House Labor & Commerce, 4/22/26, 3:15pm

Hello, we can get started. Um, House Labor and Commerce Committee will come to Order at 3:19. Members present: Representatives Carrick, Freer, Fields, and Hall. Thank you, Andrew Magnuson and.

Renzo Moises for tech and teleconferencing support. We have 6 bills on the agenda: SB 181, HB 292, SB 180, HB 335, HB 350, and HB 316. First up is SB 181, Employment Information Disclosure, by the Senate Rules Committee, carried by the Senate President. Senator Stevens, would you like— and Mr. Lampkin, would you like to recap this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gary Stevens, Senator from Kodiak. Very quickly, I really appreciate your hearing this bill. This is a data sharing bill, and it's one of the many recommendations that came out of the Joint Legislative Task Force on Alaska Seafood Industry and supports a collaboration between the University of Alaska and the Department of Labor and Workforce Development. So, Mr. Chairman, that's basically it, and I appreciate your hearing the bill today.

You bet. And we had a good first hearing. Um, not seeing questions for Senator Stevens. I'm going to open public testimony. Does anyone in the room wish to offer public testimony?

Not seeing any. Um, does anyone online wish to offer public testimony? I think Brett Watson, you are listed, but I believe you testified invited testimony.

Correct. I just wanted to be present today. For the record, this is Dr. Brett Watson, University of Alaska Anchorage, ICER. I just wanted to be available for any questions that the committee might have this afternoon. Okay, thank you, Professor Watson.

And Ashley Braddish, do you wish to offer public testimony on Senate Bill 181?

Uh, no, not on Senate Bill 181, thank you. Okay, um, Miss Braddish, which bill do you want to offer public testimony on, and we'll get you in the right queue.

Senate Bill 180, specifically an amendment that we have observed relating to timelines for orders issued by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. Got it. Okay, we'll get you in on that bill. So with that, there's no one online to testify for 181, so I'll close public testimony. Um, does anyone have any closing comments before we take action on this bill?

Seeing none, Representative Hall. Mr. Co-chair, I move to report SB 181, Work Order 34-LS 1921/a, out of committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. Mr. Chairman, object. Uh, Representative Sadler, Jackson, would you like to speak to your objection? Uh, no, Mr.

Chair, I just wish to record for the record that I was here before the, uh, the vote came out of this. Yes, Representative Sadler was here at, let's say, 3:20. Okay, um, not seeing any objections, Senate Bill 181 does pass. Um, We will— thank you, Senator Stevens. We'll take a brief at ease to transition to the next bill.

Uh, back on the record. Next on the agenda is House Bill 292, Insurance Pediatric Neuropsych Disorders. This is a bill by Representative Kahlom. It's the second hearing. Representative Kahlom had a family issue that she had to deal with.

So her staff, Emily Skovog, is here. In addition, we have available for questions Heather Carpenter. We also have Charles Semling online, Pharmacy Program Manager, Division of Healthcare Services, Department of Health.

We also have online Sarah Lemley from the Pandas Network and Dr. Angela Tang from Stanford, who we heard from previously in invited testimony.

Do members have questions for the bill sponsor's staff or the previous invited testifiers?

Not seeing any. We do have two technical amendments. And then can consider action on the bill. So first I will move Amendment G.1. Object for the purposes of discussion.

I'm afraid I don't have copies of those amendments. Could I—. There's—. With 6 bills, it's kind of hard to keep all the amendments track, so I just want to—. No problem, Dr.

Uh, Representative Sadler. Evan Anderson is going to give you a copy of the amendments, and then Evan Anderson is going to describe the amendments In short, these are two technical fixes that we worked on with the Division of Insurance and the bill sponsor. Thank you, Chris. And only two hands. Thank you very much.

Thanks, co-chairs. For the record, Evan Anderson, staff to Rep Fields, helping out with Rep Kolumb's office on this one. For Amendment G.1, uh, that deletes the consortium language in HB 292 and replaces it with a nationally recognized clinical practice guidelines. Uh, it also provides a definition for a nationally recognized clinical practice guideline. Uh, and such guidelines establish standards of care informed by systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefits and risks of alternative care options, and they would include recommendations intended to optimize patient care.

Any questions for Evan Anderson, the bill sponsor's staff, or Heather Carpenter on this amendment? Okay. Representative Paul, do you maintain your objection? I remove my objection. Is there further objection?

Seeing none, Amendment G.1 passes. I will now move Amendment G.2. Object for purposes of discussion. Evan Anderson, could you describe Amendment G.2, please? Sure.

Uh, for the record, Evan Anderson. Uh, Amendment G.2, uh, changes, uh, in the bill, uh, health benefit plan to healthcare insurance plan. Health benefit plan is actually defined elsewhere in statute to mean a group employer plan. And so for clarity, this should be changed to healthcare insurance plan to align with other mandate statutes in Title 21.

Questions on this amendment? Do you maintain your objection, Representative Hall? I remove my objection. With that, Amendment G.2 passes. That is all the amendments.

Want to thank Heather Carpenter for her work on these amendments with the bill sponsor. I believe at this time, brief at ease.

Back on the record at this time, I'm going to open public testimony. Does anyone in the room wish to offer public testimony? Not seeing any, I'm going to go online. First up in public testimony— and by the way, there are many people for public testimony, so I would suggest that you keep your testimony to 2 minutes. Um, first up is Bonnie Bailey.

Hi, can you hear me okay? Yes, ma'am. Okay, thank you so much. Um, sorry, just one moment. I know your time is tight, but I just had a tech issue.

Okay, uh, thank you so much. So my name is Bonnie. Thank you, uh, co-chair Paul and Piotr for having testimony. My name is Bonnie Bailey. I'm a lifelong Alaskan and mom of 4, and while I'm not currently working in the field, I've been a nationally registered paramedic for 20 years.

Our daughter Madeline was diagnosed with PANDAS, with post-infection encephalitis, when she was 3, and she is 16 now. She developed a fever from a strep infection and later woke up with severe symptoms. We took her out of state to see pediatric neurology, and ultimately she was ordered IVIG for her symptoms. Management and Resolution.

She experienced great remission with the treatment that she received. However, there was.

Absolutely a delay in her being able to get that treatment. The first delay for her and for a lot of kids that we have met now is getting a diagnosis. The second delay is struggling with the insurance company. I've heard a lot of testimony over the course of this bill being introduced about the Division of Insurance, and at the time we had no idea that the Division of Insurance could engage in that way. But since then, we've had people come to us for advocacy that have said that they still aren't able to get their child's care covered even as recently as 2 weeks ago.

And so, I'm very concerned about the ability to reduce barriers for kids with PANDAS. Sorry, just one moment. When Maddie was diagnosed, she was unable to speak normally. She was riddled with tics. She has terrible night terrors.

She was severely disabled from her condition. And getting treatment helped her go into remission, but she has deficits now that she might not have had she been able to get earlier access to care. And we're experiencing that now as she's 16. So she's in ongoing care and it's an ongoing struggle. About 1 to 2 parents a year found me before this advocacy through the way that I would talk about this with the community, and they would call me almost always in hysterics for how hard it is, what they're dealing with their, with their family.

And since we have been doing advocacy for this bill, more families have come forward out of the network, including a family that just called me a few weeks ago. They just had inpatient IVIG for their child for 5 days. So, time— brain health is part of mental health, and time to treatment impacts outcomes and recovery. And we would just urge the committee to support House Bill 292 following the consortium's recommendations, which are the experts efforts for PANDAS and PANS care so that we can remove one barrier for these families, including, including mine, as they navigate this difficult journey with PANDAS. And thank you so much for hearing the bill, and thank you to all of your aides.

We know that there's been a lot of communication, and they've been so patient, and we appreciate it. Thanks, Miss Bailey. And it is our intention to move the bill today, so I appreciate you sharing your experience. And with that, we'll go to the next testifier. Yes.

Ask a question of the witness? Sure, go ahead, Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Bailey, appreciate you telling us Madeline's story and your family's story.

I know my family knows the challenges of a child getting an unfamiliar diagnosis and then having the round 2 challenges of trying to find a treatment. And it's even worse when you have to fight the system, including the health insurance system. Thank you for sharing your story and your advocacy. You probably have heard many other family stories. Kind of put a fine point on it for me.

How would passage of this bill into law would have benefited your family and how generally will affect and benefit other families.

Sure. So I've looked at the data really carefully because I am a health professional, and I think that the delay that it cost us to get coverage cost us about 3 months in care for Madeline. And I can't look at you now and tell you that the deficit she has now, she she would have had had she— had this bill been passed. Had this bill been passed, I think maybe she wouldn't have these deficits. And especially the— we are health professionals.

We both worked in a hospital. We had great advocacy at the time that she was sick, and that allowed us to leverage resources for her. But if I was a mom out in the community and this wasn't my field, I don't think there's any way we would have had access to the kind of care that even she And that's the story that I usually hear from other parents. My colleague who I worked with in the emergency department, her son who just recently got IVIG, she's a nurse and they put him inpatient for 5 days and he's recovering. He just received inpatient IVIG for the indication that is the same because it just happened.

He has had no delay in IVIG treatment for him and he is a Medicaid recipient. So You know, we didn't have Medicaid. We had great insurance times too, but that wasn't the experience that we had. So, uh, I think it would make a huge difference for our kids and our families, for all of the kids, um, that are going through this. And I appreciate your kindness.

Thank you, Bonnie.

Okay, um, thank you again, Miss Bailey. Next up, Nicole Inslee. Go ahead, Miss Inslee.

Yes, hi there everyone. My name is Nicole Ensley and I'm from Craig on Prince of Wales Island. I'll make this fast, I just revised everything to make it shorter. After 2 months of illness and many attempts to use our medical benefits— I'm sorry, let me back up. I am a mother of an 11-year-old daughter who lives in Craig on Prince of Wales Island.

After 2 months of illness and many attempts to continue medical benefits. We knew how critical it was that she received timely and urgent treatment, or we risked her being severely ill for potentially years and years. This was, this was determined after hours and days and days of research, uh, reading scientific literature as well as personal accounts. So we did what any parent would do. We opted to pay out of pocket and begin planning to pay out of pocket $15,000 to $30,000 for her potential first round of IVIG if needed.

I was trying to front-load and just plan in the beginning of all of this. Thankfully, she responded so well to the first line of defense, which was 5 weeks of amoxicillin for the infection and 6 weeks of naproxen for the inflammation. Please keep in mind that my daughter's case is considered mild while I read to you some of her symptoms that I documented during our crisis phase. This will give you a baseline, and from there you can imagine what a severe case might look like. Due to the time limit, I won't read the symptoms list.

I actually emailed the whole committee the symptoms list several weeks ago, hoping you can refer back to that from Nicole Ensley and read it for yourself, the symptoms, just to save time. I will say at one point when she did say, "I'm going to jump off a cliff and die," we don't use the word suicide in our home. Know what that— she had no knowledge of that word. That was how she phrased it. At that point, we knew we were really scared, and that was less than 2 months into the illness.

So knowing this is considered— so knowing this is considered a mild case, imagine a severe case. Please be brave and informed and look up Logan Culture on social media, please. He's making a big movement right now. Logan Culture.

G-O-U-L-P-E-R on social media, whose daughter is in a severe flare 90% of her day and has been for 4 years. She experienced delayed treatment, delayed treatment, and is suffering in her bed each minute because of it. Um, in closing, I need you all to be brave. I need you all to be bold, and I need you to prioritize this bill, please. The legislation and insurance companies may think that these children can wait, but I'm telling you, we can't.

We can't, guys. We are hanging on emotionally and financially by a thread with no one else to turn to except for you, right here, right now. You are our last hope for timely treatment. Again, it's all about timely treatment, and I didn't even know that the previous speaker was going to talk about that. Please don't hesitate, delay, or avoid these kids.

Panda Pans is here to stay, and we can deal with it, but not without your support to do what is right and what is necessary. Please prioritize HB 292 today. These kids don't have time. My daughter began developing hazardous hallucinations and words to kill herself, which is very hard for me to even say out loud, um, just 2 months into this illness, um, which had her quick onset on November 9th, 2024. Um, Arkansas just passed this bill due to Max Wallace, a child who did commit suicide and who was not only— who, who not— who was not provided timely IVIG.

IVIG is a cure, and only about 10% of PandaPAN kids need IVIG. And of that 70% about— oh, actually over 70% of those cases experienced improved health and/or complete healing. Every day I think about where my family needs to move so that we have a backup plan in case my daughter becomes ill again, which is possible. I hate to say it. As a Christian, I don't believe in allowing fear into my family's lives and into our home, but I fear hand to hand And I'm sorry to say, but you would too.

Thank you for your time. Thanks, Miss Inslee. And I did want to let you know, the, the quickest we ever passed bills is in 2 hearings, and that's what we're doing with this bill. Um, so I agree with you about the time sensitivity. Um, next up in public testimony is— sure, next up in public testimony is Natalie Oberlender.

And, and for testifiers, please do not speak into— please don't do speakerphone. Please do use your phone without speakerphone, and it'll be easier to hear you. Go ahead, Miss.

Natalie Oberländer.

Hi, sorry, one second. I was having to switch over here. My name is Natalie Oberländer. I have 3 children. My oldest is 21 years old, and he has been suffering from PANDAS for the past 9 years.

He has only been diagnosed for about a year and a half now. It shouldn't have taken this long to be diagnosed. He— his symptoms were dismissed by pediatricians, by the mental health field, by the emergency department, and giving alternate treatment for neurological or mental health symptoms. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Uh, sorry, I know everybody's emotional that calls in. Um, it is hard to believe how this can impact your family and feel if you have a child going through this.

My son was in 6th grade when he started developing symptoms. He missed almost half the year of school that year, and, um, from OCD, anxiety, and brain fog where he couldn't remember things at school. He couldn't do simple math problems. And still, at the end of that year, he was voted most likely to be president by his classmates. By the end of middle school, he was not able to walk in a classroom any longer.

We had been repeatedly going to the pediatrician for different symptoms, and I unknowingly trusted what they were saying. And it made his condition worse. When the symptoms develop and they are not all the same all the time, without having a professional that is the one making the choice of what kind of treatment they need, it is so damaging.

Um, he started developing very severe hallucinations and neurological symptoms. Around 16 years old. I was very adamant that he had this disorder. Some of them are very specific where he would look at me and he couldn't remember who I was. We would drive in the car and he would ask repeatedly where we were going because he did not know.

The last co-responder we called for the crisis team because he, um, was very confused, similar to somebody with dementia. He was indicating self-harm.

The police stayed with him for about an hour and a half. The co-responders could not come, so they could not take us to emergency— to the emergency room for inpatient evaluation. They suggested that we drive our son there ourselves. We sat in the ER for 7 hours. They said he needed to be cleared medically first before going into psychiatric evaluation.

Our son kept walking out of the ER because he did not know where he was at. He was picking cigarette butts off the floor in the parking lot, not something he would ever do. He was that confused. And still it took 7 hours for us to get seen in the ER. Once they saw us, our doctor Googled pandas.

He said, "Oh my gosh, I don't know what to do. What would you like me to give your son?" He asked me to tell him what antibiotics he needed at that time. We have found a doctor that is doing every test, researching every study, researching every treatment option, and that is the person that should be choosing what our son needs. I, um, a lot of this is looked at for young kids and how it affects them, and with a 21-year-old, there are some very different, very traumatic psychological effects being told numerous times over the years that it is all in his head, it is all his mental health.

There are doctors here that— and research that know how to treat this. It is absolute medical abuse and negligence to ignore that. And the other opportunities for any assistance with emergency treatment, they're not trained for that. These doctors that are trying to prescribe something that could save our son's life are the ones that know what they need. I really hope that you guys see this and hear everybody's voice, that everybody's trying to save their own children and everybody else's.

My second son is 19 years old. He started developing symptoms about 6 months ago, and some of his labs were actually worse than our oldest son, who has been suffering for 9 years.

We have started other treatment immediately, so I hope that— I'm very hopeful that everybody involved sees what these children need and protect them. Thank you. Thanks, Miss Overlander. Um, there are multiple additional testifiers. If you all can try to keep your testimony at 2 minutes, we will be able to take action on the bill more quickly.

Adam Ebnet is next in public testimony.

Yeah, can you hear me? Yes, sir, please proceed.

Yeah, I was invited by my representative Julie Colomby in South Anchorage here. I'll keep mine short. My story is similar to most of the other ones I've listened to, but In 2021, our son was 3 years old and we noticed some medical issues or symptoms and we couldn't get any answers or help with our local pediatricians and he wasn't a candidate for our only pediatric neurologist in Alaska. About 3 years went by and we were just at a loss for help, making no traction. And in 2025, my wife and I found a place in Minnesota called Infinity Neurology.

Uh, we immediately scheduled a consult, uh, with them, and they ran some, uh, tests, blood tests, and various tests. Diagnosing him with PANDAS.

They said they could help our son, so shortly after we jumped on a plane and flew down to their clinic there in Minnesota, he received more of a natural treatment there at their clinic for 1 week. And we sent him home with a home treatment plan, which we continued for the following year up until currently. Immediately we saw major improvements, and he's doing much better today. Um, and he's racked up over $20,000 in bills, and we are very hopeful that insurance would cover some or all of them, but they were not interested in paying anything or entertaining paying a portion of any of the bills for his treatment for the pandas. Um, I just asked the representatives to continue moving this bill through the process, and so other Alaskan families like ours don't struggle to get the treatment and help they need for their children with PANS and PANDAS.

Thanks for your time. Thank you, Mr. Abnet. Next up is William Karaganis. Mr. Karaganis, thank you for offering public testimony. Please Please proceed.

Hi, my name is William Karaganis. I'd like to thank the chairs and the committee for allowing me to speak. I'm the parent of two children. Both have been diagnosed with PANS/PANDAS. My son is an extreme case, and he's— We were operating under a misdiagnosis for many years, and then when we got the correct diagnosis, it was his mom is, his mom Michelle Hayworth has testified about Ray previously, so I won't go into all the details, but we were able to get the PANS/PANDAS diagnosis after we had sent him to McLaughlin Youth Centre for threatening his mom with a hammer.

And it was when we were first able to put him on high-dose.

Ibuprofen, it made a profound difference. And although we still are pursuing treatment, having the option for IVIG to be paid for by insurance would be very important. And I'm just going to add that my daughter exhibited PANS and PANDAS symptoms, OCD, and like confession, confessing, pathological confession is one of her diagnosis. And we, because we were already familiar, we were able to move her into treatment very quickly and she responded very well. So getting the correct diagnosis and having all the treatments available.

And I just want to add, people have touched on how disruptive this is to the entire family. Their mother has had to, she can hardly work. She has a master's degree and she can hardly work because of the care that my son requires. And she takes care of most of it. We co-parent and she takes care of most of the medical and hands-on parenting, which leaves me earning money to support everyone.

So the treatments are very expensive, but I want you to understand that not treating is also very expensive. Trips to the emergency room, police and EMT involvement, crisis involvement, incarceration, a lack of ability to work as we would if we were a more normal, healthy family. So, I just want the committee to understand that the cost to the family is huge and the cost to the community is huge. And, you know, Being proactive and treatment and getting the right diagnosis and the right treatment is super important. And having, as others have stressed, a timely diagnosis and timely intervention makes a huge difference for the outcome.

And that's really all I wanted to add to the conversation. Thank you for listening. Thank you, Mr. Kiriganis. Next up in public testimony is Michelle Martin. Ms. Martin, Thank you for offering public testimony.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I am, um, I'm a close friend of a family whose children have both been diagnosed with PANDAS/PANDAS, and throughout their journey I've learned about some of the extreme behaviors and what those, yeah, kids with these diagnoses can look like. And I also am a substitute teacher in the Anchorage School District. I've worked at a number of schools, sometimes on a long-term basis, and I'm noticing, I'm seeing in schools, because I've become familiar through my friends with what these behaviors look like, there are a lot of children in our schools, a lot of children, displaying these kinds of behaviors. Most of them are undiagnosed.

In fact, all of the ones that I've ever run across, um, yeah, have not been diagnosed. It's a huge cost to our schools. I can tell you that our special education departments are already overstretched resource-wise, but the kinds and the extremity of the behaviors that some of these students are displaying really make it so that that's all that's happening sometimes is to try and contain the extreme behaviors. There's not, you know, special education learning able to happen sometimes to help children who are behind in math or in reading because often the special education departments have to just focus on these extreme behaviors just for the safety of everybody involved.

So, yeah, I just— I know that when the root causes of these things are misunderstood or not diagnosed, it's a huge cost to all of society, certainly to all of our school children, both those who are displaying the behaviors and are in distress themselves, as well as all of their schoolmates.

So, yeah, I just— I know that when we miss the root cause, we just risk prolonged suffering on everybody's part, mislabeling kids, calling it a discipline issue when there really are physical root causes that can be addressed.

So, you know, we need better awareness, better screening, clearer pathways so that kids who might be affected can properly be evaluated and treated. Educators and families need access to accurate information and the systems that are needed to support and not just overlook and not just, you know, label as bad kids, which happens.

Yeah, so these kids and everybody deserves more than a trial and error kind of intervention. They deserve to be understood, and when appropriate, they deserve access to the medical care that can truly help them heal and become functional contributing humans in the world. When, yeah, when we're not actually getting to the root causes, it's such a disservice. To, to these beautiful humans that have a lot to contribute.

So thank you for your time, for your commitment to the well-being of our children. Thanks, Miss Martin. Um, that can— I don't see anyone else online, so I'm going to close public testimony. Um, Representative Hall, do you have a motion? I do, somewhere.

Just wanted to let parents know while Representative Hall gets the motion, we did receive your emails. Thank you for sharing your experiences. I have young kids and have dealt with trying to identify whether something is strep and whether there are complications of it. So you have a lot of sympathetic people listening to you.

I'm lost. Can I have an evidence? Oh, wait, here it is. That's okay. Mr. Co-chair, I move to report HB 292, Work Order 34-LS1209/G, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal fiscal notes.

Not seeing any objection, House Bill 292 does pass from committee as amended with accompanying fiscal notes. We'll take a brief— Eddie's a transition to SB 180 and sign paperwork.

Back on the record, and I neglected to mention, and I apologize for that, that Representative Kellum was online at 3:30, so heard all the public testimony, and we will go to her for her vote on amendments to the next bill, which is SB SB 180. Thank you, Paige Brown, for being here today.

Let's see, first, before we— members may recall this is a bill on LNG import facilities. First, are there questions for Senator Giesel's staff before we go to amendments? Yeah, go ahead, Representative Sadler. If I could, Mr. Chair, the bill before us originally is a one-page, five-line bill, and I just wonder if the sponsor of that original bill.

Let us know the intent of this legislation. Please summarize, Ms. Brown. Thank you. Thank you, Co-Chairs Fields and Hall, and members of the House Labor and Commerce Committee. For the record, Paige Brown, staff to the Senate Resources Committee.

The original intent of this bill is to clear confusion regarding RCA's authority over LNG import facilities when that facility is under FERC or the Federal Energy Regulatory Committee's jurisdiction. Yeah, and actually, Ms. Page— Ms. Brown, rather— that's kind of what concerns me. What is the source of the— of what is claimed to be confusion?

Through the chair, Representative Sadler, the source of the confusion was a new provision put into House Bill 50 relating to carbon storage stating that a liquefied natural gas import facility under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is exempt from this chapter. During the previous hearing, I went over some dockets where the Regulatory Commission of Alaska has noted the confusion during specific instances, and they believe that this legislation passing would cure that confusion. Okay. Follow-up? Go ahead, Representative.

And I— before we get into the amendments, I hope it's an appropriate time during the committee to ask these questions. Sure. There are certain statements in the sponsor statement for SB 180 as originally came to us that I'd like to— I'd like to discuss with the sponsor's staff, if I may. Go ahead, Representative Sadler. Thank you.

For members, if you have a copy of the SB 180 sponsor statement, um, it makes a couple statements. I just want to verify a few things. One, it says SB 180 would repeal AS 4205. True. Then there's a statement that the bill, um, let's see, returns to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska authority to regulate the import of liquefied natural gas.

Does the RCA currently have the authority to regulate LNG import?

Through the chair, Representative Sadler. Yes, the Regulatory Commission of Alaska currently has the authority to regulate the import of liquid— liquefied natural gas. However, this statute that we are repealing is causing confusion for—. I would dispute that. I don't think—.

Representative Sadler. Yeah, maybe I could offer some clarification. Well, sure, go ahead. Per the April 2025 RCA decision, and this is what we heard in the last committee, the RCA regulates a gas sales contract, right, between someone who imports LNG and sells it to an Alaska-based utility. So the RCA does regulate the sale of gas.

They look at reasonableness of cost. They do not regulate the facility per se. And I think it's clear that this legislation would not change that. The RCA would maintain authority over gas sales agreements and the reasonableness thereof. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I appreciate that. The The language of the sponsor statement gives me pause because I agree with you. RCA regulates contracts to provide natural gas for consumers on the basis they need to protect the consumers. RCA does not regulate the source of that natural gas.

RCA does not regulate a gas well in the North Slope or the Cook Inlet. It does regulate the contract by which such gas would reach the consumer. So I believe the second sentence of the sponsor statement is not correct. The third sentence, the second paragraph says this bill is needed to protect consumers and guarantee the lowest prices. I also think that's false because RCA does not regulate the sites of FERC-regulated LNG.

RCA will retain its authority to regulate contracts. This bill is not needed to do so. That power exists already. Ms. Brown, do you have any comments on that?

Through the chair, no comment. Yeah, and Representative Sadler, here's my take on it. I agree with the RCA decision from 2025. Where they said, "We do have the authority to regulate gas sales contract. We are not going to, in an unlimited way, cover unreasonable costs for an import facility and pass those on to consumers." I think that was the right decision.

Mm-hmm. And in my view, this legislation affirms that authority to regulate a gas sales contract and affirms the RCA's ability to say, "No, we're not going to cover, say, cost overruns in an import facility." So in the sense that it affirms the RCA's decision, as they decided in April of 2025. I think in that way this is in the consumer's best interest, this bill. To continue, Mr. Chair.

Yes. Uh, the next set— the legislation is to not expand RCA's jurisdiction, uh, to a privately held import facility. I believe that's true. The next sentence, however, says it merely lifts the cloud, rather, on RCA jurisdiction over certificated utilities gas supply contracts from an LNG import facility. I do not believe there is a cloud.

RCA's authority clearly does not extend to the LNG facility. It only extends to contracts for gas from such a facility, as you, Mr. Chairman, have acknowledged. The next— to be fair, the next statement, uh, this will treat those gas supply contracts the same as a supply contract from a Cook Inland producer. That's absolutely true, and that's true without this bill. Last two, Mr.

Chair. It goes on to say, prior to the previous legislature, the RCA had the authority to regulate the import of liquefied natural gas. Mr. Chair, that is false. It's just not true.

The last sentence is the bill would simply give that authority back to the commission. Again, that's false. RCA did not have that authority, so that authority could not be returned to the RCA. This statement frankly does more to raise a cloud or confusion than any existing language anywhere else. So the language of the bill is one thing, but the sponsor statement I believe misrepresents the intent of the bill, and I want to avoid a cloud or confusion in the future.

Yeah, Representative Sadler, I would, I, I would say it is true that the RCA could not regulate an import facility before the previous legislation. They will not be able to regulate an import facility after this legislation. And all this legislation does is affirm RCA authority over gas sales contracts as the RCA articulated in its April 2025 decision. And to that point, I do not think the bill is necessary because it's fine the way it is. And thank you for the discussion.

Uh, you bet. Um, okay, so not seeing further discussion, uh, we have two amendments before us to consider: I.2 and I.5. And at this time, I will move I.2. Object. Thank you, Representative Sadler.

Oh, I apologize. I'm going to withdraw I.2 because this is going to be represented by Representative Hall. And it has her name on it, so I should have seen that. Go ahead, Representative Hall. Thank you, Co-Chair Fields.

I move Amendment Number 1, also known as I.2. And I will object for purposes of discussion. Go ahead, Representative Hall. Thank you, Co-Chair Fields. This amendment is a straightforward change to the RCA's general rate case adjudication timeline and is important because RCA's timelines are the longest in the nation.

These long timelines impact the ability of our state's utilities to recover expenses and investments in a timely manner. And in a March report of this year, the S&P Global recognized Alaska as having the highest regulatory risk out of all 50 states, which deters energy investment in our state. The amendment is supported by several utilities and the current RCA chair. Um, for— so basically what the amendment does is for tariff filings that do not change a utility's revenue requirement or rate design, the RCA's The current adjudication time is 270 days. This amendment would change the timeline from 270 days to 180 days.

Separately, for filings that do make changes, the timeline is even longer, taking 450 days. So the amendment would change the timeline from 450 days to 270 days. Okay. And I believe, Representative Paul, it's okay if I want to offer the opportunity to Ashley Braddish, from GV8. Were you calling in to offer testimony on this amendment, Miss Bradish?

Yes, Coach Airfield, that's correct. Okay, go ahead. Thank you, uh, thank you to Coach Airfield and Coach Hall and members of the committee for the opportunity to speak today. For the record, my name is Ashley Bradish. I'm speaking on behalf of Golden Valley Electric Association as Director of External Affairs and Public Relations.

Relations. Golden Valley appreciates the legislature's continued engagement on energy policy, and I'm providing testimony today in support of Co-Chair Hall's Amendment 1, uh, I.2, um, relating to timelines for issues ordered by the RCA. Our position is that timely regulatory review is really essential. It's essential for both utilities and, uh, for the members that we serve and the consumer customers. Right now the Commission has up to 450 days to issue a final order on a general rate case.

And in practice that creates a real lag. During that time utilities aren't recovering the true cost of providing service. So we believe shortening that timeline to 270 days still gives the Commission adequate time for a thorough review but allows for decisions to be issued within a more reasonable and predictable timeframe. For tariff filings that don't change revenue requirement or rate design, we believe a 180-day decision timeline is appropriate. These filings are typically straightforward, non-controversial, and the Commission has already shown it.

Can review other filings submitted by utilities, petitions, for example, within that timeframe. To give the committee an idea of what the current timeline looks like in practice, specifically for general rate case filings, GVA filed a general rate case on December 1st, 2025, and we don't expect a final decision until February of 2027. That said, we recognize the breadth of the issues before the RCA, the critical role the Commission plays in balancing interests of utilities and the public. So I want to be clear that we're not advocating for a less rigorous process, but more efficient timelines. We think that this would help provide greater certainty, reduce that regulatory lag, and allow both utilities and regulators to respond more effectively and efficiently efficiently to changing conditions.

So for all of those reasons, we are respectfully urging the committee to move forward with proposed Amendment I.2 to Senate Bill 180 as consideration on that this legislation continues. Thank you, Ms. Bragg. Thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay, thank you. And I also want to offer Trish Baker with Chugach Electric.

Uh, Ms. Baker, did you wish to comment on this amendment?

Good evening to the co-chairs and to the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee. This is Trish Baker with Chugach Electric. I really don't have anything to add to Ms. Braddish's comment. We are also in favor of this amendment. Okay, great.

Is there further discussion? Representative Sabler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have heard from the one half of the bargaining table, so to speak, the utilities.

I think if we're going to be reducing the timeline for RCA to do its work by 30%, we should hear from the RCA itself as to what the implications are for their activities. Representative Sadler, this was actually developed in consultation with the RCA itself, and Representative Hall can speak to that.

Co-chair Fields, through the co-chair Representative Sadler, Chair Fields is accurate. RCA is on board, and in addition, this amendment was flagged by the governor's office as something that would be helpful. So that is why the amendment is before the committee. Go ahead, Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I still would like to hear from RCA. I generally trust you, but I think it's important to hear from RCA. This is a significant change in their timelines, and I don't want to take a policy decision based on say-so. I apologize that they are not online. Chair Espendola was here in person to ask for this.

They were planning on being here but had a last-minute conflict, so I apologize they're not online to address it. So go ahead. Um, we have some more work to do. Could we possibly roll this to the bottom of our committee schedule and try and see if we can get RC on the line by the end of the meeting?

Be reasonable. Um, what do members want? Representative Fields? Yes. Uh, through the chair, I just want to ask the bill sponsor staff Um, is the bill sponsor supportive of this amendment?

Um, for the record, Paige Brown, staff to Senator Kiesel, the bill sponsor, is supportive of this amendment. Uh, with that, uh, Representative Fields, I think I'd have no problem moving this amendment. Yeah, Representative Tedler, we, we both— we, we met with Chair Espendola. Um, I'm sorry he's not here. We are trying to— we're trying not to be the holdup for good bills that have a chance of passing into law this year.

And a lot of bills come to this committee and it's difficult to balance that. So I will maintain my objection, notwithstanding the position of other members. If we're asking to reduce RCA's work window by 30%, I want to hear directly from RCA that they're okay with that. No problem, that's fine. Um, I guess with that, will the secretary call the roll and please include Representative Calhoun on the roll call?

Representative Nelson. Yes. Representative Calhoun. Yeah. Representative Sadler.

Sadly, no. Representative Freer. Yes. Representative Parrott. Yes.

Co-chair Fields. Yes. Co-chair Hall. Yes.

6 Yeas, 1 nay. Uh, by a vote of 6 to 1, Amendment I.2 is adopted. I will move Amendment I.5. Object for purposes of discussion. Thank you, Representative Hall.

Amendment I.5 takes what is essentially compromise language from SB 32 by the same bill sponsor, and it deregulates facilities of less than 8,000 kilowatts, which is equivalent to 8 megawatts, which is essentially a small facility. For members who are not familiar with this policy, this came out of discussions in this committee, I believe last year, with Chugach Electric, where we identified that existing law provides that consumer co-ops may— there's a, there's a threshold in existing law of 15 megawatts, and discussion in this committee identified that we may be able to reduce red tape and the regulatory burden and advance these smaller-scale projects with less admin cost. I would note in offering this amendment that there are 4 hydro projects currently being pursued by CEA, and the ability to get those approved while the hydroelectric ITC is in place will significantly reduce costs for consumers. So, um, the Seward Electric Utility is also pursuing some small-scale hydro And it is my contention that the more energy we develop in Alaska, the less we are exposed to highly volatile and expensive foreign energy. Um, I'm happy to answer any questions from committee members.

Yes. So I know there was potentially some concern about the number in this bill, 8,000 megawatts. Have— has your office considered doing a smaller number? And what's, I guess, the differential in the type of project for— sure, what does this threshold include versus a lower threshold? Yeah, good question on threshold.

So, um, the original bill, SB 32, was introduced at 15 megawatts. And just to give a little bit of context, um, Chugach is moving forward with the Beluga Solar Project right now. That's 10 megawatts. There are some pretty significant economies of scale, um, when you're around 10 megawatts for a solar array. A lot of the cost, if you talk to contractors, a lot of the cost is mobilization and demobilization.

The cost of the, um, labor on a per-unit basis is actually low. It's mobilization, demobilization. In addition, um, Chugach, those 4 projects, the hydro projects that I referenced And these are in development, so the numbers may change a little bit. Um, one of them, Canyon Creek, is 6 megawatts. So again, regulatory streamlining, the difference between 5 and 8 could make a difference for Canyon Creek.

The estimated megawatts for Boulder Creek is 8.5 megawatts. You know, in fact, again, it can make a difference in terms of regulatory streamlining for those type of projects. The other hydro projects are larger, so are unlikely to be affected by this. When you look at the Godwin Creek project down in Seward, Again, the threshold can make a difference, and since the sewer utility is integrated in the rail belt, these projects do have implications for both affordability and reliability from GVEA all the way down to HEA and the Seward Electric Co-op. So hopefully that gives you an idea of the scale of some of these projects that our utilities are currently pursuing.

I can also add the debate and Page Brown can add to this if she wishes. The debate is basically, um, there are utilities who don't want another utility to do, say, um, you know, 2 10-megawatt projects and add a meaningful amount of load at higher per-megawatt-hour cost. I would note all the projects being pursued by utilities are at or below the replacement cost of natural gas before the Iran War. All of these projects are going to save money. And again, my contention is the faster they get deployed, the more energy secure we are.

We have a very real natural gas supply crisis in the rail belt, and delay is not in our interest.

Mr. Kocher, could we hear from both the bill sponsor's office and, if she is still online, Ashley Braddish with GVA, if that's possible? Sure. Ashley Braddish is not online, but let's go to Paige Brown, and then if Trish Baker wants to weigh in, she can. Go ahead, Ms. Brown. For the record, Paige Brown, staff to Senator Giesel.

Um, the bill sponsor, Senator Giesel, would feel more comfortable with this amendment being placed at 5 megawatts, um, simply because of the power pooling agreement. 5 Megawatts was the number that, um, we received agreement both with Chugach Electric and Matanuska Electric with their power pooling agreement. Okay, thank you.

Uh, Representative Nelson. Thank you. Um, to all the bill sponsor staff, uh, can you talk about SB 32 and where that is currently in the process and why we're adding that into here?

Yes, through the chair, Representative Nelson. Senate Bill 32 was introduced at the start of the 2025 legislative session, and it has not moved from Senate Resources since. The bill looks to remove barriers to small renewable energy and battery storage projects in the Rail Belt, which benefit— does benefit all Alaskans. The reason the bill has not moved is because we were waiting on agreement from utilities related to their power pooling costs. Um, and we introduced a committee substitute last year in April that, um, had a limit of 3 projects over the course of 3 years, up to 5 megawatts per project.

And that was pretty agreed upon. Um, but we have not taken action on it. This year. Follow-up? Go ahead, Representative Nelson.

Thank you. Um, I appreciate that, um, and I, I'm wondering why, uh, it hasn't really had a hearing since it was introduced, or, uh, committee substitute was introduced last April. Why isn't it a hearing? And now why are we throwing into this bill if it hasn't— this specific provision from SB 32, uh, hasn't been vetted or looked at?

Through the chair, Representative Nelson, um, it had not been looked at since April simply because I, um, believe the committee just ran out of time with other legislation and it was not a very high priority for the committee compared to other legislation. And, um, regarding the question about why it is being put in Senate Bill— what are we on— 180. I would refer to the amendment sponsor.

Uh, Representative Nelson, because most bills die because they don't have time to be processed. That's why. And we have a power crisis and we need more Alaska-based energy. That is why I'm contemplating it. Yes, Representative Saddler.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, this, uh, to me is a significant policy amendment and I'm simply not comfortable with it. I have less comfort when I hear the sponsor's bill to achieve this, introduced at the start of our 2-year session, was not high enough priority to somehow squeeze it into the Senate Resources Committee, which the senator chairs. And so if it wasn't high enough priority there, I'm concerned about adding it at this late stage to a bill that is pretty— although it fits within the title, this bill is not an RCA you know, net metering and renewable bill.

So I just don't have enough information to make an informed vote to set policy and change law. So I'm going to have to oppose the amendment unless and until I hear more about, uh, why it hasn't moved and what its effects would be. Okay, um, tell you what, we will hold this bill and amendments for further discussion, and we will move on to the next bill, which is House Bill 335, Disaster Plan for Pets.

Yeah, go for it, Ted.

At ease.

35. Let's see, uh, back on the record. Fourth bill is House Bill 335, the Mass Disaster Emergency Plan for Pets. Thank you, Representative Eichardt and Mr. Callahan. Should we go straight to amendments since we have a bunch of them?

Yeah, I'm good with that. Okay, let's do it. The committee wishes Representative Carrick, please proceed. Okay, thank you, Mr. Co-Chair. I move Amendment Number 1, also known as A.2.

Object. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so Amendment Number 1, uh, simply adds to the definition of animals that would be covered in this legislation working animals, which are very narrowly defined in the amendment as being working dogs in a— pulling it up right now— primarily owned for, participated in a generally accepted mushing or pulling contest, aka mushing. That's the common definition in statute.

And/or horses that are used for business purposes. Mr. Chair, the reason I'm bringing this forward is I can think of several recent wildfire disasters in the Denali Borough, Fairbanks North Star Borough, and surroundings. And I'm sure there's many other examples around the state where you have Businesses that also double as people's residences that are impacted by these disasters. I think of Chena Hot Springs Resort a few years ago was isolated in a fire.

There are probably a half a dozen to a dozen working horses there. They're used primarily for the business, but they are also the pets of the owners and the employees there. There was another wildfire that could have impacted The Trailbreaker Kennel, which is in my district, which is owned by the daughter of Susan Butcher, and those animals are also primarily pets, but they also are for commercial purposes. And just think of all the variety, variety of mushing and horse businesses across our state. It's not necessarily a very large number of animals, but what I would not like to see happen in this legislation, which has a very good underlying intent, is an opportunity to exclude these animals just because an owner identifies them not as a pet but for their commercial purpose.

I know the bill sponsor is potentially concerned about an increase of scope on this legislation, but this legislation is just creating the evacuation plan. And so I think so long as we are going through the process of creating an evacuation plan, we should seriously consider this and not make a distinction that could, just based on what the owner says at the time of an evacuation, potentially exclude them. So that's something I'm concerned about, and I can I can think of many examples where this would be impacted. So I appreciate the committee considering. Okay, um, Representative Eichardt.

Yeah, thank you, uh, Co-Chair Fields. Uh, I appreciate the amendment, and, uh, you know, I think everybody that has animals appreciates them regardless of their classification. I'm neutral on the amendment. The original scope of the bill was to be conservative, constricted.

I know when it comes to mushing teams, which can be quite large, usually those folks, including people with business horses, they have ways to move them around easily. But I appreciate the amendment. I'm neutral on it. I'm trying to keep the scope limited. That was my original intent.

Okay. Representative Paul, do you maintain your objection? Well, I just wanted to make a quick comment, actually. Thank you, Co-Chair Fields. I, I feel inclined to support this amendment.

I appreciate the, the sponsor's intent to try to keep the scope limited, but I do think it makes a lot of sense to have these working animals as part of the emergency planning process. So I am likely going to support the amendment. Thank you, Coach Airfields. Okay. Representative Sadler.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I'm concerned about this amendment. I think I share the sponsor's ambivalence about expanding this bill to include working animals. I'm not sure actually how you define primarily. What's the definition here?

We have primarily owned for participation and generally. So those are some subjective standards. And horses primarily owned and used for business purposes. Again, having been raised in a horse farm, sometimes they're pleasure animals. Sometimes they're business animals, sometimes they're— well, they're always a pain in the butt.

But so there's concerns about that. And just— I'm also just generally concerned that this asks an awful lot. We're considering planning on how to evacuate horses. And I just think that certainly that's well-intentioned. Disaster planning, I think, should focus on saving human beings.

And it just seems like it's asking too much to plan for the evacuation of working animals. Dogs, horses, and I guess the next amendment is going to be livestock. So I regret I'm probably not going to be able to support this amendment. Okay, Representative Nelson. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Through the chair to the amendment sponsor, um, I also appreciate what you're trying to do. Um, I wanted to have a question under the working animals section on, uh, there's a quite a few other, uh, working animals out there and just wanted to see if that was.

Included? Something, you know, I imagine blind or animals like dogs that are helping with blind personnel are probably included in this, but anything revolving like PTSD treatment or anxiety and that varying degrees, is that covered under work? I can, I can answer that, Mr. Co-chair. So through the co-chair to Representative Nelson, yes, service animals are already included in this legislation. Also, to respond to Representative Sadler, "pets" includes horses currently.

So I would actually argue that we're reducing ambiguity with this amendment because you might have a horse that's used as part of a business, like a ranch or something, but you might also have that horse as a pet. And I can think of numerous examples of this in my personal life. You know, I have friends who bring kids with disabilities to come to ride their horses, but those are their pet horses. So they're receiving an income as a part of owning that animal, but that's also their pet. So I think the current bill is really great because it provides a potential evacuation plan for animals, but we're not providing it for this narrow set of animals that I just worry about this being a potential area where we're not providing support that could become very confusing.

And I can just think of numerous examples where an evacuation plan would have genuinely been very helpful in advance and, and wasn't in place. So, so long as we're creating evacuation plans that already are going to include horses, including horses that are used in commercial purposes, potentially seems like a great thing to do. We're already including dogs and service animals that are pets, including them when they're a part of a secondary or primary income business. Seems like a reasonable thing to do. Again, it's not adding to the fiscal note or the title of the bill, it's just including them into this planning effort.

So, uh, next up in the queue is actually Representative Calhoun. I guess I would remind members we have a lot of amendments, so maybe let's try to wrap up discussion on this one. And yep, so Representative Kolum is next and then Sadler.

I, I just say we have a lot of horses on the hillside, and I, I think I support the amendment, but I would, I would say that the logistics of evacuation— evacuating large animals is very different than evacuating dogs and cats and small mammals. We're not just talking about kennels and public transportation or people's cars. We got trailers, we've got, gotta have wide roads. There's a lot to go that goes into that. So I'm just not sure.

You can plan for it, but the plan has to be backed up with some infrastructure and I'm not sure they're gonna be able to do that. I mean, the hillside is, we've, we've worked as a community just to, plan out evacuation routes for the horses up here, but I don't know, it'd be kind of challenging for the state to do that. Thanks. Okay, thank you, Representative Colon. Representative Sadler.

Thank you, uh, and to the representative from, from West Fairbanks. My son actually engaged in hippotherapy for years. I spent a lot of hours, a lot of miles walking beside a pony, um, and just— I'm just gonna say, to try to get a horse into a trailer on a clear, calm day is a challenge, let alone trying to do that during an emergency. That's asking a lot. And to the other point, planning may not cost a lot, but creating a state plan in such an— in essence sanctioned by the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs Division of Emergency Services, if they have a plan, that's going to create an expectation that that plan will be executed, and that execution will carry costs.

And so I don't want to provide false hope and false expectations if we cannot— we should not write a check that we cannot cash. Okay. Um, great. Will the secretary call the roll on Amendment 1? Thank you.

Representative Freer.

Yes.

Representative Carrick. Yes. Representative Nelson. Yes. Representative Colon.

Representative Kalem, could you repeat how you voted, please?

Yes. Representative Sadler? No. Co-chair Hall? Yes.

Co-chair Fields? Yes. 6 Yeas, 1 nay. Okay, by a vote of 6 to 1, Amendment 1, or A.2, passes. I believe Representative Kierik is moving Amendment 2.

Um, actually, Mr. Co-Chair, I'm not going to offer Amendment 2. I am going to offer Amendment 3, also known as A.4. Okay. Representative Hall objects. Go ahead.

Um, thank you, Mr. Co-Chair. I know we have a couple of amendments, um, in our packet today related to microchipping, and I'm offering this amendment because There's a couple of later amendments which kind of substantially add to the state's microchipping process or programs, and I think those are really valid efforts. If the committee were to want to take maybe a little bit more limited of an approach with this legislation, this amendment could be a good option. It simply says that following assistance on page 3, line 3, we're going to say providing information to owners of pets and now working and service animals about animal identification systems that are available, including microchips. So it essentially creates more of an information campaign rather than a full-on implementation.

My idea here is to hopefully not generate a large fiscal note on this bill, but kind of get to what the bill sponsor and the committee had talked about at our previous hearing relating to microchipping. That's not to say I wouldn't support later amendments. It's just I, I think in the interest of time in this bill, and I actually do think this bill is very important and valuable, I would ask folks to consider this amendment, which adds essentially that intent and the implementation for an outreach program without necessarily adding what could end up generating a very large fiscal note around statewide microchipping. So thank you. Okay, Representative Reichert.

Uh, co-chair Fields, uh, we are neutral on this amendment. It does add some specificity, uh, it does contrast with some of the other amendments, but we are neutral on this amendment. Okay, Representative Paul, do you maintain your objection?

Um, I remove my objection. Do other people object? Representative Sadler? I will object. Okay.

And I'm— may I speak to my objection? Great. Thank you. I appreciate the maker of this amendment for offering it. I also have concerns about the obligation that we seem to be imposing on the department for these planning and for the public information.

I've got amendments coming up that actually address that from a slightly different perspective. And as I don't know what the interplay between this amendment is and the other ones that I'm more familiar with, I'm going to pose this one and offer my own at the Great, that sounds good. Will the secretary call the roll?

Representative Sadler? No. Representative Freer? Passed. Representative Carrick?

Yes. Representative Nelson? Yes. Representative Colon?

Representative Klum, can you please repeat your answer?

I think Representative Klum said yes. Representative Klum, is that right?

Uh, Chair, can you hear me now? We can hear you better, Representative Klum. Could you Could you restate your vote?

I voted no. Oh, you voted no. Okay. Representative Freer?

No. Co-chair Fields? Yes. Co-chair Hall?

No.

3 Aye, 4 nay. By a vote of 3 to 4, Amendment A.4 does not pass. Um, Mr. Dweck, take a brief—. Briefities.

Back on the record, Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr. Uh, so we're back to amendments again? Yes. Very good.

So for clarity, I move Amendment Number 4, also identified as A.7. I'll object for.

Discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Real brief. Sorry, point of information, Mr.

Chair. Amendment number 4 is A.6, I believe.

Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do apologize if there's any confusion. I tried not to, um, I should just refer to it as A.7. I'm not sure what the numerology is for what we have here, so I think you are correct.

But for the record, let's clarify, I'm speaking of A.7. Okay, and I objected for purposes of discussion. Go ahead, Representative Sablik. Thank you. Speaking to A.7, this amendment would eliminate the public information campaign element of the bill.

You know, we pass a lot of laws and do a lot of programs, and I don't think many, if any, of them include a self-perpetuating public education campaign. We have systems for promulgating laws and regulations. We have public notice requirements. We have public testimony. I think that there's nothing in this bill that would inhibit the department from making information available, but to outline a specific public information campaign, which incidentally carries a significant and ongoing fiscal note and expense to the state, I think is unnecessary.

Um, yeah, I'm, uh, Representative Eichardt. Thank you, Co-Chair Fields. I appreciate that sentiment, and I'm also concerned about the fiscal note.

I do oppose the amendment with some trepidation about my opposition, if that makes sense, because of the fiscal note. But I think, as I understand the amendment, it removes the public information program, and one of the intents of the bill was to make sure people knew that with pets in a disaster, there is a plan and— for dealing with their pets, and it gives people an option— the capacity to say, "I can leave my home knowing that I might be reunified with my pet." We've heard anecdotal evidence that sometimes people do not evacuate when they should because they want to care for their pet. They're worried about their pet. So, that— I believe in public information. I appreciate the amendment, but I oppose it because I think the public information part's important.

Okay, will the secretary call the roll? Oh, Representative Nelson. Thank you. Through the chair to the bill sponsor, I'm a little confused. So you're, you're worried about the fiscal note, but for something like this, the public information campaign, that, that's like one of the core components for you that has to stay in, or where do you see that kind of line for the bill?

Through the co-chair, um, to Representative Nelson. So I— what I'm trying to say is I appreciate and I'm concerned about the fiscal impact, but I'm also saying that the public information program is a priority. So that's why I oppose the amendment to remove the public information program. So simply what I was just saying was I appreciate the amendment maker. I have the same concerns about the fiscal note, but You know, the public information program, I believe, is important for the reasons stated.

Okay, uh, will the secretary call the roll?

Representative Klom. No.

Representative Sadler. Yes. Representative Freer. No. Representative Carrick.

No. Representative Nelson. Yes. Co-chair Fields. No.

Chair, this is Colom. I'm sorry, can we void the roll? I was looking at the wrong amendment. Okay, let's, uh, let's void the roll and then call the roll again.

Representative Nelson. Yes. Representative Colombe? Yes. Representative Freer?

No. Representative Sadler? Yes. Representative Carrick? No.

Co-chair Fields? No. Co-chair Hall? No. 3 Ayes, 4 nays.

Okay, by 3 to 4, Amendment A.7 does not pass. Representative Sadler, would you like to move another amendment? I would indeed, Mr. Chair. Um, I would like to move Amendment A.8.

I'll object. Go ahead, Representative Sadler. Thank you very much. This amendment would require microchipping of pets and service animals and other animals, livestock, service animals, marching, mushing dogs, working horses that would be addressed by this bill. The bill sets out some ambitious goals for pet owner reunification, but only very vague descriptions of how that happened.

It leaves it to the department to do by regulation. This amendment I feel provides some clear direction as to how this would need to be done, I believe. Absent anything like universal licensure, which I understand the municipalities might want to maintain their own autonomy and unorganized borough might not want to do, absent that universal licensure, there's really no way for people to know whose pet or animal belongs to who. You have to have data on the animal side and on the human side. I think microchipping would be the foundation of this identification system, which is required on page 2, line 21 and 23 of the bill.

Because feedback on a big program is beneficial, I think it's— and requiring an annual report on the efficacy and cost of this identification system on an annual basis would be good to allow us the chance to make necessary adjustments. And so I encourage members to vote yes on Amendment A.8. Representative Freer. Thank you. Through the chair, I just vehemently oppose this amendment.

I live in a community that does not have a regular veterinarian. I think 18 of the other communities that I represent also don't have access to a veterinarian. The nearest one is 700-something miles away, um, and to require that you have to microchip pets and service animals to group to for a database when we're considering emergencies or disaster declarations for pets. I just— without access, I mean, are we going to send the state veterinarian all over rural Alaska? I, I'm an absolute no on this amendment.

Thank you. Representative Carey. Thank you, Mr. Co-chair. Yeah, I'm also a no on this amendment. Right now, microchipping is definitely the best thing to do as a pet owner, and it's, I would argue, the right thing to do as a pet owner, but it's not required.

And so this is kind of, I guess, in some ways violating pet owners' right to make that decision about microchipping. It's kind of why I had offered an amendment just about doing more public information about where and how one can get an animal microchipped rather than actually mandating that they be microchipped. So this amendment establishes an mandate that animals be microchipped. So I worry about current animals. Once this legislation is passed, what's the timeline within which someone would have to then get an animal microchipped?

Additionally, some people adopt their animals from unknown providers and they don't know if their animals are microchipped. Microchips are not cheap, so this would very, very substantially create— increase a fiscal note here very substantially. And then just, Mr. Chair, I mean, I just feel like this is a really valiant potential effort, but this is like a whole other bill, a whole other concept that we would be talking about. So I like the idea of talking about microchipping as part of disaster and emergency planning.

I don't like, um, and, you know, I guess instituting a mandate that everybody microchip wholesale. And I worry about, you know, both the effective date, how this would work for existing animals, and then also how much it would cost to do this. So it seems like a whole cloth new concept, and I just, I can't support it either. Representative Kolumba is next in the queue. Yeah, thank you, Chair.

So it's my understanding— and I'm sorry, I'm a little distracted— but I thought the, um, the amendment said the state would chip pets for free, which, uh, would incur a fiscal note. But I know that other states that are free have actually mandated chips, and it, it does actually help owners find their dogs, especially in a disaster. But I just want to clarify that the mandate— I mean, chips don't have to be put in by a vet necessarily, but, um, the mandate was that the state would, would be paying for people to chip. And if your dog's already chipped, you don't have— you don't have to do that. So maybe some clarification.

Go ahead. Go ahead, Representative Aishad. Yeah, uh, Co-Chair Fields, I oppose this amendment. We've already talked about concerns with the fiscal note. I would argue that microchipping is one identification technique, but I'm not sure it's suitable in this setting.

Uh, just for context, Hawaii is the only state that requires microchipping of all pets, and nationally 2% of cats are microchipped. 15% Of canines are microchipped. So this is a heavy lift. I'm trying to keep it simple. Thank you.

Representative Nelson. Thank you. Through the chair, one.

First to the amendment sponsor, is there any difference between this amendment outside of the detailed annual report and the other one which it seems like you were going to offer?

Dan? I'm sorry, I missed the— I thought you were talking to the sponsor. No, is there any difference between this one, this amendment outside of the detailed annual report and the other amendment you have? Yes, Representative Nelson, amendment A8 and A6 have similar elements, but I believe that A6, which has not yet been offered, would not require the annual report. Otherwise, they are quite similar.

And just one quick follow-up. Sure. Um, thank you. Uh, through the chair to the bill sponsor, um, if there was a conceptual amendment that removes this microchipping but keeps in, uh, the detailed annual report, uh, in this amendment, would that be something you would support? Through the co-chair, I'm open to the report.

I'm open to that idea. Representative Stadler. Thank you. And just to clarify, Representative Nelson, I believe he was speaking possibly— correct me if I'm wrong— deletion of Section 1, which requires a report to microchipping. Section— let's see— bill would retain a— in Section 5— would add in Section 5 a report on the number of animals received assistance.

So Section 1 is about the chipping, and Section 5 would be just reports on the, uh, number of pets receiving assistance. So I just want to clarify which report we were speaking of.

Yes, just quick follow-up. I, I mean, I would just like to have a conceptual amendment just to just keep Section 5, um, and have that move and eliminate all this microchip, because I think Having an annual detailed report like you specified on here would definitely be worthwhile, and then we can get to the microchipping later and have that debate. Is there objection? Objection. Okay, will the secretary call the roll?

Mr. Chair? Yes. Could we clarify further for the secretary exactly what we're proposing to delete through this conceptual amendment? Page, section, lines, just for clarification.

Sure. Representative Nelson, please. Please describe the lines that you wish to delete with this conceptual amendment. Yeah, delete page 1 and page 2 through line 1, line 15. That's page 1, line 8 through— I didn't—.

Page 1 and then page 2, line 1 through 15. Yeah, and I'm going to vote no too, just because I think it's sufficiently confusing. But will the secretary call the roll on the conceptual amendment?

Representative Freer? Nope. Representative Carrick? No. Representative Nelson?

Yes. Representative Kahlom? Yes. Representative Sadler?

Pass. Co-chair Fields? No.

Chair Hall? No. Representative Sadler? No. 2 Yeas, 5 nays.

Okay, uh, back to the original amendment. Um, is there— for— why don't you wrap— why don't you do closing comments, Representative Sadler, and then we'll vote? Thank you, appreciate that. So to respond to some of the points that were raised during our discussion, to Representative Freer and Carrick, ask good questions. How will pets be reunified with their owners without some kind of ID?

One dog can look an awful lot like another. Microchipping would be one way to accomplish that. And as to the concerns about placing one bill into another, Representative Kerrek raised, I certainly don't think it's appropriate to be considering putting whole new bills into other bills with last-minute amendments. So I appreciate that sentiment more than I can tell you.

Okay, well, I guess there is an objection maintained, so will the secretary call the roll?

Representative Sadler? Yes. Representative Freer? No. Representative Carrick?

No. Representative Nelson? Yes. Representative Colombe? Yes.

Co-chair Fields? No. Co-chair Hall? No. 3 Ayes.

4 Nays.

Okay, by a vote of 3 to 4, that amendment does not pass. Next amendment, Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Amendment A.10.

Okay, I will object. Go ahead, Representative Sadler. Thank you. I hope we got the clarity for the secretary. Mr.

Chair, A.10 improves, I think, the public information program, which remains as part of this bill. The language right now says the department— division department shall provide provide owners of pets with disaster resources, not provide them information. That could be interpreted to say very broadly, you know, what does provide owners with disaster resources? It is somewhat conditioned, but I just want to try to close off any potential broad interpretation and expense. I think it clarifies that the public information campaign envisioned tells people about resources and doesn't require providing resources.

That's a little bit of the grammarian in me, but I just want to make sure we did not overpromise. I think this clarifies and supports That's the intent of the program. Okay. Representative Eichardt, comment here on this amendment. I'm neutral on this amendment.

It does conflict with Amendment 3 that you passed before, but that added specificity. But I'm neutral on this amendment. Okay. Well, hearing that, I will withdraw my objection. Is there further objection?

Not seeing further objection, Amendment 8.10 passes. I think the last amendment is 8.06, Representative Sadler. Is that right? Let's see.

You know what, Mr.— you know, I will not offer Amendment 6. I can read the room. Hallelujah. Okay. We are on to the underlying bill.

I'm not selling up on my reading. Co-chair Hall, do you have a motion on this bill? Mr. Co-chair, I move to report HB 335, Work Order 34-LS1531/A, out of committee as amended with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. Is there objection? Can I just object to make a comment, Mr. Kocher?

Very quickly. I'll object for discussion. Go ahead, Representative Kehre. Thank you. I just wanted to say I really appreciate the bill sponsor for bringing this forward.

Um, this is absolutely an area that we need to think about, and I really do appreciate the bill sponsors working with both Representative Sadler and my office to talk about potential amendments. I'm really glad that we've included working animals, and I am happy to help as you move this bill forward in the future to identify, you know, ways to implement it, make it even better. And I just really appreciate you putting this forward. Go ahead, Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Before we vote, I just want to— my concerns are based somewhat in the points I've raised during discussion, but I'm also concerned about fiscal notes that call for a $400,000 fiscal note in the first year, in addition to $175,000 that first year, and, uh, $275,000 fiscal notes each year in perpetuity. It may very well be well-intentioned. I'm a pet owner, I'm a horse owner, and I'm a horse lover, but that's just a lot of money to be spending on this. Okay, so it sounds like you maintain your objection, Representative Sadler.

Uh, no, I did not object to the—. You did not object? Did not. Okay, well, with that, I will withdraw my objection. Is there further objection?

Doesn't look like there's further objection. So with that, House Bill 335, as amended with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes, does pass. We'll take a brief at ease— there were, um— we'll take a brief at ease and return shortly.

All right, back on the record. Um, I think we had hoped to get through 2 more bills, but because LB&A is at 5:15, sharp. I think we're only going to have time for one more bill. So members, I believe, had asked for Department of Revenue to be available to discuss HB 350, which is income tax on LLCs, S corps, and so on. Brandon Spanos is available.

Do members have questions for Brandon Spanos? Boy, do I. 350? Yep. Representative Sadler has a question.

Yeah, boy. Um, I guess I can save us a lot of time and just say no, I do not support this bill. There's no amount of questions that can be answered or amendments that could be added to it that are going to change my attitude towards this thing. So save a lot of time, just go no, no, and heck no. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. All right, do other members have questions for Brandon Spanos?

I do. Um, go ahead, Representative Paul. Co-chair Fields, or through the co-chair, uh, Mr. Spanos, um, can you maybe give a brief— give the committee a brief, um, I guess fiscal— an idea of what the fiscal implications of this bill would be if it were to pass? Like, is there any way to know about how many companies we might be looking at that we would be receiving funding from or revenue from?

Um, yes, for the record, Brandon Spanos, Acting Director, Department of Revenue Tax Division. And through the chair, the— as you can see, the revenue note is indeterminate, and the main reason for that, well, it's twofold. First of all,.

It's impossible for us to know an exact figure because we don't get the data for pass-through entities. So pass-through entities are the non-C-Corp entities. A C-Corp is a federal designation for tax filing purposes. You can be an LLC for state tax purposes, but you would file federally either as a C-Corp, an S-Corp, a partnership, a sole proprietor, or a— I think that's the universe of federal filings for pass-through entities.

And so you have to choose your designation. If you choose C-Corp in Alaska, you would pay the corporate income tax on any taxable income that falls over that zero bracket, which I should have memorized. But anyway, if you have taxable income that's over the zero bracket, you would pay tax. That this bill has taxable income of $25 million or more being taxed. So because we don't know, because we don't have the data on the companies that have over $25 million of taxable income in Alaska, we can't report that.

But even if we did have that data, it's possible that there would be so few companies that it would be confidential and we couldn't disclose it. So what we've done is given a range. So that's anywhere from $0 to $110 million. And to give a little finer point on that, why the $25 million doesn't encompass a large taxpayer base, that sounds like, you know, a small amount for very large companies, but we're not talking about gross revenue. We're talking about Alaska taxable income, which is after all federal deductions, after all state deductions, after any credits, after the apportionment factor.

So if you're not an Alaskan business, if you only had a fraction of your business in Alaska, you would apportion your income based on property, payroll, and sales in Alaska over property, payroll, and sales everywhere, which could reduce your taxable income by quite a bit. So there's really not that many companies, even that are C corporations, that have taxable income over $25 million. So your tax base is very small, uh, and we don't have the data. So that's the reason we can't give a a really fine point on the revenue estimate. But again, if you look at page 2 of our fiscal note, you'll see that we did put a range of $0 to $110 million.

Thank you. Okay, uh, and Mr. Spanos, if I could just follow up. I mean, there's publicly available information on gross revenue of Alaska's largest companies, dozens of them. I guess I don't understand why you would not be able to review that and at least provide a ballpark about— and you can of course review the how those companies are incorporated. I don't understand why DOR couldn't review that publicly available information, at least give an estimate of which companies might be affected because their revenue and their incorporation type is public.

Um, um, that's a good question, and the main reason is the gross revenue doesn't translate into tax— Alaska taxable income. So each company would have its own federal deductions, but we wouldn't necessarily know what those are. We would have to see their federal tax return to know what deductions they're taking on their— on that return. Also, the bill doesn't even use what they would actually be filing for federal taxes. It's saying that they would file as if they were a C-Corp. And a lot of these companies are private entities because these are pass-through entities.

So they wouldn't even have federally available, or rather publicly available information. So if you're a local, or rather if you've incorporated in Alaska as an LLC, you don't have to provide any publicly available information. And we've heard that from several companies that have come before the legislature to talk about S-Corp bills in the past where they've stated that they're not gonna divulge that information. So yeah, even if we had the information, it was publicly available, we could rely on it, we wouldn't be able to necessarily translate that into taxable income. We'd have to know how much property they have in Alaska versus property everywhere, payroll in Alaska versus payroll everywhere, sales in Alaska versus sales everywhere, and we don't have that data.

Okay, I did want to just make available opportunity for questions from Representative Kolum, who I I think it asked for DOR to be available. Representative Plum, hopefully you can hear me. Did you have a question for Mr. Spanos? I don't have a question at this time. Okay, thank you, Representative Plum.

Representative Hall. Thank you, Co-Chair Fields. Mr. Spanos, what would be a reason— if this bill were to pass in whatever form it hopefully does pass, what would be a reasonable time frame for implementation?

So that's a great question. It is a pretty large lift, but I think we could have our programming done within, I don't know, 8 to 12 months would be reasonable. But once the, once the The effective date, I believe, is now January 2027, but the filing of the tax returns wouldn't be until the following year. So we'd have plenty of time to do the programming. There are quarterly filing, or rather payment requirements, but we could have that up pretty much immediately with a link, a portal for taxpayers to make quarterly estimated payments.

The actual filing wouldn't happen until 2028, and we would have plenty of time to develop the programming for that. Thank you. Okay, Representative Nelson. Thank you. Uh, through the chair to Mr. Spanos, uh, you said, uh, if this were to pass, it was kind of a large lift.

Right now in the fiscal note, it only says, uh, adding one new position. Uh, do you think that that one corporate income tax auditor 3 would be able to deal with such a large lift, or what's your opinion on that? Thank you, Chair. It's a great question. The one position would really not be doing that lift themselves.

We have a contractor for our tax revenue management system and our Revenue Online that would— and we also have some IT, internal IT programmers that would do most of that lift. That one person would do a lot of the testing of the solution and verify that it's working as anticipated. And then they would be the auditor to audit the companies that would be filing returns in the future. But we have a team in place for— and because we have the full year to do the development, we can do it with existing resources. If we were given a shorter timeline, like if the effective date were January 2026 like it was previously, we would have to probably bring in either more resources or pay our contractor more to have it done and expedited.

Okay, thank you. Okay, Representative. Um, we often have, uh, bills in front of us, we have invited testimony from people or organizations who will be affected either positively or negatively by the measures we consider. Is it possible to get the company most likely to be affected by this tax expansion before us to let us know how that might affect their operations in Alaska?

To the chair, Representative Saddle, is that a question for DOR? No, sir, that was directed at the chair. Oh, I apologize, I misunderstood. I should have said. Well, I think we could.

Be great. Yeah, it's a little tricky if DOR can't help us understand who might be affected.

So I think I don't see any further questions for Mr. Spanos. We have one more bill in about 5 minutes. Do members want to get through the one amendment in this bill? Yes. Representative— okay, Representative Sadler, uh, let's transition at this time to the— um, oh yeah, sorry, we need to set an amendment deadline.

An amendment deadline for this bill is Monday, April 27th at 5 PM. Uh, we'll set this bill aside. Last time on the agenda, HB 316. This is adjusting damage claims for personal injury wrongful death claims by Representative Gray and his staff, please come up to the table. Um, we do have one amendment, and let's try to get through it.

Representative Sadler, go ahead. Very good. Let me switch to my bill here. Good afternoon, Representative Gray. Um, great.

House Bill 316 before us. Uh, Mr. Chair, we'll get right to it. Um, I would offer Amendment I.2 to Amendment 3 to Bill HB 316. I'll object.

Go ahead, Representative Sadler. Thank you very much. Um, I must acknowledge the impact of inflation. It has your— I won't say it's eroded the value of a human life. I'm not going to say that on the record.

But, uh, the calculation of damages— what this amendment does, Mr. Chairman, is to double the amount, uh, in Section 1, doubling the amount, uh, for non-economic damage for injury or death. Difficult to contemplate. And in Section 2, it would double the amount for permanent physical impairment. That's from $400,000 to $800,000 in the first and from $500,000 to— I'm sorry— to $1 million to $2 million in the second. However, the amendment also eliminates the provision for continually adjusting those figures by inflation.

I have a very difficult time locking in inflation adjustments in statute, not in absolutely every case but in most cases, and so the amendment also deletes the inflation-proofing or inflation-adjusting provision in Section 3 of the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Representative Sadler, Representative Gray, what do you think about this amendment? Thank you. I oppose the amendment, and I would refer to my staff, Dylan Hitchcock Lopez, to speak more to it. I think our office is very grateful to Representative Sadler for recognizing the fact that there's a need to increase these caps, and, um, but this— it's only— it kicks the can further down the road. I mean, the issue here is that the entire system of tort reform was built around, uh, other factors, as you heard a couple of hearings ago, that are all being corrected for inflation because of the markets.

So this needs to be caught up. So we'd oppose for that reason. Also, the amendment as proposed by Representative Mr. Adler only alters half the caps. There are other— there are two other caps in there that are left behind in his amendment, and so it would create an anomaly where you would have effectively updated half of the statute, not the other half. Okay.

Will the Secretary call the roll? Mr. Chairman? Yeah. Do you want to do closing? Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. Yeah.

I remember someone telling me that in some degrees if we inflation-proofed everything, we would lose one of the only ways we could possibly have the brakes on ever-increasing formulaic increases in state spending. And it's just, I don't believe that all inflation adjustments are going to be increased. I do, again, I do recognize inflation has a factor, and can kicking is sometimes what we do here. I do want to acknowledge the need to compensate people fairly, but I don't think the inflation-proofing is the way to go. So thank you, Mr.

Chair. Okay, well, let's— Secretary, call the roll on Amendment I.2. Representative Colombe? Yes.

Representative Sadler? Yes.

Representative Freer? No.

Representative Carrick? No. Representative Nelson? Yes. Co-chair Fields?

No. Co-chair Hall? No. 3 Ayes, 4 nays. By a vote of 3 to 4, 3 to 4, that amendment does not pass.

That's all the amendments that were submitted. Representative Hall, do you have a motion on this bill? Mr. Co-chair, I move to report HB 316, work order 34-LS1463/i, out of committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. Representative Sadler, look. Yep.

Object. Okay. Yeah, I'll object for the purposes of discussion. I just am curious to ask the sponsor, the chair of judiciary, If there are any plans or intentions to bring forward other legislation that would increase, that would offer inflation adjustment factors in legislation, judicial, civil, criminal penalty. Please be efficient, Representative Gray.

We have to go to LB&A. Through the chair now. Okay, will the Secretary call the roll on the motion to report the bill?

Representative Carrick. Yes. Representative Nelson? No. Representative Sadler?

Uh, no.

Representative Freer? Yes. Co-chair Fields? Yes. Co-chair Hall?

Yes. 4 Yeas, 2 nays. Okay, so by a vote of—. I didn't get that vote. That's right, Representative Kolumb, you can't vote on passage of the bill over the phone.

Okay. But by a vote of 4 to 2, House Bill 316 is reported from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. And at 3:40— or at 5:14, we are adjourned.