Category: Alaska News

The U.S.-Israeli war against Iran has left oil markets more uncertain than they were during the Great Recession, a state expert told the Alaska Legislature on Monday.

In a pair of hearings, Alaska Department of Revenue economist Dan Stickel told state legislators that the volatility of global oil markets is the second-highest on record, leaving future forecasts particularly unreliable.

“The level of uncertainty around future prices in the oil markets now is higher than during the peaks of the Great Recession in 2008-2009 and it’s higher than the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and it’s higher than any of the COVID spikes other than the initial April 2020 spike,” he said during a Monday morning hearing of the Senate Finance Committee.

“The message here is to plan for the possibility that revenue doesn’t come in exactly at what we forecast for the next couple of years,” Stickel said. 

Oil is the second-largest source of general-purpose revenue for the Alaska state budget, and Stickel’s testimony came days after the department released a new Alaska revenue forecast showing $545 million more in current-year revenue than projected in the fall. Most of that higher prediction is due to the price of oil.

That forecast has snarled relations in the Alaska House of Representatives, which has repeatedly postponed discussion of a bill that would fund a variety of amendments to the fiscal year 2026 budget passed by lawmakers and Gov. Mike Dunleavy last spring. 

On Monday, after more than two hours of acrimonious debate, House legislators again declined to take up the bill.

Soon after the House adjourned its floor session, Stickel testified in front of the House Finance Committee, and told lawmakers that “the level of certainty that we will hit our exact forecast is low.”

As he spoke, on the other end of the Capitol’s fifth floor, the Senate Finance Committee was simultaneously hearing from Office of Management and Budget director Lacey Sanders, who said the governor’s office was requesting another $18 million in spending for the current fiscal year.

Altogether, the governor has requested almost $427 million in additions to the budget. Add in additional spending proposed by lawmakers, and there’s only about a $30 million difference between the new revenue forecast and the additions proposed by the governor and legislators.

At the latest forecast prices, said Rep. Calvin Schrage, I-Anchorage, a $2 change in the average price of a barrel of North Slope oil is worth $30 million.

He asked Stickel what the odds were that the forecast misses low by more than $2.

“Roughly a slightly less than 50% chance that we come in more than $2 below the forecast,” Stickel said, then alluded to the fact that there’s a similar chance of coming in above the forecast.

“The level of certainty that we will hit our exact forecast is low in either direction,” he said.

Currently, members of the House majority are advocating that legislators unlock the state’s principal savings account to provide surety for some of those budget additions.

Doing so would avoid problems if oil prices turn out to be lower than forecast.

But spending from the Constitutional Budget Reserve, the state’s principal savings account, requires 30 votes in the House and 15 votes in the Senate. 

The House’s multipartisan coalition majority has 21 members, which means they need support from the all-Republican House minority caucus.

Members of that group have been arguing against unlocking the budget reserve right now, saying that the new forecast and the current balance of the state’s general-purpose accounts demonstrate it isn’t needed.

In addition, as currently written, the supplemental budget bill in the House would allow spending from savings regardless of the price of oil. That could allow the majority to dictate extra spending even if prices stay high. 

The Senate has already approved spending from the Constitutional Budget Reserve, and on Monday morning, Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka and co-chair of the Senate Finance Committee, said a draw from the reserve would act as a “safety net.” 

Sen. Lyman Hoffman, D-Bethel, said senators don’t intend to spend dollars from savings unless it is needed. 

“If they are not needed, they will stay in the CBR,” he said, adding that without permission to spend from savings, there’s a chance that lawmakers would need to return in August to fix budget problems in a special session.

SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Lawmakers are considering new legislation to increase state funding for Alaska schools, and heard public comment on Wednesday evening that showed overwhelming support for more funding for public education. 

The legislation comes on the heels of a historic increase to per pupil student funding last year — after political debate between lawmakers and Gov. Mike Dunleavy resulted in three governor’s vetoes and two override votes by the Legislature.

House Bill 374 would increase per student funding, known as the base student allocation, by $630 per student. The bill would take per student funding from $6,660 to $7,290 — totalling $158.6 million additional dollars for schools next year.

Sponsors of the legislation said they calculated that increase by assessing the current budget deficits of the state’s five largest school districts by student population — Anchorage, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Kenai Peninsula Borough, Fairbanks North Star Borough and Juneau School Districts are all facing millions in budget shortfalls, and looking at cutting teachers and programs, increasing class sizes and potentially closing schools.

Dozens of Alaska students, parents, grandparents, teachers, nurses and superintendents from across the state called in and spoke in-person at the Capitol to the House Education Committee for two hours on Mar. 11, urging support for the legislation. There were no testifiers against the bill. 

Sixteen-year-old Claire Tallis testified in person on behalf of her hometown school in Tok, and as a current student at the state-run boarding school, Mt. Edgecumbe High School.

“My personal experience with the education system has been challenging. When I was attending Tok school, it was blatantly apparent that I would not gain the level of education I wanted. There were constant funding issues, inconsistent hiring of teachers and lowered expectations based on the background of students. This forced me to choose between the best of two bad options,” she said. 

Tallis said she ultimately chose to move 680 miles away from family to Sitka to attend Mt. Edgecumbe, which is also experiencing funding and management issues. She said the BSA needs to keep up with inflation.

“When the BSA stays frozen while the cost keeps rising, it feels like my generation is being asked to carry the burden. It feels like our future is being cut at the knees before we even had the chance to stand. Mt. Edgecumbe is my home away from home, and my last option for a fruitful education,” she said. “Please consider this when you make the decision whether or not to fund Alaskan futures.” 

Emily Brubaker, a ninth grader at West High School in Anchorage, testified that her district is facing a $90 million budget shortfall, which could mean deeper cuts to student programs and opportunities. 

“Countless extracurriculars in ASD, like sports and clubs, are getting completely cut, opportunities that the youth of today will never get to experience. On top of this, educational classes like art and music are being eliminated, as well as the educators who teach them,” Brubaker said. “School districts are doing all of this cutting. They are trying their best, and it isn’t enough.” 

Several students and parents spoke about how budget cuts and school closures result in unmanageable class sizes. 

“Right now, my school will lose four teachers,” said Audrey Brower, a fourth grader at W. L. Bowman Elementary School in Anchorage. “Which means classrooms will start at 40 to 45 students per class with combos of two to three grade levels. It’s not okay for me and my friends. We can’t even fit that many kids in one classroom.” 

Several testifiers expressed frustration — some to the point of tears — that school funding is up for debate in the Legislature each year, rather than considered a state mandate.

Fairbanks resident Sarah Lewis said she’s frustrated at watching agencies like the Alaska Department of Corrections overspend by millions, while the level of school funding is debated each year. 

“Schools are community hubs. They are evacuation points. They are a place where many kids can depend on breakfast and lunch, and they’re even hostels, whether for a single visitor in remote areas, or for several dozen students from everywhere in the state,” she said. 

“Our schools and the people who fill them are doing remarkable, important work that keeps Alaskan kids secure, sheltered, fed and informed. They’re the front lines in the system that keeps our kids safe,” she said. “But somehow we support them so poorly that buildings are literally crumbling around them and resources are few and far between.”

Superintendents called in from around the state to share their support for increased funding. They described continually having to make difficult cuts to staff and programs to offset increasing operational costs. 

Cyndy Mika, superintendent of the Kodiak Borough School District, said her district is considering how to make at least $1 million in budget reductions ahead of next year —  including potential cuts to counseling, nursing, special education and gifted support, instructional coaching and classroom aides.

“Last year, we closed an elementary school, and if our fiscal outlook does not improve, our community is already preparing for the possibility of closing another school in the 2027-2028 school year,” she said. “Stable and adequate funding through the BSA is essential.”

Lily Boron is superintendent of the Haines Borough School District, which serves an elementary, middle and high school, plus a homeschool program. She said the district could not afford a new bus contract this year, continues to struggle with hiring teachers and had to cut its library program. She said she worries about the district’s future solvency. 

“We’ve cut, we’ve consolidated, we’ve deferred maintenance, and at this point, there simply is no more breathing room without a BSA increase. Without adequate funding for student transportation, major maintenance and mandated programs like the Alaska Reads Act, our school will not be able to remain solvent,” she sai. 

Lon Garrison, executive director of the Association of Alaska School Boards, was one of several school officials who pointed out that last year’s increase was only $20 per student more than the one-time funding schools got the year prior. He said last year’s BSA increase did not fill the inflation gap, where the cost of goods and services is rising faster than state funding. 

Garrison said state investment in students is well worth it.

“Ultimately, those student opportunities translate directly into community opportunity and strong schools help communities, large and small, attract families, develop workforces and sustain healthy economies,” he said. 

The House Education Committee is now considering the bill. Members of the House majority caucus have discussed spending more on schools since the Alaska Department of Revenue is forecasting that the Iran war will prompt a surge in oil prices and state revenues, but that will be up for debate in the Legislature in the coming weeks and months.

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

A federal judge in Alaska has rejected a lawsuit that sought to reinstate a management plan that would allow heavier logging in the world’s largest temperate old-growth rainforest.

The result leaves an Obama-era management plan in place, but it could be short-lived: The administration of President Donald Trump is already at work on a new plan that could allow more logging in Alaska’s Tongass National Forest. 

In an order published Friday, Judge Sharon Gleason dismissed the lawsuit filed by Viking Lumber, Alcan Timber and the Alaska Forest Association. 

The three groups sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture — the parent organization of the U.S. Forest Service — last year, alleging in part that the federal Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 required the Forest Service to offer enough timber sales to meet market demand.

Gleason ruled otherwise, finding that TTRA does not impose “a mandatory duty” on the Forest Service to ensure that market demand is met by Tongass timber sales.

“Whether the harvest levels are designed to actually meet market demand is a discretionary agency action, not a mandatory requirement imposed by the TTRA on the Forest Service,” she wrote.

Gleason also declined to take up plaintiffs’ argument about whether the Forest Service violated the Administrative Procedures Act, and she ruled that a 2021 announcement about Tongass strategy did not amount to formal rulemaking under law. She did not analyze whether it would have met legal standards if it had been a formal rulemaking process.

Plaintiffs were represented by Pacific Legal Foundation, which on Friday said that the Forest Service’s approach has been devastating to plaintiffs.

Kyle Griesinger, a spokesperson for the foundation, said that even with a new management plan in the works, the case isn’t moot because the old plan remains in effect until superceded.

“And, moreover, the Forest Service has not lived up to the 2016 plan so any new plan they may not live up to is no guarantee for our clients,” he said.

Marlee Goska, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, agreed that last week’s ruling still has merit. 

Goska was one of several attorneys who represented tribal, tourism, fishing and environmental groups that intervened on the side of the Department of Agriculture. 

“I don’t think we have enough information yet to say the Forest Service is going to implement what the plaintiffs want. And certainly we’ll fight tooth and nail to stop that from happening,” she said of the upcoming plan change.

Goska added that last week’s ruling is important because it shows that the Forest Service does not have to meet market demand under existing law, and it shows that federal law doesn’t draw a distinction between old-growth harvests and new-growth ones.

“To the extent this administration and the Forest Service might be thinking about saying the TTRA mandates large old-growth timber sales to meet market demand, the court has already said that is incorrect,” she said.

Gleason published a final judgment on Friday. Plaintiffs have 30 days to file an appeal. 

SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

A regional airline is adding a temporary fuel surcharge to the cost of tickets in response to the war in the Middle East impacting jet fuel prices. 

Beginning Friday, Alaska Seaplanes and Island Air Express will add  a 6% surcharge added to customer fares, the company announced Monday in a media release. That surcharge will not apply to freight customers. 

Company spokesperson Andy Hedden said that, to his knowledge, the company hasn’t put this type of surcharge in place before. 

“The word ‘unprecedented’ keeps coming up,” he said. 

He said the company gets its jet fuel rates weekly, on Mondays, and during the first two weeks in March, those rates jumped 38%. 

“Just today it went up an additional 4 percent,” he said. “That’s over 40% for the first month of March.” 

Currently, a one way flight from Haines can be purchased online for $179, meaning the surcharge will add nearly $10.80 to the overall cost of the flight. 

Hedden said the company is not trying to make a profit off higher fuel prices, but wants to avoid taking a loss. 

Airlines outside of the U.S. have been raising prices for several days. 

Air New Zealand was among the first, announcing March 10 that its ticket prices would go up. Cathay Pacific Airways in Hong Kong announced an increase in fuel surcharges to go into place March 18. That airline cited a doubling of jet fuel prices since the beginning of the month. Scandinavian Airlines also put a temporary price increase into place March 10.

The post Citing war and fuel prices, Alaska Seaplanes announces a fuel surcharge appeared first on Chilkat Valley News.

An agreement that protected about a million acres of sensitive Arctic territory is back in effect, meaning that this week’s oil and gas lease sale in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska will likely be smaller than the Trump administration had planned.

U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason’s ruling, issued Monday, ensures that a Native coalition’s land agreement, known as the Nuiqsut Trilateral right of way, “shall remain in full force and effect,” at least temporarily.

The agreement is a conservation pact that gave Nuiqsut residents some control over oil development in about a million acres in the Teshekpuk Lake area. The Trump administration’s Department of the Interior canceled that right-of-way agreement in December, prompting a January lawsuit from the Nuiqsut parties.

As a result of Gleason’s ruling, the Trump administration’s National Petroleum Reserve lease sale likely cannot include acreage within the Nuiqsut right of way. That sale was originally planned to span 5.5 million acres, including most of the right-of-way territory. Bids are to be opened by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management on Wednesday.

Exactly how the BLM will change the lease sale or handle submitted bids was yet to be determined Monday afternoon. The Department of the Interior has not yet commented.

Gleason’s ruling granted an injunction sought by plaintiffs in one of two lawsuits that challenged the way the BLM is managing the National Petroleum Reserve and the upcoming lease sale conducted under that Trump administration management system.

The lawsuit over the right-of-way agreement was filed by Nuiqsut Trilateral Inc., comprising Nuiqsut’s city and tribal governments and Kuukpik Corp., the village’s for-profit Native corporation.

An Inupiat village of about 500, Nuiqsut is the community located closest to existing and planned development in the petroleum reserve.

The second lawsuit was filed by Grandmothers Growing Goodness and The Wilderness Society, and it challenged the entire Trump administration management plan for the petroleum reserve and the lease sale that was structured under that system. The Trump administration plan opened 82% of the reserve to oil leasing.

Plaintiffs in both the cases were in Gleason’s courtroom on Thursday arguing in separate hearings for injunctions that would bar previously protected acreage from being included in this week’s lease sale. The Nuiqsut plaintiffs argued specifically about the acreage within the right of way, while the Grandmothers Giving Goodness-Wilderness Society plaintiffs argued for blocking right-of-way acreage plus other acreage in the general area that had previously been off-limits to development.

In her Nuiqsut ruling, Gleason said the right-of-way agreement conveyed a property right that appears to have been violated by the Trump administration’s cancellation of the right-of-way agreement, so that is enough irreparable harm to justify a preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs do not need to demonstrate any irreparable harm from the sale of oil leases, she said.

That makes this case different from past cases in which environmental and Native plaintiffs claimed irreparable harm from leases yet to be sold and developed, Gleason said in her ruling.

“Here, by contrast, the injury is the loss of Plaintiff’s real property rights— a harm that Plaintiff has already experienced and continues to experience,” she said in her ruling.

Additionally, the Nuiqsut plaintiffs have presented compelling arguments that the Trump administration acted illegally when it abruptly canceled the right-of-way agreement, Gleason said. The Nuiqsuit plaintiffs raised “serious questions” about public notice, agency responsibilities and other issues, the judge said, suggesting that they have a chance of winning their full case on legal merits.

Gleason had not ruled as of Monday afternoon on the injunction sought in the second lawsuit.

As planned by the Trump administration, this week’s lease sale offered territory in and near Teshekpuk Lake that has never before been put up for auction, as well as some territory that had been protected since 2012. In all, the geographic size of this week’s lease sale is bigger than most of the National Petroleum Reserve sales held since 1999.

A government attorney referenced last year’s sweeping tax and budget bill passed by Congress in their defense of the Department of the Interior’s decision to cancel the right-of-way agreement and put up new territory for oil and gas leasing.

The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” overturned protections in the petroleum reserve and mandated a series of lease sales to be held under the Trump management plan, Justice Department attorney Paul Turcke told Gleason during the Nuiqsut hearing on Thursday.

The Nuiqsut right-of-way agreement was announced by the Biden administration in 2024. Originally conceived by Kuukpik, it was negotiated in exchange for support from Nuiqsut entities and leaders for the Willow project. The Biden administration approved Willow in 2023, although with protective stipulations that included provisions from which the Nuiqsut right-of-way agreement stemmed.

Teshekpuk Lake, the biggest lake on the North Slope, and the surrounding lands support a caribou herd that bears the lake’s name, as well as hundreds of thousands of birds that migrate from as far away as Antarctica, along with other Arctic wildlife.

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX