Accessories are key to completing any vacation look. But when traveling, you don’t always want to bring your finest (or most expensive) pieces of jewelry, especially if you’re hitting the…
E! Online (US) – Top Stories
Month: June 2026
Mamma mia, Colin Firth is certainly a romantic.
The Oscar-winning actor made a rare public appearance alongside girlfriend Eleonora Perboni at the London premiere of Disclosure Day on June 4.
The…
E! Online (US) – Top Stories
Dua Lipa and Callum Turner’s sweet wedding tribute is one for the books.
The couple paid homage to the moment they first fell in love at their Italian wedding festivities June 5, following their…
E! Online (US) – Top Stories
Former Governor Bill Walker is proposing a one-time $10,000 Permanent Fund Dividend for eligible Alaskans in 2027. In exchange, the plan would eliminate the current annual PFD program and replace it with the single payout. Walker’s campaign says the move…
The state’s utility regulators struck down a 69.92% electricity rate increase proposed by the Upper Lynn Canal’s electric utility.
Alaska Power Company, the region’s lone electricity supplier, first sought a rate increase from the Regulatory Commission of Alaska a year and a half ago to pay for a costly replacement of an underwater transmission cable between Skagway and the nearby Kasidaya Hydroelectric Plant.
The Skagway Borough challenged the increase, arguing that costs should be borne by the company’s shareholders, rather than its customers, and that the company was entitled to “no more than a 5.38% increase in rates.”
After months of testimony and deliberation, the regulatory commission, in a May 13 ruling, sided largely with Skagway, rejecting the company’s proposal. The new rates are not yet set, and Alaska Power must submit new proposed rates based on the findings in the case to the regulatory commission for approval by next week.
Customers have been paying an interim rate while the case has been open, 40% higher than 2023 rates.
The commission has said the new rate will be lower than that interim rate, and customers will be refunded the difference.
Jason Custer, the company’s VP of Corporate Development and spokesperson, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
At the heart of the dispute was a question of who would be held liable for the underwater cable damages, which occurred in 2019. The repair project, finished in 2023, cost a total of $12.3 million, of which $8.1 million was covered by an insurance payout.
The company had argued the lack of full insurance coverage was due to COVID-19-related inflation and supply chain issues that unexpectedly increased the cost of cable replacement.
Skagway Borough lawyers argued that the company had the responsibility of maintaining an insurance policy able to cover the full cost of a replacement, and that any uninsured costs were therefore the company’s to bear.
The regulatory commission sided with that argument, pointing to 2011 emails in which company executives discussed estimates of the cable’s replacement cost at $13.6 million. That was well above the $8 million of insurance coverage the company maintained from 2011 through 2019.
According to the commission’s decision, a different 1997 commission order required the company — specifically Alaska Power’s Goat Lake Hydro subsidiary, which operates the Upper Lynn Canal’s hydroelectric facilities — to fully insure infrastructure as a condition of its status as a public utility. The commission also rejected some of the company’s other rationale for the nearly-70% increase. The company had included in its rate proposal the cost of two pieces of now-offline infrastructure: the Lutak hydroelectric plant, which has been shut down since 2020 landslides, and an undersea transmission cable that was installed in 1998.
State regulations require that for infrastructure costs to be paid for by customers, the infrastructure must be “used and useful in providing utility service during the period the rates are in effect.”
In proving the infrastructure was used, the company argued that the Lutak plant would provide generation capacity for future demand or energy storage increases in the region. It also pointed to repairs being done to the plant that would enable it to come back online. As for the damaged, but still in place 1998 cable, the company argued it served as a backup should the currently-used cable fail.
The commission rejected those arguments and ruled the costs of the two pieces of infrastructure not be included in rates. On the Lutak plant, the commission called future demand and storage increases cited by the company “prospective and uncertain.” For the 1998 cable, the commission’s decision called it “illogical” that the cable would be too damaged to use, liable to fail without warning, but also still useful as standby equipment.
Even with the rate case now largely settled, there remain questions about the company’s energy infrastructure. The now-replaced cable at the heart of the case is currently not insured, and Alaska Power Company vice president Jeffrey Rice testified that the company has been “unable to find an insurer that will provide insurance for the cable system at a reasonable cost.” He also acknowledged that the company had not attempted to insure the cable since 2022.
Meanwhile, the equipment seems to be in a somewhat precarious position. According to Rice’s testimony, the undersea cable that connects Haines to hydroelectric plants is facing a “growing risk” of failure. On top of aging equipment, his testimony said the cables traverse terrain in the Lynn Canal unusually deep and difficult for short transmission cables.
In the event of such a failure, the company “would immediately need to raise significant capital,” and “customers in the Haines service area would be forced to pay higher power costs related to APC’s diesel generation, which would cause significant rate shock,” Rice wrote.
With the current lack of insurance, the regulatory commission is recommending creating a dedicated repair and replacement fund for the equipment, funded by both shareholders and customers. Pending a future commission decision, Lynn Canal ratepayers will likely see a new surcharge for the so-called R&R fund. The commission is also requiring the company look for insurance on the cable system at least once per year.
There may also be other costs for Haines residents from the borough level: mayor Tom Morphet is proposing the borough government voluntarily contribute to the Skagway Borough’s legal fees on the rate case.
In the last three years, Skagway taxpayers have spent $911,000 in legal fees opposing Alaska Power Company rate increases for the entire Upper Lynn Canal, without any contribution from the Haines Borough. A motion by Morphet for Tuesday’s assembly meeting proposes a $64,000 payment by the borough.
“We are compelled by good faith and the dictates of honor to share some portion of the cost of these efforts,” wrote Morphet in a memo this week.
The post Rate hike rejected, residents to be refunded for portion of electricity increases appeared first on Chilkat Valley News.
Former Governor Bill Walker proposes a one-time $10,000 PFD in 2027 in exchange for ending the annual dividend program.
Categories
Juneau Weather: Friday, June 5, 2026
Friday night, overcast with rain showers at times. Low 44F. Winds E at 5 to 10 mph. Chance of rain 60%. Saturday, showers in the morning, then cloudy in the afternoon. High near 55F. Winds ESE at 10 to 15…
Friday night, mostly clear. Low near 50F. Winds SSE at 10 to 20 mph. Saturday, partly cloudy skies in the morning will give way to cloudy skies during the afternoon. High 63F. Winds SE at 15 to 25 mph.
Friday night, mostly clear. Low around 45F. Winds WNW at 5 to 10 mph. Saturday, mostly sunny skies. High near 70F. Winds WSW at 5 to 10 mph.
TAMPA BAY — Baker Mayfield set a tone for his extension negotiations with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in his first comments to the media this offseason: He wants to be the team’s long-term quarterback, but he’s willing to play out the final year of his contract without a new deal in place. “Contract stuff is happening, starting, talks and whatnot, not anywhere close to what we were thinking,” Mayfield said Friday during a youth football camp he’s hosting at the Buccaneers’ indoor practice facility. “Would love to be here long-term, and as of right now, that’s not exactly the case. I’m under contract for 2026. The guys in that locker room, the staff know that I’m still going to be me, still going to do everything I can to help this team win a Super Bowl. To me, that’s the priority. Everything else will take care of itself.” Mayfield, who has one year remaining on a three-year, $100 million contract he signed in 2024, added that his deadline to get an extension done is the start of training camp. “Obviously, yes, I’d love to have a long-term deal done, but they know my deadline,” Mayfield said. “As soon as training camp starts, we’re not doing any contract stuff. It’s all ball. It’s not up to me when that gets done by. Hopefully before that. If not, we’ll still have a good year.” While the Bucs haven’t announced when training camp will begin, it’s usually late in July. So, the clock’s now ticking on both parties to get something agreed to before then. But what should both sides be looking for in the potential extension? That’s tough to figure out. Mayfield, who turned 31 in April, has seen a career resurgence in Tampa, taking over in 2023 after Tom Brady’s retirement. Once a No. 1 overall pick of the Cleveland Browns, Mayfield was traded from his first NFL home to the Carolina Panthers in the summer of 2022, struggled there and finished that season with the Los Angeles Rams. When he first signed with the Buccaneers, it was a one-year, $4 million deal that got up to $7 million with a strong first year. He led the Bucs to back-to-back division titles, passing for a career-best 41 touchdowns and 4,500 yards in 2024. But Mayfield, much like the Buccaneers, was inconsistent last year, playing through multiple injuries while key offensive pieces were sidelined throughout the season. The Bucs opened the year 6-2, with Mayfield throwing 13 touchdowns against two interceptions. Then, they lost seven of their last nine, with Mayfield throwing 13 touchdowns against nine interceptions. The Bucs finished in a three-way tie atop the NFC South standings, losing to the Panthers due to a tiebreaker to miss the playoffs for the first time in six years. The Buccaneers have dealt with significant departures this spring, with two beloved players from their 2020 Super Bowl roster now gone. Linebacker Lavonte David retired after 14 seasons in Tampa, and Pro Bowl receiver Mike Evans signed with the San Francisco 49ers after 12 seasons in Tampa Bay. That leaves Mayfield as the unquestioned face of the franchise, and creates questions as to just how much it will cost for Tampa to keep him. Mayfield hasn’t publicly stated how much money he’s looking for in his next contract, but Spotrac projects his value at around four years and $214 million. That works out to $53.6 million per year, a figure that would make him the seventh-highest-paid quarterback in the league. However, most of those deals were to quarterbacks who were younger at the time of signing, with two exceptions. Dak Prescott signed a $60 million-per-year pact at age 31 with the Dallas Cowboys, and 38-year-old Matthew Stafford signed a one-year, $55 million extension this spring with the Los Angeles Rams following his MVP season. If Mayfield ends up playing out the 2026 season without a contract for 2027, though, he’d be in line to potentially become a prime franchise tag candidate or one of the most coveted players at any position next offseason. The franchise tag for quarterbacks in 2027 is likely to be about $51 million for one year, a significant raise that would take up a larger chunk of the 2027 cap than a long-term extension. In the event Mayfield isn’t tagged, he’d join a relatively deep talent pool of free agents at quarterback. Kyler Murray (Minnesota Vikings) and Tua Tagovailoa (Atlanta Falcons) are on one-year rests after being cut from huge contracts, while a veteran like Deshaun Watson (Cleveland Browns) could be an option for teams looking to add at quarterback next March. Of course, Mayfield’s play in 2026 will largely dictate what the Buccaneers plan to do with him if he doesn’t sign an extension this offseason. It could go two very different ways for the Bucs: If Mayfield looks like the first half of last season and gets Tampa Bay back to the playoffs, he’d have leverage for an even larger contract. But if he and the team struggle, the Bucs could move on from him and head coach Todd Bowles, perhaps looking in another direction for both key spots. Buccaneers general manager Jason Licht has made it clear the team loves Mayfield and wants to keep him in Tampa on a long-term deal, but such a contract would be the largest in franchise history. Recent deals for Tagovailoa, Murray and Watson can show how getting a $200 million deal wrong can damage an NFL franchise, though resetting at the position is not an easy process as well. A four-year extension, though, could also elevate Mayfield’s spot in franchise lore. If he signed such a contract, Mayfield would likely have all the franchise’s major passing records by the time the deal ends. The Buccaneers haven’t had good luck with sustained success from their quarterbacks, which was a big reason why they missed the playoffs 12 years in a row from 2008-19. But they’ve become a playoff mainstay since the turn of the decade, with Mayfield mostly doing his part. And even after missing the playoffs last season, Tampa Bay is still the oddmakers’ favorite to win the NFC South in 2026. It’s clear what both sides ultimately want, though. Mayfield has made it evident he wants to stay in Tampa, where he’s found stability in his career, and his family has found a home, with he and wife Emily welcoming daughter Kova and son Maverick since he arrived. But there was a leverage aspect to Friday’s comments, as Mayfield’s the top quarterback entering a contract year that’s negotiating a huge deal. So, the question now is whether the Buccaneers want to pay enough to sign on for the same stability or take their chances letting the season play out without a new deal. “They know who I am,” Mayfield said Friday. “They know it doesn’t matter what the contract is. It’s not going to change my work ethic, the leadership aspect of it, what I try to bring with guys, trying to elevate everybody. … You worry about giving somebody that much money, if it’s going to change their attitude, how they show up in the building. With me, that’s not the case. They gave me a chance at a point in my career when I really needed it, helped me out, but I think I did the same as well. It’s time to get something done long-term, and I would love to be here long-term.”Latest Sports News from FOX Sports