Author: alaskaadmin

If built as proposed, the trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline is expected to create thousands of jobs. Many, if not most, will go to people who don’t live in Alaska.

A six-year-old study, commissioned by the Alaska Gasline Development Corp. as part of the project’s environmental statement, says “an estimated 22 to 68 percent of the construction jobs would likely be filled by non-residents, depending on the construction year.”

The high end of that estimate is significantly higher than the state’s norm — last year, 23.4% of all construction jobs in Alaska were held by people who don’t live in the state. 

The difference is likely because specialty jobs needed during construction — pipeline welders, for example — aren’t common in Alaska. Last year, more than 42% of all welding jobs in the state were held by nonresidents, according to figures published by the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. 

Joelle Hall, president of the Alaska AFL-CIO, said that while new hires might not all be Alaskans, they will have the opportunity to become Alaskans, just as the builders of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline system did.

“There will be, just as it was on TAPS — most of those were not Alaskans, they became Alaskans. That’s one of the opportunities to look at here,” she said.

As the Alaska Legislature debates a multibillion-dollar tax break for the pipeline project, legislators are considering whether to tie that tax break to labor requirements that could require pipeline developers to hire more Alaskans.

Last month, the Alaska Senate voted 16-4 to mandate a certain level of apprentice hiring, something that could increase the number of jobs available to new Alaskans or those starting to learn a trade.

The latest version of the tax-break bill, released last week by legislative negotiators, eliminates that mandate but requires project-labor agreements that maximize opportunities for Alaskans who already have needed qualifications, said Sen. Jesse Kiehl, D-Juneau and author of the apprentice hiring proposal.

Hall said she hopes the apprenticeship mandate returns, but even if it doesn’t, the project would offer young Alaskans a chance to be trained as electricians, plumbers and in other construction-related trades.

They would be able to keep those skills and replace retiring construction workers.

“We are going to have such an opportunity to get these jobs … and then they can go on to full careers,” Hall said. “The graying of the construction workforce is such a big problem, and this is an opportunity to change that graying.” 

Current estimates suggest the project would create a large number of temporary and permanent jobs but significantly fewer than were created by the trans-Alaska oil pipeline in the 1970s.

“I’ve read that during the development stage, there’ll be something like 12,000 jobs attached to this project,” said Speaker of the House Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, in a June 27 hearing.

Adam Prestidge, president of Glenfarne Alaska, jumped in.

“Just to clarify, when we talk about jobs created, it’s approximately 7,000 for the construction of the pipeline, an additional 5,000 for the construction of the LNG facility. When it goes into full operation, you’re looking at a much lower number, around 1,000 permanent, 1,500 permanent operational jobs,” he said.

Tim Fitzpatrick, a spokesman for Glenfarne Alaska, confirmed the figures by email and added: “These are direct jobs and these numbers do not include additional indirect jobs. Glenfarne has not provided an update to the in-state/out-of-state estimates.” 

In 1978, the Alaska Department of Labor concluded that more than 23,000 people were simultaneously employed at the peak of oil pipeline construction.

As currently planned, the gas pipeline project would be built in two phases, with the pipeline first and supporting infrastructure second. That means the 12,000 jobs expected by the project won’t come all at once, and peak employment will be well below what happened during the oil pipeline boom.

In addition, Alaska’s population is much larger than it was during the 1970s, further diluting the impact of construction employment. Last year, the state had 321,500 workers in January and 360,000 in July — the boom created by pipeline employment will be smaller than the one that already occurs each summer with tourism and fishing jobs.

What would be different is the value of each job — lawmakers are planning to mandate agreements that would require workers be paid high wages. 

“There’s going to be a level of rearranging of the workforce that’s going to be pretty dramatic. If you’re a guy working at the Jiffy Lube, you could probably go … and be dispatched to do the same job on the pipeline and make vastly more money,” Hall said.

A successful project would create permanent, high-paid jobs.

“Project operation would require about 980 permanent personnel per year,” AGDC estimated in 2020, predicting that most jobs would be based in Anchorage and would go to in-state residents.

For the moment, those benefits remain hypothetical, and the state’s 1978 study provides an inadvertent cautionary note.

“Construction of the proposed gas pipeline project is planned to begin in 1981 – less than three years from now,” it said. “Alaska citizens and lawmakers are now meeting to lay out guidelines in preparation for pipeline construction in an attempt to maximize stable growth and to minimize the disruption which will result from such a large scale construction project.”

The post Many gas pipeline construction jobs will go to non-Alaskans, 2020 study indicates appeared first on Chilkat Valley News.

A quarter millennium after its founding, the United States faces a stark choice that will define its future.

In the years ahead, the country can continue to follow the path blazed by President Donald Trump, who is attempting to bring states under the authority of a more powerful federal government led by him. Or it can move in a different direction, one where states become a heavier counterweight to an aggressive White House and rebalance the relationship between the states and the federal government.

The United States’ foundations are undergoing a significant stress test, experts say, raising questions about whether a radical reconception of the nation lies ahead. The federalism that has helped bind the states — and therefore, the nation — together is fraying, pulled apart by a president who demonstrates little regard for many of the nation’s core principles.

“I wonder if we will come to a breaking point in which the institutions of government no longer serve the society in which we live,” said David Adkins, a former Kansas Republican state lawmaker who’s now the executive director and CEO of the Council of State Governments, a national group that represents all three branches of state government. 

“And again,” he said, “we will be required to balance personal liberty and freedoms against what powers we want the government to exercise.”

While a long line of modern presidents have expanded the powers of their office, Trump has wielded the executive branch as a weapon to punish states and those state leaders he views as enemies. Federal dollars and resources have become a form of leverage he has tried to use to pursue his political aims and deliver the retribution he promised to, if reelected. He is trying to assert an unprecedented level of White House control over state-run elections.

How states — and the people — respond will forever shape the nation.

As the United States marks the 250th anniversary of the country’s founding, Stateline has been exploring how the Trump era is transforming the relationship between the states and the federal government. This article is the fourth in an occasional series examining the fraught moment and what evolving — and often deteriorating — state-federal ties mean for the country, now and in the future.

As the Trump administration has been aggressively pursuing its agenda on immigration, election restrictions and other issues, Democratic states have been developing playbooks of resistance that could endure even after Trump’s time in office. They have enacted laws aimed at regulating the behavior of federal agents and preventing any attempts to illegally subvert the November midterm elections, for instance.

At least eight states have adopted laws limiting masking by law enforcement, according to Prosecutors Alliance Action, a nonprofit advocacy group that supports the legislation. The mask restrictions are in response to the widespread use of masks by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Border Patrol and other federal agents, as well as anger over the deployment of agents in places such as Minneapolis and Los Angeles.

Some states have also taken action to thwart any federal attempt to take over elections, which under the U.S. Constitution are run by the states. Administration officials have refused to rule out sending federal agents or troops to the polls, something already prohibited under federal law except in extremely narrow circumstances.

In late May, California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law a bill that prohibits election officials from providing federal agents with access to voter lists or technology absent a court order. And New Mexico lawmakers earlier this year passed a bill to prohibit troops at polling places.

More recently, officials in some states threatened legislation to undercut Trump’s Anti-Weaponization Fund by taxing payments at 100%. Critics argued that the fund would be used to pay off the president’s allies. The U.S. Department of Justice has said it is backing off plans for the fund amid bipartisan opposition in Congress, but leaders have refused to confirm that in writing and a federal judge has said a lawsuit against the fund can proceed.

Collectively, these efforts offer a window into how states are testing ways to push back against the White House. While the Trump administration is challenging some of these measures in court, Democratic state lawmakers have demonstrated that state-level resistance to increasingly aggressive exercises of federal power is possible.

“It is incumbent upon state legislators and state governments to protect their people from this incredible overreach and this display of horrors and egregious behaviors we are seeing from the federal government,” said Pennsylvania state Sen. Amanda Cappelletti, a Democrat who has been pushing restrictions on ICE.

In response to Stateline’s questions for this series, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said in a statement: “The Trump Administration faithfully upholds our Constitution and the immortalized American principles of federalism, the rule of law, and the separation of powers.”

Rethinking the Constitution

Conservatives have long complained that the federal government has grown too large and too powerful. As Democrats fight Trump, some Republicans see an opportunity to forge a new bipartisan consensus in favor of states’ authority.

Pennsylvania state Sen. Cris Dush, a Republican, said the federal government has been overreaching since at least Woodrow Wilson’s presidency in the early 20th century. He argues that too many powers have been ceded to the executive branch that belong to legislators. 

“And that’s why we have a republic, not a democracy and not a king. It’s not supposed to go with the whims of either the public or whoever the chief executive is, and that’s why you’re now starting to see Democrats get on board with this,” Dush said.

“I’m glad to welcome anybody to this party that wants to come, because it’s all about getting the legislative authority back.”

Dush supports a convention of the states to draft proposed changes to the Constitution that limit federal power. The idea of calling a convention has long percolated in statehouses, especially among Republicans, but support for the idea appears to have grown in recent years.

Article V of the Constitution requires Congress to call a constitutional convention if two-thirds of state legislatures demand one but sets out few details about how such a gathering would operate. Any amendments proposed by a convention would need to be approved by three-fourths of the states.

Several different campaigns are pushing states to demand a convention, including one focused on a balanced budget amendment and another that seeks term limits. Collectively, 28 state legislatures have called for a convention, according to the good government group Common Cause, which opposes a convention. Thirty-six states must call for a convention to trigger one.

Former Utah Republican Gov. Gary Herbert has pushed for a balanced budget amendment to rein in federal spending and the ballooning national debt for more than 15 years. He said that states must lead the effort because Congress lacks the courage to confront the issue. 

“The burgeoning debt is just the result of not having appropriate balance between the state and federal government,” he said.

While conservatives and liberals fear a so-called runaway convention that could radically reshape the face of American government, Herbert said those same fears were present 250 years ago as the Founding Fathers met in Philadelphia to reshape the Articles of Confederation into the current Constitution.

“Well, the result was pretty good,” he said. “You know, we got this great Constitution everybody says was really a divinely inspired kind of a thing. … The Founding Fathers were brilliant in putting the Constitution together and said, ‘Here’s a role for the federal government, but here’s a larger role even for the states.’”

Stitt, the Oklahoma governor, said he wants states to have more control of federal spending. Bypassing Washington, D.C.’s bureaucracy would give states more authority and stewardship over federal taxpayer dollars, he said, forcing states to live within their means and end incentives to freely accept federal dollars rather than lose them to another state.

“So we have to change that incentive, and I think that’s a reasonable way to do it,” he said in an interview. “Now, Oklahoma would handle our own roads, bridges, etcetera, and I just think that the incentive would be totally different, and there would truly be 50 laboratories of democracy.”

Stitt is chair of the bipartisan National Governors Association. He’s criticized Trump’s deployment of the National Guard into blue states. But he said presidents of both parties have wielded the growing might of the federal government to influence policies across the country.

He pointed to Trump’s efforts to kill already-approved offshore wind energy projects, and he highlighted the Keystone Pipeline extension, which was thwarted by Democratic Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden but embraced by Trump. He called those sorts of turnabouts “un-American.”

“We’re in a terrible situation if this continues to happen in our country,” he said. “This is like what we’ve made fun of in these Third World countries from dictator to dictator.”

Unlike Stitt, critics of a convention of the states fear it could result in a dramatic overhaul of the Constitution that would endanger core liberties and freedoms. And because the Constitution provides few rules for how a convention would work, they worry the process would be susceptible to influence by wealthy interests.

Adkins, the Council of State Governments CEO, said a convention of the states could become more likely as state-federal tensions increase. He said states should begin having dispassionate conversations about how they would respond if a convention is called, what it would look like, and who would be in charge.

“Those are a lot of questions that we just don’t know about,” Adkins said. “But that’s sort of the ultimate nuclear option for the states in a dysfunctional federal system.”

States are ‘better prepared’

Whether a convention of the states ever takes place, the conversation surrounding the idea underscores the depth of frustration with the current state-federal relationship.

Last year a Gallup survey found that 62% of Americans believe the federal government has too much power, the highest percentage recorded since 2002. It was also the first time since 2007 that Democrats were more likely than Republicans to say the federal government is too powerful.

But what happens once Trump leaves office?Will at least some anger at the federal government dissipate?

Trump is a very unpopular president when compared against the past four executives to hold the White House. His disapproval rating stood at 58% on July 2, according to a New York Times daily average of polling on the president. Just 39% of Americans approve of the job he’s doing, down from nearly 50% in the weeks after his inauguration in January 2025.

Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat, said the way Trump has pushed the envelope could become a new normal “if the wrong people get elected.” But few people who run for president want to bully states, she said.

“They’re not looking to be king. They’re not looking to be a dictator,” Kelly said. “And there is plenty to do just with the responsibilities and the authority that the federal government traditionally has that there’s no need to go that way.”

A presidential administration that makes clear it will give states as much leeway as possible as it advances its agenda will go far in rebuilding relationships between the states and the federal government, said former New Jersey Republican Gov. Christine Todd Whitman.

But if not, states have learned from the Trump era.

“The states know what the potential dangers are,” Whitman said, “and they’re getting better prepared.”

In the birthplace of the nation, Philadelphians this spring were gearing up for a raucous Independence Day celebration. But feelings were mixed in this liberal stronghold, said Pennsylvania House Speaker Joanna McClinton, a Democrat who represents parts of Philadelphia.

She said Trump misunderstands the distinct powers of the states and is “trampling the American order” by seeking to upend American federalism. 

She and other Democrats in the closely divided commonwealth are trying to push back on the federal government through words and deeds.

But she said this administration hasn’t soured the excitement and pride in the American experiment. Republican and Democratic lawmakers were eager to participate in special sessions outside of Harrisburg this year in Philadelphia, where the founders signed both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

“People recognize the challenges of the hour, and they make every effort to engage politically so we can get out of this mess,” she said. “But it doesn’t fully dampen the mood of being grateful for what this country still represents, and the potential that it still has.”

States Newsroom reporter Jonathan Shorman can be reached at jshorman@statesnewsroom.com. Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Alaska Beacon, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

The post States will shape America’s future as nation confronts a pivotal choice appeared first on Chilkat Valley News.