Category: Alaska News

The Alaska House of Representatives on Monday rejected a bill passed by the Senate that would have applied state corporate income taxes to privately owned oil and gas companies that currently do not pay them. Supporters said the bill would have generated up to $100 million in new revenue for Alaska.

The proposal would have required companies licensed as S corporations or as limited liability companies to pay state corporate income taxes for profits earned in the state, which they currently do not pay. The largest company affected would have been Hilcorp, a privately run Texas-based company that operates the Prudhoe Bay oil fields as well as most of the oil and gas operations in Cook Inlet.

The state does not levy a tax on income earned by S corporations and LLCs because their profits go to owners or shareholders. In many states, those people would pay personal income tax on the money, but Alaska does not have a personal income tax, so such companies avoid taxation on profits. Traditional corporations, or C corporations, are publicly traded and already subject to existing state tax law. 

Four members of the multipartisan House majority caucus objected to the proposal, and split to join the all-Republican minority members to reject the Senate’s version of House Bill 194 by a 23 to 17 vote.

House Majority Leader Rep. Chuck Kopp, R-Anchorage, was among those to oppose the bill.

“This policy creates uncertainty at the exact moment Alaska needs more energy development,” Kopp said on Monday on the House floor. “These are the people that are actually keeping our energy crisis at bay right now.”

Kopp argued the change would potentially hamper new oil and gas development. “It’s been a cold winter in Southcentral and along the Railbelt, and this is at the same time we’re asking these folks to drill more, to produce and store more gas, to explore more and to sign long term gas contracts. So it seems shortsighted to hamstring gas producers when we need them to invest a lot more right now, just to keep our schools warm, our homes heated and our businesses going,” he said.

Anchorage Independent Rep. Alyse Galvin, and Democratic Reps. Carolyn Hall of Anchorage and Robyn Frier of Utqiagvik also joined the minority caucus to oppose the bill on Monday.

Anchorage Democrat Sen. Forrest Dunbar sponsored the amendment to levy the corporate tax on privately owned oil and gas companies on a bill that would have been a routine renewal of a state oil royalty lease agreement, which passed the Senate last month. 

Dunbar criticized the House decision in a Wednesday interview, saying it was a missed opportunity to bring in revenues for Alaska.

“They took potentially $100 million or more and rather than put it towards schools or the state of Alaska, they hand it to a billionaire in Texas. I think that was a mistake,” Dunbar said. “This is some of the lowest of low hanging fruit.” 

“So I’m very disappointed in their actions,” he added. “And frankly, I’m surprised that some of the members of my party voted the way they did.”

On Monday, Big Lake Republican Rep. Kevin McCabe argued against the bill saying a tax focused on specific corporations that could result in lawsuits against the state. “I would suspect that this will lead directly to the courts,” he said. “This is just plain wrong. We shouldn’t be doing this.”

Galvin, a member of the multipartisan majority caucus, said she opposed that the measure was added to the underlying bill, but said she sees the need for more revenue. “I do think that it’s confusing when we add one bill to another, and haven’t properly vetted (it),” she said.

Galvin said she has proposed legislation, House Bill 152, which would include the corporate income tax provision, as well as a 4% state income tax on individuals earning more than $150,000 and an annual $150 tax per Alaskan to help pay for state services like education. It’s now being considered by the House Finance Committee.

“In a bill that I’m working on, I’m certainly careful to not call out one company,” she said. “But we do need to look at fairness also in all of our taxation. And I think that there is a place for us to address this.”

Galvin also requested to be excused from the vote citing a conflict of interest, but there was an objection on the House floor and she was required to vote. She told the Anchorage Daily News her husband works for Great Bear Pantheon, an Alaska subsidiary of Pantheon Resources, a Texas-based oil and gas exploration company. 

Several members argued in support of strengthening corporate income taxes to provide much-needed revenues for Alaska.

Rep. Ky Holland, I-Anchorage, supported the provision saying it was a defining moment for the Legislature to take action to address what he called the “Alaska disconnect” — being a resource rich state without capturing the economic value and benefits for residents.  

“I believe this is a defining question for many of us, who I think, recognize that our state has moved past looking for the fiscal cliff and is now out beyond it,” he said. “And it’s now time for us to decide, are we willing to take some difficult votes and take some difficult action?”

Holland said failing to change the tax code could create a scenario where other businesses incorporate as S corporations or LLCs to avoid corporate income taxes. “This bill offers a way to address a point of fairness in the taxation that we have,” he said.

The amended bill now returns to the Senate, which can remove or change the provision. Those acts could result in a conference committee made up of representatives from both chambers to reach agreement on the bill.

The original legislation was introduced by the governor and passed the Alaska House last year. It would renew a three-year oil royalty agreement between the state and Marathon Petroleum Corporation, for state owned oil to be processed at its refinery in Nikiski, on the Kenai Peninsula, valued at between $4 million and $18 million in state revenue. 

Several lawmakers in the House, including Kopp, said the company was no longer interested in the state contract, voiding the need for the legislation. A spokesperson for Marathon declined to comment on Wednesday, saying the company does not comment on its crude oil sourcing. 

SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

The war in Iran is risking what could be a catastrophic spike in the price of fuel in the rural villages and hub communities across Alaska’s coast — and distributors are also warning of possible supply shortages.

Even before the war, fuel prices in the state’s off-road system communities were eye-wateringly high: Unleaded gas was $6.72 a gallon this winter in the Western Alaska hub town of Bethel, while in the Northwest Alaska village of Ambler, the price of gas and heating fuel has been $17.50 a gallon for the past year, according to local officials.

Vendors that sell bulk fuel to those regions are now warning that prices could rise 50% due to the war-driven supply crunch, according to Ingemar Mathiasson, energy manager for the Northwest Arctic Borough, which held a meeting attended by fuel company representatives last week in the regional hub town of Kotzebue.

Rural communities can receive as little as a single bulk fuel delivery during a shipping season that runs only through the summer — meaning that rates can be locked in at that price for the whole next year, even if global commodity prices fall. Government and Native corporation subsidies can help offset costs, but prices are still high and about to get higher.

“We’re looking at, maybe, a survival scenario for rural Alaska,” Mathiasson said in a phone interview Monday. “At those prices, I would imagine that people are going to try to move into Anchorage. I don’t know if you can heat your house at over $20 a gallon.”

Policymakers say they’re tracking the problem but haven’t announced concrete steps to protect consumers.

“This is one of the things that is top of my list right now, this week, here in Washington — to raise this within the administration to try to get in front of it,” said U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski. “It has to be a full-on effort to make sure that these communities are not left high and dry.”

The energy shock from the Iran war is landing worldwide, as Iran’s effective shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz keeps some 20% of global oil production out of the markets.

The effects have landed particularly hard in Asia, the destination of 80% of the oil that typically transits the Strait. And Asian refineries produce much of the supply for the more than 160 Western Alaska communities that receive maritime fuel deliveries during the May through October season, according to the Alaska Chadux̂ Network, a tanker and fuel distribution industry trade group.

Buying fuel from other sources “may be possible,” but likely at “significantly elevated prices,” the network’s chief executive, Buddy Custard, wrote in a recent letter received by Alaska policymakers.

“Despite best efforts, a supply gap remains a credible risk,” Custard wrote in his letter, dated March 31. “An undefined portion of the estimated 140 million gallons of fuel may be at risk of non-delivery, affecting dozens of communities, regional hubs, and critical infrastructure that serve as lifelines for surrounding villages.”

Custard said he was unavailable for an interview, but he shared additional correspondence with a state House member’s office from last week in which he said it’s difficult to “confirm specific outcomes or timelines” given the “highly dynamic and unpredictable” situation in the Middle East.

“It is not that alternative sources are entirely unavailable, but rather that they are constrained by a combination of limited refining capacity for the required fuel types, existing contractual commitments, and significantly higher costs,” Custard wrote. “In short, limited supply may be available, but not necessarily in the volumes, timeframe, or at the price points required to support Western Alaska communities.”

The uncertain outlook poses a dilemma for leaders at rural institutions that purchase fuel, including village governments and utilities, who are questioning whether to commit to fuel purchases now, later, in full, or in multiple orders to spread out the cost.

“I don’t know what to tell members who say, ‘Should I wait?’ I don’t know what to tell members who say, ‘I can do this much now, this much later,’” said Nils Andreassen, executive director of the nonprofit Alaska Municipal League, which supports local governments. “I don’t know how to keep ahead of it. And the current global uncertainty is not giving me a lot of confidence.”

Fuel vendors — which for Western Alaska include Vitus, Crowley and Delta Western — are urging customers to not delay placing their orders in hopes that prices will improve, according to a written summary of their comments from last week’s meeting in Kotzebue.

“We’re really getting squeezed on all this,” Tom Atkinson, the general manager of Kotzebue’s electric utility, said in a phone interview. “Nobody wants to lock in at this high price.”

Atkinson said that his utility’s diesel fuel supply for the past year cost $3.10 a gallon. This year’s delivery of a million gallons, he said, could come in at more than $6 a gallon.

In prior years, fuel companies have sometimes loaded their tankers with more supply than communities have ordered, expecting to sell the excess once the cargo arrives in Alaska. But this year, vendors say the price is too high for them to buy and transport fuel that risks going unsold.

A cold winter has also produced more sea ice than usual, which could shorten the delivery season. If communities miss the tanker delivery window, those that end up with shortages may have to turn to deliveries by plane, at even higher prices.

“We end up with situations where if the communities don’t fill their tanks, we don’t have enough airplanes in Alaska to help,” said Mathiasson, the Northwest Arctic Borough energy manager. “You just can’t wait until the last minute.”

Energy shocks have hit Alaska before, notably in a major price spike in 2008. That year, lawmakers used a huge windfall in taxes paid by Alaska’s oil-producing companies to help fund a “resource rebate” added to the annual checks written by state government to residents. The total paid to each recipient that year was $3,269, double the amount of the previous year.

This year, given the state’s tighter budget, advocates are pushing for measures that more narrowly target the communities in need. One concept supported by the municipal league is boosting the $750,000 cap on a state program that offers loans to local governments and utilities when they make their bulk fuel purchases.

“I’m not done turning over every stone and seeing what we can do,” House Speaker Bryce Edgmon, who represents a rural legislative district centered in the Bristol Bay region, said in a phone interview from Juneau. “If this war continues, there’s no question it’s going to be catastrophic.”

Edgmon noted that rural Alaska communities already were seeing higher costs for groceries and goods delivered through a federal program called bypass mail, which had a 9% rate increase last year.

A spokesperson for Gov. Mike Dunleavy declined to comment on the outlook for rural Alaska fuel prices and policies under consideration to address them.

In a worst-case scenario of a $5-a-gallon increase, the overall hit to rural Alaska from the war-driven fuel price spike could reach hundreds of millions of dollars, according to one economist’s estimate.

Each rural Alaskan, on average, requires some 1,200 gallons of fuel a year to meet their demand for heat, transportation and electricity, according to economist Steve Colt, who works with the Alaska Center for Energy and Power. By Colt’s calculation, the added expense could reach $6,000 per person and $450 million across the state’s rural communities.

Even before the spike, electricity and heating fuel can cost households in one region of Western Alaska, the Kusilvak Census Area, some 45% of their income, according to data collected by the energy center’s founding director, Gwen Holdmann. That area already faces a poverty rate of more than 30%, triple the statewide level.

“It’s definitely a serious issue that we’re raising up to the highest level,” Mathiasson said.

Nathaniel Herz welcomes tips at natherz@gmail.com or (907) 793-0312. This article was originally published in Northern Journal, a newsletter from Herz. Subscribe at this link.

The Alaska Legislature will hold a public hearing Thursday afternoon on election-related ballot initiatives. The Division of Elections certified three ballot initiatives that will be on Alaskan’s ballots in November. 

State law requires the legislature to hold at least two public hearings on each certified ballot measure.

The sponsors of all three ballot measures and a group supporting Alaska’s current voting system are scheduled to testify.

The hearing will begin at 3:30 p.m. Thursday. The hearing will be streamed online at akl.tv and ktoo.org/gavel/.

The first ballot measure, 23RCF2, seeks to increase limits on campaign contributions to campaigns for state and local offices. 

If passed, individuals would be able to donate $2,000 to candidates and $5,000 to political parties. Groups that are not political parties could give $4,000 to candidates and $5,000 to another group or political party. Individuals could also give $4,000 to joint campaigns for governor and lieutenant governor, and groups could give $8,000. Campaign contribution limits would increase with inflation every 10 years starting in 2031. 

This ballot measure was sponsored by former Alaska attorney general and former Juneau Mayor Bruce Botelho, Trail Breaker Kennel owner David Monson and Representative Calvin Schrage, I-Anchorage.

The second ballot measure, 24ESEG, primarily aims to repeal the state’s open top four primary election system and ranked-choice general election system. It would bring back political party primaries and single-choice general elections. The ballot measure seeks to reverse the changes to Alaska’s election system made by Ballot Measure 2, which narrowly passed in 2020.

The ballot initiative also seeks to make changes to the poll watcher statute, reinstate requirements for certain appointees to the Alaska Public Offices Commission, repeal campaign contribution rules that were passed in 2020, remove the requirement for the paid-for-by disclaimers in communications, remove disclosure requirements relating to dark money, remove fines for certain disclosure violations and bring back party petitions and special runoff elections.

This ballot measure was sponsored by former Anchorage Republican Representative Ken McCarty, former Anchorage Public Library deputy director Judy Eledge and Republican gubernatorial candidate Bernadette Wilson.

A group supporting Alaska’s current voting system, Protect Alaska’s Elections, is scheduled to voice its opposition to the appeal of ranked choice voting. According to the group’s registration with the Alaska Public Offices Commission, Protect Alaska’s Elections aims “to defend dark money disclosure, open primaries, and ranked choice voting from repeal.”

The third ballot initiative, 25USCV, would require that only United States citizens may be qualified to vote in Alaska elections. The Alaska Constitution and current statute state that only United States citizens may vote in Alaska’s elections and this ballot measure would not change the requirements to vote.

This ballot measure was sponsored by former Fairbanks Republican Senator John B. Coghill Jr., former Nikiski Republican Representative Charles Michael Chenault and former Anchorage Republican Senator Joshua Revak.

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Monday, April 6 

Caller on PIedad Road reported a stolen car battery. An officer responded. 

A caller on Deishu Drive reported a person trespassing on their property. Officers responded. 

Tuesday, April 7

A caller on the 800 block of Main Street reported a moose in the area. 

A caller in the 400 block of Main Street reported a verbal altercation. An officer was advised. 

Wednesday, April 8 

A caller on Third Avenue at Main Street left an item description for a lost wallet and contact information with dispatch. 

A Haines police officer placed a 72-hour notice sticker on a vehicle in the 600 block of the Haines Highway. 

Thursday, April 9

A caller on Mud Bay Road turned in a pair of prescription glasses they found.

A driver on Tower Road received a verbal warning for speeding. 

A driver at Second Avenue at Mission Street received a verbal warning for failure to stop at a stop sign and not meeting turn signal requirements. 

Friday, April 10 

A caller on Small Tracts Road reported a utility cover in the roadway. An officer responded and replaced the cover. 

A property owner on Second Avenue reported an accidental alarm activation. 

A caller left information about his lost keys and contact information with the dispatcher. 

A driver received a verbal warning for basic speeding at 1.5 mile of the Haines Highway. 

A driver received a citation for speeding on the Haines Highway. 

A caller reported a vehicle struck an animal on Deishu Drive. The fire department responded. 

A driver received a verbal warning for license plate display requirements on the Haines Highway at Second Avenue. 

A driver received a verbal warning for failure to stop at a stop sign on Mud Bay Road. 

Saturday, April 11

A caller reported almost getting hit by a speeding vehicle on the Haines Highway near Second Avenue. Officers responded. 

A caller turned into dispatch a debit card they found on Second Avenue. 

A caller reported leaving their vehicle in a parking lot because it would not start. Caller reported that they’d pick up their vehicle in the 50 blok of the Haines Highway later. 

A driver in the 50 block of the Haines Highway was ticketed for not having proof of insurance. 

A driver received a verbal warning for speeding in the 30 block of Blacksmith Road. 

An officer saw an open door in the 300 block of First Avenue. He closed it and the homeowner was notified. 

A driver was given a verbal warning for failing to meet headlight requirements at Mile 1 of the Haines Highway. 

There were 3 9-11 hangup calls, 12 EMS calls and 17 burn permits issued during this reporting period. 

The post Blotter: April 6 – April 11 appeared first on Chilkat Valley News.

On March 31, President Trump issued a new executive order on citizenship records and mail‑in ballots entitled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.” The order has nothing to do with election integrity — the name is like “Newspeak,” Orwell’s fictional language for a totalitarian state. It is an unlawful attempt to seize control of how Alaskans vote and to make an error‑ridden federal database the gatekeeper of our ballots.

Ever since statehood Alaska has built an election system that reflects our geography and our values. By‑mail and absentee voting are not mere conveniences here; they are how thousands of our neighbors who live in remote areas accessible only by air or sea participate in democracy at all. Yet the president now proposes to tell Alaska when and to whom we may send ballots by mail, based not on Alaska law, but on whether a voter’s name appears on a new federal “citizenship list.”

The order directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile state‑by‑state rosters of presumed U.S. citizens eligible to vote in federal elections and then directs the Postal Service to withhold mail ballots from anyone not on those lists. In one stroke, the president purports to rewrite who may receive a ballot by mail, how ballots travel through the postal system and which government gets the last word on whether an Alaskan can vote. That authority does not belong to him.

The U.S. Constitution is explicit in this matter. It reads in pertinent part: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections . . .shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations . . .”   Alaska’s Legislature has determined who may vote absentee, how those ballots are requested and mailed, and how they are counted. An executive order that conditions ballot delivery on a federally controlled citizenship list displaces those laws with presidential preference. That is not faithful execution of the law; it is legislation by directive. And it is patently unconstitutional.

The order also collides with bedrock principles of federalism. The federal government may not simply commandeer state election officials or local postmasters to administer a new federal scheme that overrides state choices about mail voting. By insisting that Alaska adapt its procedures to match a federal citizenship database that we did not design, do not control and cannot effectively challenge, the administration seeks to turn state election workers into unwilling agents of a national policy they never adopted.

Even if the president had such power—which he does not—the policy itself is dangerously unsound. The citizenship records he proposes to rely on are notoriously unreliable. Federal and state databases routinely misclassify naturalized citizens as non‑citizens, lag months or years behind status changes, and contain basic errors in names, dates of birth and addresses. Tying ballot delivery to a single “State Citizenship List” assembled from these imperfect sources is a recipe for widespread disenfranchisement.

Those errors will not fall evenly. Naturalized citizens, Alaska Natives whose names and records do not conform to federal bureaucratic expectations and rural voters with inconsistent or non‑standard addresses are all especially vulnerable to being left off or misflagged in a national database. If the Postal Service is instructed not to send a ballot unless it can confirm a match on that list, many eligible Alaskans will simply never receive a ballot at all.

In urban areas, some voters might fall back on in‑person early voting or Election Day polling places. In much of Alaska, that is unrealistic. An elder in a village accessible only by plane or boat, a deployed service member relying on an overseas ballot or a college student temporarily out of state cannot easily “work around” a missing ballot. For them, the executive order does not mean extra paperwork. It means no vote.

The order also offers no meaningful, timely remedy for those wrongly excluded. By the time a voter discovers that no ballot has arrived and tries to untangle why their name is missing from a federal citizenship list, the election may be over. We will never know how many voices were silenced by database error rather than voter choice.

Alaska has used absentee and by‑mail voting for years without any evidence of widespread non‑citizen voting or ballot fraud. Our challenges are logistical, not criminal: weather, distance and infrastructure, not hordes of ineligible voters swamping the polls. Imposing a rigid, centralized federal screen on top of that system does nothing to address real problems, and threatens to create a new one that is far worse: a loss of confidence that ballots will arrive at all.

Let’s not attempt to dress this order up as a mere “data‑sharing” exercise rather than the federal takeover it truly is.

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX