Month: March 2026

A legislative resolution urging a continued and better-enforced ban on Russian seafood in the United States is headed to Gov. Mike Dunleavy.

Part of a series of actions by Alaska lawmakers to try to shore up the state’s ailing seafood industry, House Joint Resolution 29 won final passage last week and was transferred to the governor on Monday.

The resolution calls for continuation of the ban on Russian seafood imports imposed in 2022, after that country’s invasion of Ukraine. The ban was expanded in 2023 to cover imports of Russian seafood to the U.S. through a third-party country, usually China, where fish are processed.

The import ban is set to expire later this year. That makes the resolution timely, supporters aid.

Among the supporters is Jeremy Woodrow, executive director of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute.

Woodrow, in testimony to the Senate Resources Committee on Feb. 27, said a stockpile of Russian fish that was in the U.S. before the ban went into full effect is just now being depleted.

“We need more time to really capture the U.S. marketplace. Our industry has not recovered yet,” Woodrow said. Even though last year’s fishing season was better, it was still one of the worst years in the last 20 years, he said.

“This is one measure that will help our fishermen. We’re starting to see the fruits of this ban coming into play, but we need more time to provide stability to our industry. We need more time to see it come to fruition,” he told the committee.

In addition to seeking an extension of the import ban, the resolution calls for stronger monitoring and enforcement to “ensure fair trade, protect the state’s seafood industry, and promote sustainable and ethical seafood production.”

Legislative resolutions do not have the power of law, but they can influence actions by Congress, the federal executive branch or other institutions.

The Russian seafood import ban resolution was not among the measures introduced by the Joint Legislative Task Force Evaluating Alaska’s Seafood Industry, formed in 2024. However, it addresses an aspect of international trade, one of the issues raised by the task force. The task force’s report recommended an update to a Russia-focused resolution passed by the legislature in 2022, Senate Joint Resolution 16.

The eight-member task force, comprising Senate and House members from fishery-dependent districts, issued its recommendation report in January 2025, at the start of last year’s session. Recommendations for action resulted in the introduction of a series of bills intended to help the industry, which has struggled with low fish prices, glutted international markets, high costs and other challenges.

Other bills focus on tax credits and revenues

One of the task force’s bills, aimed at encouraging seafood product development and diversification, is headed for a vote in the Senate this week.

That measure, Senate Bill 130, concerns the state’s fisheries product development tax credit system. Currently, seafood companies are allowed to deduct the cost of new equipment used to develop value-added products from salmon, herring, pollock, sablefish and Pacific cod. The bill would expand that to all fish species, including shellfish. That is in line with the recommendation in the task force report, which identifies arrowtooth flounder, fish meal and crab shells as examples of some underused or discarded products that could be processed into something marketable.

The bill, in the amended form before the Senate, also seeks to expand the range of technology for which investment would qualify for credits, and it would extend the sunset date for the credit to 2037. Currently, the tax credit is due to expire next year.

The revenue impact of the bill, if it wins final passage, is difficult to determine because there are several unknown variables, said the fiscal note prepared by the state Alaska Department of Revenue. Estimated annual revenues losses to the state would range from $1 million to nearly $4 million, according to the fiscal note.

Another task force bill, aimed at helping fishery-dependent local governments, had not moved out of the Senate Finance Committee as of Tuesday. That measure, Senate Bill 135, would allow municipalities to increase their share of fisheries business tax and fishery resource landing tax revenues. Currently, the state and local governments split those tax revenues equally. The bill would allow local governments to get up to 75% of the tax revenues.

The legislature passed two seafood task force bills last year, each of which had wide support. However, Dunleavy vetoed one of the bills.

The bill that escaped the governor’s veto, House Bill 116, allows for the formation and operation of member-owned commercial fishing insurance cooperatives. Such cooperativesexist in other states and were used by some Alaska fishers. The bill passed unanimously.

The vetoed bill, Senate Bill 156, would have transferred $3.69 million from a defunct state loan fund to the Alaska Commercial Fishing and Agriculture Bank. The state-owned bank needed the boost to keep serving the seafood industry, bill supporters argued. But Dunleavy argued that the cost of the action was too great for the state budget to bear.

SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Five Alaska mayors voiced concerns about how a proposed tax break for the Alaska LNG gas line project would impact their communities.

Republican Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy has proposed eliminating property taxes and other local taxes for the $46 billion megaproject. Instead, his bill would impose a volume-based tax when substantial quantities of gas are delivered from the North Slope. 

The Alaska Department of Revenue estimated Dunleavy’s bill would equate to a roughly 90% reduction in property tax revenue, once the pipeline is at full capacity. The state agency has said the pipeline will not move forward without cutting property taxes for Glenfarne, the New York-based developer of the proposed pipeline and export facilities. 

Five Alaska mayors on Friday testified to the Senate Resources Committee in support of the 800-mile pipeline, which is set to run from the North Slope to Cook Inlet. But the municipal leaders also expressed concerns about the potential loss of revenue from the governor’s tax break and the impacts on municipal services. 

‘Bottom offer’

Peter Micciche is mayor of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, one of Alaska’s largest with roughly 62,000 residents. He said a liquefaction facility, equating to 43.5% of the total project, is set to be located in the coastal region.

Micciche said the project would have tens of millions of dollars of impact annually for the Kenai Peninsula, with costs set to be borne by local communities under Dunleavy’s bill. He said the proposed elimination of all local taxes for Alaska LNG is “cutting deep into the fabric of how our communities work. And that worries me.”

He cited concerns about Dunleavy’s proposed tax rate rising by 1% annually. He said the borough’s budget increases on average by 2.5% each year, meaning that would leave the Kenai Peninsula “underwater.”

“Costs have shifted from the state to the municipalities. But we simply cannot afford additional costs,” he said to lawmakers Friday.

Micciche, a former long-time oil and gas executive, emphasized that he is excited by the project, but he considers the governor’s tax break to be “a bottom offer.”

Adam Prestidge, president of Glenfarne Alaska LNG, on Monday told the Senate Resources Committee that the company recognizes there will be impacts to municipalities from the project. He said discussions are ongoing with municipal leaders about how the company will cover some costs to ensure communities feel comfortable they “will be taken care of.”

Micciche, a former Republican Alaska Senate president, framed the scale of the challenge of negotiating acceptable legislation for communities and Glenfarne with less than half of the legislative session left until adjournment. “This bill needs a lot of work,” he said. 

“We’re ready to sit down and pen a deal that works for everyone — the developers, our community, Alaskans — and I hope to God that comes along with affordable gas,” Micciche said.

‘Once-in-a-lifetime project’

Supporters remain bullish on the gas line’s potential to be an economic boon for Alaska. Former Democratic U.S. Sen. Mark Begich has been hired by the Dunleavy administration to boost the pipeline. He told the Senate Resource Committee on Monday that it was “a once-in-a-lifetime project.”

Glenfarne owns 75% of the project while the Alaska Gasline Development Corp., a state agency, owns the remaining 25%.

Begich and Prestidge declined to answer some questions in detail about the proposed tax break and whether it was at an appropriate rate, citing the need for confidentiality in commercial agreements. Begich implored lawmakers to hold a session behind closed doors to discuss revenue questions with Glenfarne.

Under Dunleavy’s bill, the long-sought gas pipeline is expected to raise over $22.5 billion in new revenue for the state of Alaska. But over the next 36 years, it would also cost roughly $13 billion for local communities compared to current law, according to state projections.

Instead of property taxes, the governor’s bill would impose a volume-based tax of 6 cents on every thousand cubic feet of gas, which would increase by 1% annually. The tax would only be imposed once the pipeline delivers an average of 1 billion cubic feet of gas per day or 10 years after gas starts being produced. 

Edna DeVries is mayor of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, home to around 117,000 people. She said the Mat-Su Assembly believes those thresholds are “far too high” and that they should be lowered so the borough could collect revenue sooner.  

DeVries cited a concern common to all five mayors along the proposed corridor for Alaska LNG: the impacts of constructing the pipeline on municipal budgets. 

Mayor Chris Noel of Denali Borough, home to 1,600 residents, said that construction would see added costs for waste management, fire and rescue and housing, which would likely be borne by the local community. Denali Borough does not currently collect property tax. But it would get “limited benefits” from the pipeline with no local offtake planned for the borough, Noel said. 

“The bottom-line is we cannot subsidize increased costs. We need certainty via an impact payment program during construction that actual costs will be covered by the project,” he said.

Another potential concern: education funding. Alaska’s complicated education funding formula means that as a local community’s total assessed property tax value increases, state contribution for schools is reduced. 

Concerned at the ‘precedent’

Mayor Josiah Patkotak of the North Slope Borough said he was concerned at the “precedent” set by eliminating property taxes for oil and gas projects before a final investment decision is reached. Patkotak, also a former member of the Alaska House of Representatives, cited a recent record North Slope lease sale and said oil developers could seek similar tax relief.

The North Slope Borough, based out of Utqiaġvik with 10,500 residents, has a long history of fiercely defending its authority to levy property taxes on oil and gas companies, he added.

Patkotak estimated Dunleavy’s proposed tax break means the borough would collect $12 billion less in revenue compared to current law. He said property tax revenue has been critical for the borough, which funds schools, fire and rescue services, airports and waste management. 

Prestidge declined to tell the Senate Resources Committee whether the proposed tax break would be make-or-break for the project. But he said if the bill failed to pass, “It makes it more difficult because it makes the gas more expensive.”

“It creates an incredible amount of uncertainty around the project,” he added.

Patkotak noted that the North Slope would not get any of the gas delivered through the pipeline with no offtake planned for the remote region.

That has long been a concern for Fairbanks, which has a population of 97,000 people. The borough has advocated for a $180 million spur to deliver gas to the Interior city.  

“We need to make sure we’re getting Alaskans’ gas to Alaskans,” said Mayor Grier Hopkins of the Fairbanks North Star Borough.

Hopkins said there are currently “no concrete” plans to build a gas offtake for Fairbanks, but discussions are ongoing with Glenfarne.

Matthew “Bronco” Williams, an Anchorage-based private school teacher, has announced that he is running as an independent for Alaska’s lone seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. 

Williams, 28, has not held public office. He ran as a Democrat for the Mississippi state House in 2019 at the age of 21, and the U.S. House representing Mississippi in 2024. He recently moved to Anchorage, according to social media.

Williams is a mathematics and science teacher at Anchor Lutheran School, an Anchorage Christian school. His campaign website states that he studied theatre in Mississippi and education at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. 

Williams says he has published writing under the name “Bronco Williams.” His stated political priorities include “healing the economy,” providing a quality education and protecting the environment. 

Two Alaska Democrats have filed to run for the U.S. House in 2026 — Matt Schultz, an Anchorage pastor, and John Williams, a Fairbanks history teacher. Bill Hill, a commercial fisherman and former superintendent of the Bristol Bay School District, announced in January that he would run for U.S. House as an independent. 

Incumbent Rep. Nicholas Begich III, a Republican, unseated Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola in 2024. He is running for a second term. Peltola has announced that she is running for U.S. Senate against incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan.

Begich and Sullivan have a significant fundraising advantage against their challengers, according to recent filings. 

The deadline to file for Alaska’s sole U.S. House seat is June 1. Alaska’s open primary election system means the top four vote-getters, regardless of party affiliation, advance to the Nov. 3 election.