportunity to learn from these states and do better.

The 3 things that are most interesting to me as someone who works with data centers is one, the data centers pay 100% of their own infrastructure costs. So that means it's not on the backs of Alaska ratepayers, and it also provides certainty for these data centers. When they come in, they want to know how much it's going to cost them, and we'll be able to say much more definitively because we have this— this— you would be able to say more definitively because you have this law in place. The second is that the RCA is able to approve contracts before a single kilowatt is flowing into that system. And that means the RCA can determine if that draw is going to meet the requirements of Alaska's current power grid.

The last piece, and one that's very important to me as, as someone who lives in a community near data centers, is the community benefits agreement. Having this be written into statute rather than just sort of a nice thing to have ensures that Alaskans will feel the benefits of these data centers rather than just seeing, um, their grid become more unstable or their energy costs go up. So with all that said, I don't think that SB 250 closes the doors to data centers. Um, I don't think it is a signal that Alaska is not willing to take on data centers, but it just puts you all in the driver's seat to say what will work for the state, what won't, and make sure that it's benefiting Alaska, um,.

And not causing higher energy costs. So with that, I encourage you to pass the bill, and I'll stand for questions if there are any. Thank you very much, Ms. Lindeman. Are there any questions?

Seeing and hearing none, thank you very much for being here. We will return now to Sydney Bidwell. Ms. Bidwell, please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your testimony. Hello. Hi, my name is Sydney Bidwell.

I agree with everything the last Sydney said, and thank you for hearing me today. I am a lifelong Anchorage resident and geophysicist, and I'm calling in support of SB 250. I care deeply about policy to do with AI. I'm a volunteer for an AI safety advocacy nonprofit in Anchorage, and I've talked to Senator Lisa Murkowski, and way too many strangers in Anchorage outside of cars and other stores about AI. People in Anchorage are scared, and one thing they're most afraid about concerning AI is data centers raising energy prices in the same way it has in the Lower 48.

AI is moving faster than most regulations can keep up with. Alaska has a real window right now to get ahead of it. As Jimmy was saying, the last Jimmy. SB 250 makes sure data centers pay for their own energy use instead of passing costs to ratepayers. The community benefit agreements, renewable backup power requirements, and decommissioning plans are all smart protections that other states wish they had had.

Cook Inlet is running out of natural gas, and importing gas is already going to significantly raise energy prices. We cannot afford large industrial energy users draining a grid that my family and our community depends upon. Everyday people should not subsidize in their energy bill for some of the richest corporations in the world. SB 250 will help ensure that data centers work for Alaskans. Not the other way around.

So please move SB 250 forward, and thank you so much.

Thank you very much, Ms. Bidwell. Any questions from committee members?

Seeing and hearing none, we'll go now to Rose Feliciano. Ms. Feliciano, please state your name, affiliation, and location, and begin your testimony.

Good afternoon, Chair Birkman, Vice Chair Marek, and members of the committee. My name is Rose Feliciano. I'm here on behalf of TechNet. I am calling today from Seattle, Washington. TechNet and our member companies support protecting ratepayers and ensuring that large energy users do not unfairly shift cost onto consumers.

We understand the concerns surrounding large-scale infrastructure development and electric demand— electrical demand. However, we believe SB 250 takes an overly broad and duplicative approach that does not reflect how utility planning and infrastructure development already works in practice. Data centers do not simply plug into the grid. Before any project can move forward, developers must work extensively with utilities on engineering studies, load forecasting, transmission analysis, infrastructure planning, and cost allocation reviews. Utility regulators already have established processes in place to evaluate whether infrastructure upgrades are needed and who should pay for them.

SB 250 would single out one industry and require speculative cost determinations before existing engineering and regulatory reviews are even completed. That is operationally impractical and inconsistent with traditional rate paying principles. In many cases, infrastructure impacts simply cannot be accurately determined until utilities complete their studies and regulatory review approach. We are concerned about the unprecedented requirement that a data center to provide financial security for 100% of the projected cost before utility determinations are even made.

TechNet would encourage you to look at what is happening in Alaska with projects. I know lots of folks like to talk about Virginia and what has happened in Virginia. Well, I'm pretty sure you know that Alaska is not Virginia. I know that the Regulatory Commission of Alaska is online. There are other state agencies that could talk about what is specifically happening in Alaska.

And then I would shape a bill that's based on what's happening in Alaska. I ask you not to move forward, not to move SB 250 forward. I appreciate your consideration. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Ms. Feliciano.

Any questions? Seeing none, thanks again. We'll go now to Mr. Ken Huckeba. Mr. Huckeba, please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your testimony.

Hi, my name is Ken Huckaba. I'm Wasilla, unaffiliated, and I sure appreciate the chairman and members of the committee. I like the protective nature of this legislation, but it has some poison pills in there as far as on Section F. It's having it— it's having an institutionalization of the requirements for renewable generation in the same It's adding these things, and I don't, I don't think we need to do that because using renewables for backup— I have to explain myself a little bit. I've operated large grids in California and been under contracts and dealt with all the issues that we deal with these things. I'm asking you to do an amendment to remove Section F just for many, many reasons.

And that's what we've said, because the whole renewable thing, when they talk about keeping the money in the state, This tends to go to independent power producers, which takes the electrical generation revenue out of the state, not to the co-ops. I think there's a hazard in that. And there's also a subsection, and it's kind of really wonky the way it's written, but it speaks to the equity and like a social program requirement for a business to come in here. I think that's not the state's business to require that of businesses. I think an amendment to remove that should be undertaken.

And take that language out of this so that this thing has more teeth and can be more practical. And as far as what I've heard and witnessed, and I've read a lot on the data centers down south, I think we need to get into the practicalities of having a bonding requirement for, in case for any leakages they have and for ARO, you know, asset retirement obligations they might have, because what we've seen with many large ventures like this, If, say, they do have a large bill or something, they simply go bankrupt, it would leave us on the hook for it. But if they had a bond in place, there are bond requirements. A lot of language down there on the asset retirement on this would be covered for Alaskans. And I don't, I don't see that protection in here.

And I'd sure like to see that. And from my background on the electrical generation, these things are huge spike drivers. And I think requiring more of an analysis that they should provide for what happens if they shed load very quickly. What does it do to us in the middle of a January? It was -30 and we're at the maximum generation.

It would be calamitous because that will cause a lot of load shedding or entire blackouts because of grid instability. So this is going to require more equipment than just generating and their own equipment usage and such. And that kind of evaluation needs to be done and undertaken. And I am for protection against the data centers, so I like the bill, but these amendments should be made.

Thank you very much, Mr. Huckaba. Are there any questions from committee members?

Seeing and hearing none, is there anyone else in the room or online who wishes to testify? Seeing none, that brings Senate Bill 250 back before the committee. Is there any further discussion? Any final committee questions or committee remarks?

Mr. Flora, do you have any closing remarks? No, sir. Just Louis Flora, staff to Senator Lukey Tobin. I really appreciate all the testifiers that called in today, and thank you again for hearing the legislation. Very well.

Seeing and hearing no further discussion, what are the wishes of the committee? Sherby Yorkman, I move to report Senate Bill 250 version 34-LS1378/G from committee with individual recommendations in the attached zero fiscal note. Is there any objection? Seeing and hearing no objection, Senate Bill 250 version 34-LS1378/G as in Galena is reported from committee with individual recommendations in the attached zero.

Fiscal note.

The Senate Labor and Commerce Committee will meet again on Friday, if not sooner.

If we need to meet tomorrow, we will notice that meeting before 4:00 p.m. today. But for sure on Friday, we will hear again Senate Bill 268, Senate Bill 283, minimum nursing staff levels, and HB 363, Alcohol Patriotic Organizations. We also will have bills previously scheduled or heard on our agenda, so more bills may be added, or we may— might meet tomorrow if necessary. As there is no further business coming before the committee today, we are adjourned at 2:46 PM. Thank you.