Category: Alaska News

Civics education would be included among graduation requirements for all Alaska high schoolers, under a bill passed by the Alaska Legislature in the final hours of the legislative session last week. 

The new requirement aims to bolster Alaska students’ knowledge and understanding of the U.S. government and civic responsibilities. It comes amid declining public trust in government, the bill’s sponsor, Senate President Gary Stevens, R-Kodiak, told the Alaska Beacon last month.

Students would have three options to choose from to complete the requirement: complete and pass a semester of civics curriculum, pass a civics exam or complete a civics project-based assessment.

Lawmakers passed Senate Bill 23 by a combined vote of 57 to 3. The bill now goes before Gov. Mike Dunleavy to sign, veto or allow it to pass into law without his signature. 

Under the proposal, school districts would be able to develop civics curriculums based on open-access, no cost resources provided by the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development across 14 areas of government and public affairs:

• the founding history of the United States, including foundational documents and the principles of government of the United States; federalism, including the role and operations of local, state and national governments;                                                                                             
• the institutions of the United States government, including the responsibilities of the executive, legislative and judicial branches;                                            
• the rights and responsibilities of United States citizenship;                                      
• civil liberties and civil rights;                                                                  
• the Constitution of the State of Alaska and the Constitution of the United States;                                                                                                    
• political parties and interest groups;                                                             
• campaigns and elections;                                                                           
• the United States Congress;                                                                        
• domestic policy;                                                                                  
• foreign policy;                                                                                  
• comparative systems of governments used globally and by Alaska Native people;                                                                                                          
• international relations; and                                                                      
• major issues facing local, state and the United States governments.

The initiative comes at a time when the United States is seeing a growing public distrust in government and deepening political polarization. A survey last year by the non-partisan Pew Research Center found public distrust is at one of its lowest points in the nation’s history, with just 17% of respondents saying they trust the federal government to “do what is right.” 

Stevens declined to comment on the bill passing the Legislature when asked at the Capitol on Wednesday. He said he would wait to comment after the governor’s decision on the bill. Lawmakers have passed 114 bills in this two-year legislative term. But Dunleavy has vetoed 12 bills so far and will consider dozens more in the next few weeks. 

Lawmakers are in a high-stakes 30-day special session called by Dunleavy to discuss potential state property tax relief for  the proposed Alaska LNG gas line project. The special session is expected to go to June 21.

SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Let’s take a moment to recognize something that quietly makes a major difference in the lives of Alaska’s children and families — Medicaid. For thousands of Alaska families, Medicaid isn’t just a program. It is a cornerstone that ensures access to the care, support and resources needed to thrive. It means that when a baby is born, care is available. It means that when a child gets sick, they can see a doctor. It means families, no matter where they live in Alaska, aren’t one medical emergency away from crisis.

In Alaska, Medicaid is a foundational part of how we care for children and families. Roughly one in three children in Alaska rely on Denali KidCare for their health care coverage, and about 40 percent of births in our state are covered by Medicaid. Children make up the largest group of Medicaid enrollees in Alaska — representing 41 percent of all covered individuals — and Medicaid and its children’s health insurance program, Denali KidCare, covers preventive checkups, immunizations, behavioral health care, developmental screenings and treatment when kids are sick or injured. That percentage is even higher in rural communities. Without Medicaid, access to prenatal care, pediatric visits and basic health services becomes not just difficult, but impossible.

That’s why the recent trend in enrollment is so alarming. Between January and November 2025, overall Medicaid enrollment in Alaska dropped by nearly 30,000 individuals. Children’s coverage fell by 10 percent. Most of these children didn’t lose coverage because they became ineligible. They lost it because of paperwork. Renewal packets didn’t reach families and verification requests went unanswered — under current rules, that’s enough to end a child’s coverage. 

When Medicaid works well, it ensures that babies are born healthy, children receive early care and families can access the support they need without falling into crisis. It also helps sustain the clinics and hospitals that communities rely on. These are the building blocks of strong, resilient communities and the foundation on which thriving families are built.

It’s also important to recognize the challenges families and providers are facing. Across Alaska, many are navigating a system that is becoming harder to access. Increased paperwork, additional administrative steps and shifting eligibility requirements may seem like small changes, but for families already balancing work, childcare and transportation challenges, they can be the difference between getting care and going without it.

When access becomes more complicated, children are often the first to feel the impact. We see it when families delay care. We see it when providers reduce services. We see it when parents are forced to make impossible trade-offs. When coverage lapses, children are more likely to miss preventive care and immunizations, go without mental health support and have chronic conditions that go unmanaged. Those gaps don’t just affect health — they surface later as more school absences, behavioral challenges and higher costs across health, education and social services.

At Alaska Children’s Trust, our focus has always been simple: Prevent harm before it happens and ensure every child has the opportunity to thrive. That means investing in the conditions that keep families stable in the first place. Health care access is one of those conditions. It is not just a line item in a budget. It is part of the broader ecosystem that supports safe homes, strong families, and healthy childhoods. 

Alaska can and must do better. That means partnering with schools, clinics, food banks and child care providers to help families re-enroll. It means raising income eligibility limits for kids, expanding Medicaid services available through schools and allowing children to be enrolled immediately while eligibility is verified. It means giving caregivers flexibility so that administrative requirements don’t become another barrier standing between a child and their health care. It means raising awareness of a program that supports the health of 41% of Alaska’s children.

We encourage Alaskans to take a moment to learn how Medicaid supports families in our own communities, to listen to the experiences of parents and providers and to stay engaged in conversations about how we can keep Alaska’s children healthy and supported.

Take the opportunity to stay grounded in what matters most: keeping kids healthy, supporting families and ensuring that where you live in Alaska doesn’t determine whether you can access care. When Alaska’s children are healthy, our communities are stronger for it.

SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

As major oil companies eye new drilling on Alaska’s North Slope, the Trump administration is now working to accelerate their projects by streamlining environmental reviews on federal land.

It’s a move that could boost production amid what leaders describe as a “renaissance” of North Slope oil. But opponents call it an alarming escalation of the administration’s push to open new areas of Alaska to oil and gas development.

The new proposal was announced May 15 by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum on a visit to Alaska.

It would change how regulators review and approve new oil projects in the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska, a federally managed area that’s roughly the size of the state of Indiana and encompasses tundra, wetlands and expansive caribou and bird habitat.

Historically, federal land managers have required companies to go through lengthy environmental reviews each time they propose a new project. The Trump administration now aims to create a blanket environmental approval to expedite projects.

The proposal comes at a time when the Trump administration is under pressure from spiking fuel prices and looking for ways to boost U.S. energy production.

But it’s drawing sharp criticism from environmental advocates who fear that it would fast-track projects without adequate assessments of their impacts, imperiling Arctic ecosystems home to caribou, migratory birds and other wildlife.

“It’s pretty extreme,” said Erik Grafe, a longtime Anchorage-based lawyer with Earthjustice, a national environmental law firm that regularly sues to block Arctic oil development.

Another attorney who’s fought new development on the North Slope, Suzanne Bostrom with the firm Trustees for Alaska, said in a prepared statement that the proposal appears to set up a new system where projects could be “rubber stamped.”

“The Arctic isn’t meant for cookie cutter exploitation,” she added. “These are treasured public lands that people depend on and that should be given the highest level of care and protection — the complete opposite of what’s proposed.”

The proposed change comes as the North Slope’s oil industry is picking up steam.

The state’s biggest new oil field in years — located on state and Alaska Native corporation land to the east of the federal petroleum reserve — just started commercial production. Another major project, ConocoPhillips’ Willow development, is set to come online in a few years.

And the industry is poised to expand west: Several of the world’s largest oil corporations, including ConocoPhillips, Shell and ExxonMobil, bid on new territory in the federal reserve in a huge lease sale earlier this year.

Oil fields currently occupy only the reserve’s northeastern corner. But experts say billions of barrels of oil remain in the ground, potentially in areas far from existing infrastructure.

The Trump administration’s permitting proposal came in response to a petition by the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, a trade group known as AOGA. The group, whose members include the major companies operating in Alaska, submitted the request a few days before Burgum’s announcement.

“It’s about building a more stable, durable and predictable permitting framework,” said Steve Wackowski, AOGA’s president.

A decades-old law, the National Environmental Policy Act, requires federal regulators to assess the environmental impacts of large development proposals before taking action on them.

Currently, any oil project proposed on Alaska’s federal lands must undergo its own distinct environmental review.

Industry leaders have long argued that the process is too slow and repetitive — since oil projects often have similar designs and potential impacts. They say streamlining reviews could accelerate oil extraction and job creation without sacrificing environmental protections.

Under the new regulation, federal land managers would have two months to approve any proposed development in the petroleum reserve that meets specific standards.

AOGA’s petition lists more than 50 possible conditions, including consultation with local and regional Indigenous communities and accounting for wildlife habitat when designing infrastructure.

Opponents argue that a blanket analysis wouldn’t be able to account for the particulars of any one project and minimize impacts accordingly.

Wackowski disputed the idea that the proposal would amount to “rubber stamping.”

The impacts of development in the reserve have already been studied in an array of environmental assessments over the past 30 years, he said.

AOGA’s petition, he added, is the first step in a public process that “would evaluate what types of activities could appropriately fit within any streamlined framework and under what conditions.”

The regulatory change would apply only to projects in the petroleum reserve and to one federal agency, the Bureau of Land Management. Projects would still be subject to additional permitting requirements from other agencies like the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which reviews permit applications under the federal Clean Water Act.

The proposal is still in a preliminary review period and could change as the Trump administration studies it. Public comments are due by July 6.

The proposed trans-Alaska natural gas line faces a narrow road to profitability, even with Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s proposed multibillion-dollar tax break, according to estimates presented to state legislators.

The more the pipeline costs, the more its builders will need to charge for gas shipped through it in order to make money. But if the cost of Alaska gas is too high, it isn’t competitive with gas from other sources around the world. 

On Tuesday, members of the House Finance Committee met for the second time in a 30-day special session devoted to discussing the tax break.

Nick Fulford of GaffneyCline, the Legislature’s hired analyst for the pipeline project, said previously published financial modeling by the Alaska Department of Revenue remains the best public look at whether the project pencils out financially.

“The main question really is: How much bigger and how much more capital cost can the project support before it becomes uneconomic,” he said. 

In 2018, officials with the Alaska Gasline Development Corp. suggested that building a pipeline from the North Slope to Cook Inlet — plus large industrial processing plants on either end — would cost roughly $43.4 billion, including money earmarked for possible cost overruns.

Since then, the official cost has risen only slightly, to $46.2 billion, but many state lawmakers have said they are skeptical of that figure, because it does not seem to account for inflation.

Glenfarne, a multinational corporation that now owns 75% of the pipeline project, has not disclosed an updated figure.

Rep. Alyse Galvin, I-Anchorage, said that when she uses the Consumer Price Index to judge how much the cost has grown, it’s significant.

“When I look at cost adjustment, just using CPI, just a straight cut through, that brings us to $57 (billion) to $60 billion,” she said during Tuesday’s hearing.

“I would say it seems highly likely that it would be more than $46 billion given the general inflation that we’ve seen,” Fulford said.

Publicly available estimates suggest gas could be bought from North Slope producers between $1 and $2 per thousand cubic feet. That’s what’s technically known as the “upstream price.”

In a scenario where the pipeline costs Galvin’s suggested figure, the state’s tax laws don’t change to help the project and the upstream price is $1.50 per thousand cubic feet of gas, the Department of Revenue estimates that an end buyer in Japan could expect to pay more than $11 per thousand cubic feet.

That’s likely a problem for the pipeline project, because according to GaffneyCline’s estimates, the average contract price in Japan over the past 10 years has been $10.41 per thousand cubic feet — less than what the Alaska project would have to charge to earn its expected profit target.

Under a tax change proposed by the governor, the end buyer’s price would drop to about $10.40, using Galvin’s cost estimate and the $1.50 upstream price.

But if the cost of upstream gas rises, or if the cost of the pipeline rises, even the governor’s proposed tax break isn’t enough to keep the project economically competitive.

Fulford, speaking to the House Finance Committee, said he thinks Asian LNG prices will rise in the coming years, possibly offsetting any rising costs and keeping the project viable.

But he also acknowledged that with so many unknowns, it’s not clear where the project becomes uneconomic.

“The question is … if the price of LNG goes up and if the capital cost goes up, then where’s that sort of tipping point where the project can still go ahead, even if it’s a much higher capital cost?” he said.

Under Dunleavy’s proposal, the state’s existing petroleum property tax would be largely replaced by a tax on gas that moves through the pipeline. 

Speaking last week in Anchorage, Glenfarne CEO Brendan Duval said the governor’s proposed change is necessary for Glenfarne to get financing for the project.

“It won’t be financeable in the form that we’re trying to do it without the tax stabilization law,” he told the Anchorage Daily News.

Legislators appear favorable to the general idea, but they don’t know what tax rate to use for the “alternative volumetric tax,” as it is formally known.

Dunleavy has proposed 6 cents per thousand cubic feet of gas. House and Senate lawmakers are each considering different, higher rates.

They’re also considering mandatory impact payments to compensate cities and boroughs that collectively would lose out on $14 billion in property taxes through 2063 if the governor’s plan is adopted. A mandatory natural gas spur line to Fairbanks is also being discussed. As currently planned, the pipeline runs to the west of Fairbanks.

Rep. Calvin Schrage, speaking Tuesday, said legislators are working with a large amount of uncertainty, and that is slowing their work.

“If we could eliminate some of these variables and have it known, it would really help us in figuring out where this might be going, but we don’t have that right now,” he said. “What this is ultimately showing is that under our current tax structure, there’s a very small window of break-even profitability for a developer.”

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX.

Alaska’s largest planned solar farm, expected to break ground west of Anchorage this summer, is likely to deliver cheaper electricity than possible with imported natural gas, according to information the state’s largest electric utility shared with state lawmakers this month.

In a May 14 hearing of the Alaska House Labor and Commerce Committee, Chugach Electric government affairs manager Trish Baker said power from the project should cost about the same as power produced from natural gas at current prices.

“We have not brought that project before the (Regulatory Commission of Alaska) yet, but that’s our estimate,” she said.

Because gas prices are expected to rise in coming years amid a growing shortage in Cook Inlet, the solar project is poised to become cheaper than power generated by imported natural gas.

That’s only for the months when solar is an option. In the winter, during peak demand for heating and home electricity use, solar produces minimal energy in much of Alaska.

Solar energy costs are declining rapidly, and in parts of rural Alaska it is cheaper to operate both solar and diesel power plants than diesel plants alone, despite the cost of operating solar only seasonally. Red Dog Mine, near Kotzebue, is planning a large solar farm. 

Natural gas power is cheaper than diesel power, but the economics are driving in the same direction, said Rep. Zack Fields, D-Anchorage, during the May 14 hearing.

“The previous Cook Inlet prices, gas was cheaper. With price escalation, the lines cross and some of these small renewable projects are cheaper. That seems to be the economic environment that we’re in,” he said.

Julie Hasquet, manager of corporate communications with Chugach, said solar power costs “are expected to be comparable to thermal generation costs, resulting in essentially no meaningful impact to electric rates over the life of the project,” she said. A key benefit of the solar project is that it supports diversification in generation which reduces long-term risk and reliance on natural gas.”

She added that she doesn’t see a scenario where Chugach “could rely on all renewables for summer months without some new, major hydro coming online.”

Chugach has begun preliminary planning for four smaller hydropower projects in Southcentral Alaska. 

Fields had proposed exempting two of those hydropower projects and the solar project from regulatory commission approval. The RCA has authority over most electricity rates in Alaska.

Other legislators opposed Fields’ proposal, which did not advance.

“I guess I haven’t seen that renewables really bring the cost of anything down,” said Rep. Julie Coulombe, R-Anchorage. “They’re very subsidized,” she said.

Chugach plans to start construction on the Beluga solar project before July 4 in order to stay eligible for federal tax credits that would reduce the overall cost of the project.

SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Monday welcomed in the first real summer weather of the year, and the first real summer crowds: more than 2,000 passengers off Cunard Cruise Line’s Queen Elizabeth. 

Currently, there are just a handful of those high-volume, 2000-plus passenger days each year in the Chilkat Valley. That could change, as the community draws nearer to a decision on a deal to lease the municipal cruise dock to an outside port-management company. According to preliminary talks, the company, Global Ports Holding, would attempt to quadruple the valley’s annual cruise-passenger visitation. 

There appears to be no simple answer, yet, on whether locals want such an increase, with plenty of voices on each side. 

But what do cruise passengers think?

Chilkat Valley News reporters Will Steinfeld and Lizzy Hahn spoke to Queen Elizabeth passengers Monday, some on shore excursions, some exploring town on their own. They asked how the stop in the Chilkat Valley compared to other Southeast ports, and what visitor’s thought about Haines’ attractions.

Here’s what they said:

Michele Johnson, Barbara Murphy and Fred Murphy

Johnson, a Chicagoan, and the Murphys, Texans but near year-round RV travelers, had just returned from a bus trip to the Haines Highway summit. 

When the prospect of increased cruise numbers came up, Johnson immediately interrupted: “Oh no. Absolutely not.” 

“This is Alaska,” she said. “I have no interest in going to the places that are touristy. I would go to ten of these places in the place of one Disneyland. I want to see how people live in Alaska, to talk to people, ask how they survive the winter.” 

The Queen Elizabeth, which left out of Seattle, had just stopped in Ketchikan, and Johnson drew a sharp distinction between Haines and Southeast’s southern port. 

“In Ketchikan, I didn’t even care if I got off the ship, I can buy things anywhere,” Johnson said. “I think you guys should preserve the resources you have — the scenery and the sense of community.”

“Start a GoFundMe instead,” she added, after acknowledging the potential economic boost of increased tourism. “I’d donate monthly to that.”

The Murphys, in agreement with Johnson, highlighted the sense of community their friend spoke about. 

Talking about their day trip out to the pass, they brought up a specific moment from their guide:

“When our tour guide heard we were going on the shuttle, she said, ‘say hello to my friend Jack driving the shuttle, go into this place and tell my friend so-and-so hello,’” Barbara Murphy said. “It’s very cool that it works that way. You really get a feel for the town, how friendly people are.” 

“When I opened my window and looked out this morning, I thought, oh my, I’m in Alaska,” she added. “It’s my understanding that Skagway sees something like 12,000 people in at one time. I no longer have an interest in going to Skagway now that I’ve heard that.”

Said Fred Murphy, “Ketchikan is just excursion after excursion. I can see that anywhere in the country. This stays plain. This is what we want.” 

Gang Hou, Jemmy Lo and Dinna Lo

Gang Hou, Jemmy Lo, and Dinna Lo were eating lunch at a picnic bench by Fort Seward. They had split off from their larger group of friends after their scheduled tour to Chilkoot Lake failed to arrive. 

They were less focused on the local details than Johnson and the Murphys had been. In fact, Hou and the Los weren’t entirely sure the name of the town they were eating lunch in. 

The way it worked, they said, was as the ship approached port, ship staff handed out a Haines brochure and briefed passengers on the stop. 

“They compared the different cities, saying, ‘maybe it’s not as modern as Skagway, but it’s more peaceful,’” Dinna Lo said. 

When the Chilkoot excursion fell through they had opted for a walk around downtown. 

“Downtown is very boring, to be honest with you,” Lo added. “If there were some more activities, or more transportation to go to Chilkoot Lake, it would be better.”

Gang Hou had a slightly different perspective. The friends were coming from Houston, where they had lived for decades after immigrating from Taiwan, and Hou said he was glad to have something different. 

“We come from Houston,” Hou said. “That’s a modern city. We don’t need to make everything like a Houston. If I wanted that I would have stayed in Houston. So I like this. It’s different.”

Like the previous group, the Los and Hou were also very interested in how locals survived winter. 

Kristin and Rich Snoddy

The Queen Elizabeth, the Snoddys said, was the first cruise they had been on where shore excursions could be scheduled ahead of time, before the cruise even started. 

By the time they got around to looking at Haines excursions, they were all sold out. Instead, the Snoddys, from the Detroit area, spent the morning walking around town, impressed by skunk cabbage in a ditch by Mountain Market. 

“For me, your scenery here is killing it,” Kristin Snoddy said. “I’m not here to shop, although I’ve bought some interesting things today. Just being able to walk around and (look at the scenery) is enough for me.” 

Gill and Paul Anderson

The Andersons, from Southern England, rented e-bikes from Sockeye Cycle and had made it out to Chilkoot by mid-afternoon. That was their second activity of the day, after a morning on a whale-watching excursion. 

“We saw eagles, whales, dolphins — our minds were blown,” Paul Anderson said. 

Unlike the passengers in town, they saw less of a difference between Haines and Ketchikan — the ship’s other port call outside of a trip through Glacier Bay. 

“I feel like Ketchikan offered similar sorts of things,” Gill Anderson said. “Walking tours, learning about the history. We were supposed to do the Klondike in Skagway but it got cancelled late last night. But we managed to get on the whale watching this morning so it worked out for the best.”

Christina Mitchell and Jennifer Allen

Mitchell and Allen were in a similar boat, though actually, technically, a different boat. The two, from Arizona and Washington, were on a Norwegian Cruise Lines ship docked in Skagway, and had taken the fast ferry Monday morning down the canal. 

But like the Andersons, they said they were glad they opted for Chilkoot kayaking rather than Skagway attractions.

“It’s smaller crowds here, it’s a different feel,” Mitchell said. “More laid back.”

“I think Haines has a good number of options,” she added. “It’s different than what you’d see at other ports. It’s nicer because it’s smaller and fewer people.”

The post Cruise passengers weigh-in on Haines, tourist attractions appeared first on Chilkat Valley News.

Legislators are being held after school this month and the state is paying for the extra time because the governor did not do his homework.

If that seems backward, you’re right.

Gov. Mike Dunleavy ordered lawmakers to stay late after the regular legislative session ended because he insists that they approve major big-time relief from property taxes for the owners of the proposed, possible, maybe someday Alaska North Slope natural gas pipeline and export project.

The governor believes the multi-multibillion-dollar project will go ahead if the state House and Senate approve a tax relief package during a special legislative session. That’s all it needs, he keeps telling Alaskans. Cut the property taxes and all the parts will fit together and construction can start.

He talks as if building and paying for the most expensive oil or gas project ever in the history of North America is as simple as snapping together an Erector Set, Lincoln Logs or Lego model.

Dunleavy’s instructions booklet includes his salesman’s vision of the finished project, telling Alaska’s population center around Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough that residents and businesses will enjoy affordable natural gas for heat and electricity for decades to come.

If it were that easy, the pipeline would have been built a long time ago. There is a lot more to do than just writing off most of the property taxes — such as developing realistic construction cost estimates and schedules, contracting customers to buy the gas and obtaining committed pledges of investment and financing totaling tens of billions of dollars.

It’s hard to see how a couple billion dollars that the governor believes is all the project can afford to pay in lieu of property taxes over 30 years can make or break a venture that could take in $300 billion in gross revenues over that same period.

Getting the gas project would be good for Alaska’s economy, no question about it, but getting there takes homework. And that’s where the governor skipped class.

It’s not like the project came as a surprise to anyone who completed the assigned reading. The state has been looking at what it could do to make the pipeline happen for a long time, most recently during Dunleavy’s six years as a state senator and all eight years of his two terms in the governor’s office.

What changed last year was that a private developer named Glenfarne Group, out of New York City, stepped up to take over management and 75% ownership of the venture from the state agency that had been unsuccessful in its efforts the past decade.

And what changed over the winter was talk of needing to escape the cost of full property taxes on the project.

But what didn’t change was the governor’s laid-back approach to work. He waited until the legislative session was half over before he introduced the tax relief bill he had promised months earlier. And even when he did turn in his work, it was inadequate on facts, numbers, analysis and disclosure.

It was the kind of homework that a teacher would mark “incomplete.” Which is what the Legislature did. 

Now the governor wants lawmakers to work overtime to finish his assignment. And he figures to blame legislators if the gas project does not go ahead.

Dunleavy would have a better chance at passing the class — or passing a bill — if he would just admit he slept through the lecture on gas pipeline economics and accept the blame for a late and incomplete paper.