Sen. Robert Myers, R-North Pole, speaks on House Bill 57 in the Alaska Senate on Monday, April 28, 2025. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
By: Sean Maguire, Alaska Beacon
Sen. Robert Myers, R-North Pole, speaks on House Bill 57 in the Alaska Senate on Monday, April 28, 2025. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
The Alaska Senate last week advanced a bill that would allow for the anonymous surrendering of infants in so-called infant safety devices.
The boxes are located on the exteriors of buildings. They are climate controlled and monitored by video. When the device is opened, a 911 request is automatically made.
Alaskans have been able to surrender infants since 2008. Newborns must be given directly to police officers, firefighters, doctors or other medical personnel. They are then turned over to the Alaska Office of Children Services for adoption.
In Alaska, an infant must be aged 21 days or younger to be surrendered legally.
North Pole Republican Sen. Robb Myers is the lead sponsor of Senate Bill 9. It would allow newborns to be surrendered in climate-controlled boxes, located outside police stations, fire departments, hospitals and other locations.
Myers said that around one baby a year has been surrendered in Alaska since 2008. Despite that, three infants have been found abandoned in Alaska since 2013: Two were found dead; one newborn was discovered alive in Fairbanks in a box in winter.
Myers said safe surrender devices would help save lives. Parents can feel shame or the fear of potential recognition when giving a child to another person, he said. The climate-controlled boxes are intended to remove that barrier.
The Alaska Senate advanced the bill on an 18-2 vote. Sens. Bert Stedman, a Sitka Republican, and Löki Tobin, an Anchorage Democrat, voted no.
Tobin said the anonymity of surrendering a child into a baby box could lead to abuse of women. She said the boxes introduce the potential that traffickers could surrender babies without a mother’s consent.
“The potential misuses for these devices far outweigh the benefits,” Tobin said.
All 50 states allow for the surrendering of infants. Almost half of states allow for newborns to be surrendered in baby boxes, which has accelerated since Roe vs. Wade was overturned, particularly in Republican-led states.
If the bill passes, the Alaska Department of Public Safety would be tasked with drafting regulations for the placement of infant safety devices. Each infant safety device is estimated to cost $16,000. That excludes surveillance and security costs, which state officials say could be “significant.”
SB 9 now advances to the House for its consideration. Similar legislation has been advancing through that legislative chamber.
NOTN- Juneau officials are asking residents to weigh in on how millions of dollars collected from cruise ship passengers should be spent in the coming year.
The City and Borough of Juneau has released draft recommendations for allocating Marine Passenger Fee revenue and is accepting public comments through May 3.
Each cruise visitor to Juneau pays $13 in fees, which must be used for projects that support the tourism industry or address its impacts on the community.
“Really what people need to know is we get $13 per passenger, and that these funds are restricted on how they can be used.” Said Tourism Manager Alex Pierce, “Every year I get messages that are like, ‘how come we can’t spend this money on my street in the valley, busses drive on it, and it needs to be repaved, and I want to spend passenger fees there.’ The funds are actually restricted by the US Constitution. So under the US Constitution, the fees have to serve the vessel itself. That gets a little bit complicated when you get into human cargo. So we’ve always kind of had a push pull with where and how we can spend this money.”
City officials say the current proposal would allocate about $24.5 million across operating, grant and capital projects.
Recommended spending includes funding to offset increased demand on city services such as police, fire and emergency response, along with street maintenance, parks and expanded bus service during the busy cruise season.
Other proposed projects focus on infrastructure improvements in downtown Juneau, including upgrades to the water system, expansion of public Wi-Fi, maintenance and extension of the seawalk, and additional public restrooms.
All comments received by the May 3 deadline will be reviewed alongside the draft recommendations before being sent to the Assembly Finance Committee on May 6. The plan will then move to the full Assembly for consideration as part of the city’s upcoming budget process.
Residents can submit comments by email or mail to the city manager’s office.
Rep. Andy Josephson, D-Anchorage, asks a question about Senate Bill 48, the carbon credits bill, on Tuesday, May 16, 2023, in the House Finance Committee. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
By: Sean Maguire, Alaska Beacon
Rep. Andy Josephson, D-Anchorage, asks a question about Senate Bill 48, the carbon credits bill, on Tuesday, May 16, 2023, in the House Finance Committee. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
The Alaska House Finance Committee on Wednesday advanced a draft operating budget with a roughly $3,800 Permanent Fund dividend.
For a decade, the annual PFD check has been part of the Legislature’s annual budget-making process. A $3,800 PFD would follow a formula from a 1982 statute.
Lawmakers on a budget panel adopted the full, statutory dividend in the evening after long debate. Anchorage Democratic Rep. Andy Josephson, co-chair of the House Finance Committee, cautioned legislators that the vote means Alaskans “will absolutely have the impression” that “a very liberal dividend” will be paid this year.
Republican Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy proposed a full PFD as part of his budget proposal in December. A $3,800 dividend check is estimated to cost roughly $2.47 billion, the largest single spending item in the budget.
Ketchikan independent Rep. Jeremy Bynum proposed that the PFD would come from two sources. Almost $1 billion would be drawn from the general fund of the state treasury. A simple majority of lawmakers is required to spend from that account.
However, close to $1.5 billion would come from the state’s main savings account, the $3 billion Constitutional Budget Reserve. Three-quarters of the House and Senate would need to support spending from that account.
If the three-quarter vote fails, the dividend paid to Alaskans in 2026 would drop to around $1,500. Some lawmakers cautioned that would still leave the state roughly $100 million in deficit.
The roughly $3,800 PFD was approved 6-5 by the House Finance Committee. All five minority House Republicans supported a check of that size, alongside Nome Democratic Rep. Neal Foster, co-chair of the House Finance Committee.
The remaining five members of the Democrat-dominated House majority voted no.
Supporters of a full PFD said that high oil prices justified a larger dividend this year. In 2022, Alaskans received a $3,284 dividend and energy relief check when Russia’s invasion of Ukraine sent oil prices skyrocketing.
Rep. Frank Tomaszewski, R-Fairbanks, said that the “people of Alaska are hurting right now” and are facing difficult circumstances from high energy bills.
The U.S.-Israel war in Iran has seen oil prices spike to well over $100 per barrel. The Alaska Department of Revenue projected last month that would see the state collect $1 billion more revenue than expected over the current fiscal year and the fiscal year that starts July 1.
Lawmakers have already earmarked a substantial portion of that additional revenue to pay Alaska’s outstanding bills.
The operating budget now advances to debate by the full Alaska House. Once approved in that chamber, it advances to the Alaska Senate for its consideration before heading to the governor’s desk.
As the federal government advances plans to roll back Roadless Rule protections on 58 million acres of national forests, Southeast Alaska conservation advocates are racing to mobilize public opposition, warning that repealing the Roadless Rule could open the Tongass National Forest to expanded clear-cut logging and place subsistence, fisheries and tourism in peril.
Nathan Newcomer, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC) Tongass Campaigner, said the current administration has signaled from “day one” that it intends to eliminate the federal Roadless Rule, a regulation that limits road-building and industrial development on certain undeveloped national forest lands.
“They signed an executive order to try to get rid of the Roadless Rule. The Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, also issued a statement intending to rescind the Roadless Rule nationwide.”
Despite the administration’s push, the conservation group says public sentiment has been overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the rule.
A Notice of Intent, the first step in the rulemaking process, opened a 21-day public comment period nationwide. During that brief window, the public submitted more than 627,000 comments Newcomer said.
“Over half a million people submitted public comments. There’s a group called the Center for Western Priorities that did an analysis of those public comments, and they found that 99% of the public comments were in favor of keeping the roadless rule in place. When do you see 99% of American citizens agreeing on something? That just goes to show you that people really like the Roadless Rule.”
In 2001 when the Rule was enacted by the Clinton Administration, more than 600 public hearings were held around the nation, and the public provided more than 1.6 million comments on the Rule, more comments than any other rule in the nation’s history.
Now, Newcomer says, the government is trying to unwind those protections without holding any comparable meetings.
“They’re not holding any public meetings anywhere, not only for Alaska, but nothing down south either. So that’s why we’re organizing these public hearings, not just in Juneau, but throughout southeast.” Said Newcomer.
Juneau’s hearing was scheduled for yesterday evening at the JACC downtown.
The event featured a panel discussion with President Mike Jones of the Organized Village of Kasaan, Atagan Hood, Vice President of Alaska Youth for Environmental Action, Jamalea Martelle of Artemis National Wildlife Federation and Nicole Weston, Owner of NW Photography.
A moderator guided the conversation, about why roadless protections matter in their communities. The event then shifted into a public hearing where attendees offered testimony themselves.
“We’re going to have several videographers on hand that are going to document everything, record everybody’s public testimony, then we’re going to transcribe that testimony, and then we’re going to officially submit it to the public record once the public comment period for the draft EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) is open.”
If the roadless rule is repealed, Newcomer warned, “If you get rid of protections for federal public lands, you’re talking about more large scale clear cut logging, that’s the main threat. And of course, when you start to clear cut, it’s going to have huge impacts on the wildlife, on our subsistence ways of life here in the Tongass, on the tourism, recreation economy. How many people came up on cruise ships to Juneau last year?”
Despite the scale of public opposition documented in the comment record, Newcomer said he does not believe the federal government, under current leadership, is likely to change course.
“But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t make our voices heard and make a lot of noise and make sure that we’re all on the record saying that we don’t want this. Because there are also other elections that happen, right? And so power can shift, so it’s about demonstrating that the people care about these things, and that’s just kind of the work that I have to do, and that’s the work that we’re doing to make sure that the public’s voice is heard.”
He said he’s seen community organizing make a difference over longer timelines, even when initial decisions seemed foregone.
“Historically, Americans have said we would like to keep the Roadless Rule in place, and now this administration is trying to ram a policy through that the vast majority of us don’t want to see happen. That’s not the role of government.” Newcomer said, “Government needs to be by the people for the people. I think highlighting that is really critical, so that people understand that they have agency, Because there’s a lot going on in the world, right? And it’s really easy to get overwhelmed and to become apathetic, but you really do have agency. I’ve seen it time and time again in my life, where you might feel like the the clouds are closing in on you, and it’s getting dark and gloomy, but really, when you stand together and you speak in a solid voice in unity, it can have really powerful change. It might not happen today or tomorrow, but it could make a huge difference.”
Members of the House and Senate voted to sustain Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s veto of SB 113, a corporate income tax bill tied to education funding by a vote of 45 to 16. 46 votes were needed to override the veto on Jan. 22, 2026 (Photo by Corinne Smith/Alaska Beacon)
The Alaska Senate on Tuesday advanced a constitutional amendment that would lower the threshold for veto overrides of spending decisions.
The Alaska Constitution currently has two thresholds to override a governor’s vetoes: it takes two-thirds of legislators to override a veto of a policy bill and three-quarters of lawmakers to override a budget veto or a veto of legislation that spends money.
Anchorage Democratic Sen. Matt Claman’s proposed the constitutional amendment that would reduce vetoes of spending decisions to the same two-thirds threshold.
Sen. Matt Claman, D-Anchorage, speaks at a March 19, 2024, news conference held by the Senate majority caucus. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
Claman’s resolution passed the Senate along caucus lines on a 14-6 vote. All 14 members of the bipartisan Senate majority voted for the resolution while each member of the all-Republican Senate minority voted no.
At least 14 of Alaska’s 20 Senators are needed to reach the two-thirds threshold to advance a constitutional amendment. Twenty-seven of the 40 House members would need to approve Claman’s resolution for the proposed amendment to appear on November’s ballot.
The last time the Alaska Constitution was amended was in 2004.
Claman, a Democratic candidate for governor, said the drafters of the Alaska Constitution intended to create a strong executive branch. But the high hurdle to override a veto on spending decisions had “undermined the balance of power between the Legislature and the executive,” he said.
Alaska is the only state with a three-quarter veto override threshold for spending decisions.
In a statement following the vote on Tuesday, minority Senate Republicans said the governor’s veto power was one of few tools to curb the Legislature’s wide-reaching power. Members of the caucus stated that Gov. Mike Dunleavy had used that authority to veto tax bills, among other measures.
“The framers of our Constitution saw the wisdom in giving the governor considerable power to reduce state spending,” said Tok Republican Sen. Mike Cronk, the Senate minority leader. “The fiscal override threshold is high for a reason.”
While the Legislature has voted to override a governor on 40 occasions for policy bills since statehood, veto overrides for spending decisions have only occurred five times, Claman said.
The most recent override of a spending veto occurred last August in a special session Lawmakers voted to reject Dunleavy’s veto of more than $50 million in public school funding. The vote was 45-14, the minimum number of lawmakers needed to override a budget veto.
If approved by the House, the constitutional amendment would appear on the ballot at the Nov. 3 election. If approved by a majority of voters, the constitutional threshold for budget vetoes would then be lowered starting in 2027, also the beginning of a new governor’s term.
Unlike legislation, an Alaska governor cannot veto a constitutional amendment.
Joint Education Committee Hearing, March 30 2026, courtesy of Gavel Alaska
Alaska education leaders told lawmakers Monday, that the state’s public schools are in a “crisis” due to rising vacancies, high teacher and principle turnover and growing student needs, all while enrollment declines.
Testifying before the joint education committee, meaning both the House and the Senate, superintendents, principals, special education directors and recruitment experts described the education system as strained by flat funding.
They stressed housing and visa barriers for teachers, and a growing share of students needing intensive support.
Jennifer Schmitz, director of the Alaska Educator Retention and Recruitment Center, said Alaska’s annual turnover has reached about 30% for teachers and 35% for principals.
“We are in a crisis time right now with teacher turnover and principal turnover,” Schmitz said.
Districts are also depending on hundreds of international teachers and emergency teaching certificates to staff classrooms.
In many districts, she said, international teachers have become deeply rooted in communities and students rely on them for stability.
But new federal visa costs and restrictions, including a potential $100,000 price tag for some H‑1B visas, threaten those positions, especially for rural schools.
“We are in an educational crisis, and we are doing harm to the children of Alaska. An urgent response is needed to address the dire vacancy rates and the need for in person educators and support personnel across Alaskan schools.” Said David Nogg, principle of Goldenview Middle school.
In a separate Senate Labor and Commerce Committee hearing, lawmakers heard similar testimony when discussing Senate Joint Resolution 28, warning that steep federal fee hikes and new placement limits on visa programs are not only worsening worker shortages in schools but tourism and other key industries across the state as well.
“Visa workers are vital to filling Alaska’s diverse workforce. Foreign worker visa programs are extremely useful for highly seasonal industries such as tourism. Alaska has the largest seasonal employment swing in the country, this is not a marginal fluctuation, it is a structural feature of our economy.” Said Mike Mason, legislative assistant to Senator Löki Tobin.
Education leaders also pointed the Base Student Allocation (BSA), saying, even after last year’s increase, inflation has eroded its value.
“All boats rise and fall on the same tide, and for Alaska school districts, that tide is the BSA,” Randy Trani, Superintendent of the Mat-Su district said, calling for “timely, reliable, predictable” funding so districts can plan and focus on academics instead of annual cuts.
School finance officials also stressed that most dollars already go directly to students and there are funding needs beyond the classroom that districts are struggling to meet.
Anchorage budget director and Alaska Association of School Business Officials president Katie Parrott said about 75% of districts’ operating spending in FY2025 went to instruction, while only 2% went to district-level administration and 5% to administrative support like payroll and HR.
“There are a lot of competing priorities eating into these slices of the pie.” She said, “It’s truly imperative that the state does increase and inflation proof funding for pupil transportation as one of the key strategies to address chronic absenteeism, make sure kids are getting to school that they have equitable access.”
Throughout the hearing, educators said they remain committed to students and to Alaska, but warned that constant uncertainty is pushing many out of the profession or out of the state, saying, “when you starve a system, you see the impacts of that.”
A network of pipelines, seen on Aug. 23, 2018, snakes through a portion of the Greater Prudhoe Bay Unit on Alaska’s North Slope. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
Five Alaska mayors voiced concerns about how a proposed tax break for the Alaska LNG gas line project would impact their communities.
Republican Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy has proposed eliminating property taxes and other local taxes for the $46 billion megaproject. Instead, his bill would impose a volume-based tax when substantial quantities of gas are delivered from the North Slope.
The Alaska Department of Revenue estimated Dunleavy’s bill would equate to a roughly 90% reduction in property tax revenue, once the pipeline is at full capacity. The state agency has said the pipeline will not move forward without cutting property taxes for Glenfarne, the New York-based developer of the proposed pipeline and export facilities.
Five Alaska mayors on Friday testified to the Senate Resources Committee in support of the 800-mile pipeline, which is set to run from the North Slope to Cook Inlet. But the municipal leaders also expressed concerns about the potential loss of revenue from the governor’s tax break and the impacts on municipal services.
‘Bottom offer’
Peter Micciche is mayor of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, one of Alaska’s largest with roughly 62,000 residents. He said a liquefaction facility, equating to 43.5% of the total project, is set to be located in the coastal region.
Micciche said the project would have tens of millions of dollars of impact annually for the Kenai Peninsula, with costs set to be borne by local communities under Dunleavy’s bill. He said the proposed elimination of all local taxes for Alaska LNG is “cutting deep into the fabric of how our communities work. And that worries me.”
He cited concerns about Dunleavy’s proposed tax rate rising by 1% annually. He said the borough’s budget increases on average by 2.5% each year, meaning that would leave the Kenai Peninsula “underwater.”
“Costs have shifted from the state to the municipalities. But we simply cannot afford additional costs,” he said to lawmakers Friday.
Micciche, a former long-time oil and gas executive, emphasized that he is excited by the project, but he considers the governor’s tax break to be “a bottom offer.”
Adam Prestidge, president of Glenfarne Alaska LNG, on Monday told the Senate Resources Committee that the company recognizes there will be impacts to municipalities from the project. He said discussions are ongoing with municipal leaders about how the company will cover some costs to ensure communities feel comfortable they “will be taken care of.”
Senate President Peter Micciche, R-Soldotna, listens to questions from senators during a break in Alaska Senate proceedings on Tuesday, May 3, 2022 at the Alaska State Capitol in Juneau. (James Brooks / Alaska Beacon)
Micciche, a former Republican Alaska Senate president, framed the scale of the challenge of negotiating acceptable legislation for communities and Glenfarne with less than half of the legislative session left until adjournment. “This bill needs a lot of work,” he said.
“We’re ready to sit down and pen a deal that works for everyone — the developers, our community, Alaskans — and I hope to God that comes along with affordable gas,” Micciche said.
‘Once-in-a-lifetime project’
Supporters remain bullish on the gas line’s potential to be an economic boon for Alaska. Former Democratic U.S. Sen. Mark Begich has been hired by the Dunleavy administration to boost the pipeline. He told the Senate Resource Committee on Monday that it was “a once-in-a-lifetime project.”
Glenfarne owns 75% of the project while the Alaska Gasline Development Corp., a state agency, owns the remaining 25%.
Begich and Prestidge declined to answer some questions in detail about the proposed tax break and whether it was at an appropriate rate, citing the need for confidentiality in commercial agreements. Begich implored lawmakers to hold a session behind closed doors to discuss revenue questions with Glenfarne.
Under Dunleavy’s bill, the long-sought gas pipeline is expected to raise over $22.5 billion in new revenue for the state of Alaska. But over the next 36 years, it would also cost roughly $13 billion for local communities compared to current law, according to state projections.
Instead of property taxes, the governor’s bill would impose a volume-based tax of 6 cents on every thousand cubic feet of gas, which would increase by 1% annually. The tax would only be imposed once the pipeline delivers an average of 1 billion cubic feet of gas per day or 10 years after gas starts being produced.
Edna DeVries is mayor of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, home to around 117,000 people. She said the Mat-Su Assembly believes those thresholds are “far too high” and that they should be lowered so the borough could collect revenue sooner.
DeVries cited a concern common to all five mayors along the proposed corridor for Alaska LNG: the impacts of constructing the pipeline on municipal budgets.
Mayor Chris Noel of Denali Borough, home to 1,600 residents, said that construction would see added costs for waste management, fire and rescue and housing, which would likely be borne by the local community. Denali Borough does not currently collect property tax. But it would get “limited benefits” from the pipeline with no local offtake planned for the borough, Noel said.
“The bottom-line is we cannot subsidize increased costs. We need certainty via an impact payment program during construction that actual costs will be covered by the project,” he said.
Another potential concern: education funding. Alaska’s complicated education funding formula means that as a local community’s total assessed property tax value increases, state contribution for schools is reduced.
Concerned at the ‘precedent’
Mayor Josiah Patkotak of the North Slope Borough said he was concerned at the “precedent” set by eliminating property taxes for oil and gas projects before a final investment decision is reached. Patkotak, also a former member of the Alaska House of Representatives, cited a recent record North Slope lease sale and said oil developers could seek similar tax relief.
Rep. Louise Stutes, R-Kodiak, talks with Rep. Josiah Patkotak, I-Utqiagvik, on Tuesday, Jan. 17, 2023, as the Alaska House of Representatives convenes at the state Capitol in Juneau. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
The North Slope Borough, based out of Utqiaġvik with 10,500 residents, has a long history of fiercely defending its authority to levy property taxes on oil and gas companies, he added.
Patkotak estimated Dunleavy’s proposed tax break means the borough would collect $12 billion less in revenue compared to current law. He said property tax revenue has been critical for the borough, which funds schools, fire and rescue services, airports and waste management.
Prestidge declined to tell the Senate Resources Committee whether the proposed tax break would be make-or-break for the project. But he said if the bill failed to pass, “It makes it more difficult because it makes the gas more expensive.”
“It creates an incredible amount of uncertainty around the project,” he added.
Patkotak noted that the North Slope would not get any of the gas delivered through the pipeline with no offtake planned for the remote region.
That has long been a concern for Fairbanks, which has a population of 97,000 people. The borough has advocated for a $180 million spur to deliver gas to the Interior city.
“We need to make sure we’re getting Alaskans’ gas to Alaskans,” said Mayor Grier Hopkins of the Fairbanks North Star Borough.
Hopkins said there are currently “no concrete” plans to build a gas offtake for Fairbanks, but discussions are ongoing with Glenfarne.
Members of the Senate Resources Committee hear testimony by phone from borough mayors on Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s tax break proposal for the Alaska LNG gas line project on Mar. 27, 2026. (Photo by Corinne Smith/Alaska Beacon)
The vast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska extends west of ConocoPhillips’ massive Willow oil project. (ConocoPhillips)
Global energy leaders have convened here this week, spiffed up in dark suits and polished shoes, to discuss the industry’s most pressing issues: war in the Middle East, Venezuela, artificial intelligence.
But behind the scenes at this annual conference of industry executives — known formally as CERAWeek by S&P Global but nicknamed the “Super Bowl of energy” — a big story about Alaska oil is unfolding.
It involves a massive lease sale in the Arctic, a remarkable show of interest from global oil giants that had faded from Alaska’s frontlines and an emerging race to find deposits potentially worth billions of dollars. Industry proponents say a flood of crude from the largely undeveloped western Arctic, if companies can locate and produce it, could open a new era for the state’s industry.
In what was by far the highest-value federal lease sale in the vast National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska in more than two decades, oil companies last week snatched up more than 1 million acres across the western Arctic.
The scale of interest, with 11 companies participating and a record $163 million spent on bids, was itself notable. But so were the identities of some of the bidders. Two, in particular, surprised even industry insiders: ExxonMobil and Shell.
Both supermajors have a history in Alaska.
ExxonMobil still owns shares of existing Arctic oil fields and the trans-Alaska pipeline. But Shell no longer operates in the state and hasn’t drilled a well in Alaska since its failed offshore exploration campaign more than a decade ago. And ExxonMobil hadn’t bid on leases in years.
Energy historian Dan Yergin, left, speaks with Wael Sawan, chief executive of Shell, at the CERAWeek oil industry conference in Houston this week. (Grant Miller Photography/CERAWeek by S&P Global)
Their renewed interest — along with continued investment from established players like ConocoPhillips and Colorado-based wildcatter Bill Armstrong — accelerates an industry revival that was already playing out on the North Slope.
Just a few years ago, new production and investment in the region lagged as some companies struggled to raise money and even pulled out of Alaska amid successful advocacy campaigns against Arctic drilling.
But major geologic discoveries by Armstrong — and a pair of big new oil fields now under construction — have made the North Slope a more attractive investment. And the industry also has political tailwinds coming from a Trump administration keen to boost resource extraction in Alaska.
“This sale absolutely shows the world the potential for Alaska,” Armstrong, one of the primary bidders, said in an interview at CERAWeek. “This could be a game-changer for the state.”
Bill Armstrong (Max Graham/Northern Journal)
The region still faces obstacles to development, like high costs and competition from other basins where drilling is cheaper.
And the lease sale is just a preliminary step, far from an assurance of future production: No new wells have been drilled yet, and companies often spend years doing exploratory work before deciding whether to start pumping oil.
Conservation groups, meanwhile, continue to fight the industry’s expansion in the reserve — where, they note, federal law instructs policymakers to not only to oversee oil development but also to protect the environment and cultural values. Multiplelawsuits are challenging the Trump administration’s oil-friendly policies in the Arctic, and advocates have asked a judge to invalidate leases set to be awarded after last week’s sale.
Four small lakes sit on the northwestern side of Teshekpuk Lake, a key wildlife habitat within the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska that’s also seen interest from oil companies. (Craig McCaa/U.S. Bureau of Land Management)
“What we saw last week were companies pushing into some of the most sensitive areas of the reserve,” said Suzanne Bostrom, an attorney with a conservation-focused Anchorage law firm, Trustees for Alaska, that represents some of the organizations suing the administration. “We and the groups that we work with are going to continue to fight for this area, and fight for the protections that it deserves,” Bostrom added.
But even amid the pending legal questions, the sale’s results are still a step toward new development; further investment and competition in the petroleum reserve are likely to follow, conference participants told Northern Journal in Houston this week.
A surprising sale
Leading up to the sale, there were signs that oil companies could show up in force.
It was the first auction in NPR-A in seven years, and more acreage was up for grabs than in many previous sales. The offerings included large swaths of tundra and wetlands that Democratic administrations had designated off-limits to drilling.
And after years of comparatively tepid industry interest, recent oil discoveries have expanded the known resources on the North Slope, said Bob Fryklund, a top oil and gas analyst at S&P Global Energy, a research firm.
“It’s kind of been a sleeper basin,” he said.
This map of Alaska’s North Slope shows the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Two oil companies are building large developments near the reserve’s eastern edge, and a major lease sale recently auctioned off land deeper into the reserve. Prudhoe Bay is the hub of existing North Slope development.
A decade ago, the petroleum reserve was beyond the western edge of the North Slope’s oil infrastructure, making it more expensive to bring in equipment and drill.
But the industry has been moving in its direction: Construction is now underway at two big new oil fields in the area — ConocoPhillips’ Willow project and Santos’ Pikka project. Both will tap into a long-overlooked oil-rich geologic formation, known as the Nanushuk, that Armstrong initially discovered near the reserve’s eastern boundary.
It was no surprise, then, that ConocoPhillips, Santos and Armstrong all showed up at the recent auction, analysts said.
An exploration rig drills for oil at ConocoPhillips’ Willow prospect in the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska. (ConocoPhillips)
Few people, however, predicted that so many other companies would put in bids, or that major corporations like ExxonMobil and Shell would participate.
ExxonMobil, committing more than $7 million on some 138,000 acres, came as a particularly big surprise.
That company, headquartered in Houston, owns shares in the existing Point Thomson and Prudhoe Bay oil fields on the North Slope. But it doesn’t manage either field, and the company has not been active in exploration and new development in the state: Until last week, ExxonMobil had not bid on a federal or state oil and gas lease in Alaska in more than a decade, according to data provided by Welligence, an industry research firm.
Meanwhile, Shell, in a partnership with a Spanish company, Repsol, submitted some of the highest bids. The two companies offered more than $2 million on many individual tracts, and committed more than $90 million in total.
A map produced by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management shows winning bids from last week’s lease sale.
Experts said the return of those players was likely influenced by the ongoing development in the area.
Although neither the Willow nor Pikka project is producing yet, the multibillion-dollar investments by ConocoPhillips and Santos may have given other companies more faith in the surrounding geology and the ability to pump oil in the area, analysts said.
“What you saw Shell do, and even Exxon, was validation of the work done by other players on the North Slope in recent years,” an oil company executive said in Houston, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.
Industry headwinds subside
Shell’s interest represents a reversal from its announcement a decade ago that it was pulling out of Alaska. The company had spent some $7 billion on its failed effort to drill for oil offshore in the Chukchi Sea, citing Obama administration policies and high costs when it departed the state.
In 2020, another major, BP, also pulled out of Alaska, selling its assets to Hilcorp, a privately owned Texas business.
Those decisions both seemed like signals of the industry’s decline in the state, as the daily flow through the trans-Alaska pipeline shrank to 500,000 barrels from a high of 2 million decades earlier. An era of oil giants spending freely on big new projects was giving way to one of smaller companies wringing the last drops of crude out of aging fields.
An oil and gas rig drills at a Hilcorp development in the Cook Inlet basin in Southcentral Alaska. (Nathaniel Herz/Northern Journal)
At the time, companies were contending not only with the usual impediments to drilling in Alaska, like high costs and opposition from environmental groups, but also with growing political pressure from climate-minded shareholders and activists opposed to expanding fossil fuel production. Even oil executives acknowledged that advocacy against the oil industry, which is a major driver of climate change, was deterring investment in Alaska.
But even as the burning of fossil fuels continues to warm the planet, global demand for oil remains high — and industry confidence in the North Slope’s potential appears only to be growing.
The newly discovered oil deposits there “have proven that Alaska is not over,” Fryklund said.
ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Santos declined to make officials available for on-record interviews. Shell did not respond to a request for comment.
“This marks an important step in our continued commitment to responsible energy development in Alaska and the U.S.,” an Exxon spokesperson said in an emailed statement.
Once the company’s leases are finalized, ExxonMobil will work with the state and local communities as it evaluates “potential next steps for the area,” the statement said.
“I wish I were 30 years younger”
For those who work in the oil industry, the central plank of Alaska’s economy, the sale stirred excitement, and some relief: New activity in the federal reserve could bring more gigs for contractors that have long wondered if there would be enough development on the North Slope to sustain their businesses.
“We’ve all had this little worry of, ‘Well, what’s next?’” said Greg Miller, vice president of operations at Cruz Construction, a Palmer-based company with oil-related contracts on the Slope. “Now, there’s a little bit of reason to be a little bit more hopeful and positive about the next 10, 20 years.”
The sale won’t lead to immediate growth for Miller’s business, he said. But new exploration activity, if and when it happens, will create jobs: A single project can provide a year’s worth of wages for as many as 100 employees at Cruz, Miller added.
For the president of another Alaska oil services company, Kevin Durling, the hype around the petroleum reserve is reminiscent of the boom days when oil started flowing through the trans-Alaska pipeline, in the 1970s and 1980s.
The trans-Alaska oil pipeline pumps some 500,000 barrels a day. (Nathaniel Herz/Northern Journal)
“I wish I was 30 years younger,” he said.
The state’s conservation community, meanwhile, has reacted with disappointment, and concern for the western Arctic ecosystem.
The vast, largely undeveloped region contains important habitat for migratory birds, and it sustains tens of thousands of caribou, some of which calve around Teshekpuk Lake, a major water body in the northern part of the petroleum reserve.
“I’ve had better weeks at work. No question about that,” said Andy Moderow, senior policy director at Alaska Wilderness League, one of the environmental groups suing the Trump administration. But, he added: “The war is still well in front of us.”
One potential hurdle for development is a legally disputed conservation area around Teshekpuk Lake. The protections, across about 1 million acres, were set aside by the Biden administration for the nearby Iñupiaq village of Nuiqsut, where many people still depend on caribou and other wildlife for food.
The Trump administration canceled the protections late last year, touting the area’s oil and gas potential and aiming to authorize leasing there. Nuiqsut’s leaders then sued, saying the move violated a prior agreement and threatened the village’s subsistence traditions.
Two days before the lease sale results were announced, a federal judge restored the Teshekpuk protections while the lawsuit played out.
But the area still attracted bids from a few companies — including ExxonMobil.
The administration has not said whether it plans to award leases in the disputed area to high bidders — or how, exactly, it intends to navigate the apparent conflict between the sale results and the court ruling.
Nathaniel Herz contributed reporting from Anchorage.
Northern Journal contributor Max Graham can be reached at max@northernjournal.com. He’s interested in any and all mining related stories, as well as introductory meetings with people in and around the industry.
This article was originally published in Northern Journal, a newsletter from Nathaniel Herz. Subscribe at this link.
Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy delivers the annual State of the State address on Tuesday, Jan. 28, 2025, in the Alaska Capitol. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
By: Sean Maguire, Alaska Beacon
Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy delivers the annual State of the State address on Tuesday, Jan. 28, 2025, in the Alaska Capitol. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy has proposed eliminating property taxes for the Alaska LNG project to incentivize development of the $46 billion gas line and export facilities.
The bill was introduced to the Legislature on Mar. 20 and would exempt the project from local taxes in Alaska, including property and sales taxes. Instead, a volume-based tax would be levied once the pipeline starts producing significant quantities of gas from the North Slope.
In a statement, Dunleavy said his legislation “removes a structural barrier” that would help get the gas line built. The project is expected to create thousands of construction jobs, spur the development of new industries and potentially lower power and heating bills for consumers.
“We bring more gas into Alaska and stabilize supply — that lowers cost for families like yours and businesses,” Dunleavy said Wednesday on social media.
The state of Alaska is expected to collect over $22.5 billion in new revenue from the project over the next 36 years, primarily from production taxes and royalties, according to state economists.
In addition to exempting the project from property and sales taxes during its ramp-up period, the Alaska Department of Revenue estimates Dunleavy’s bill would equate to a 90% reduction in property tax revenue, once the pipeline is at full capacity.
Municipal governments are expected to take the biggest hit from that change. If the project was built under current tax law, they would collect an extra $13 billion in revenue through 2062, or $360 million annually.
Some long-time lawmakers have questioned whether the pipeline will result in reduced gas prices. Others have questioned why such a sharp reduction in property taxes is needed.
‘Industrial renaissance’
An 800-mile pipeline from the North Slope to deliver natural gas to market has been a dream in Alaska for decades. But prior efforts have all fallen short.
Supporters say its prospects have never been stronger. Key permits are in hand, several Asian nations are interested in buying Alaska’s gas, and President Donald Trump has voiced support for the project.
Former Democratic U.S. Sen. Mark Begich has been hired by the Dunleavy administration to help advance the pipeline. He told lawmakers the 1973 oil shock helped spur development of North Slope oil. Now, war in the Middle East has upended LNG production and raised prices, which makes Alaska natural gas more attractive, he said.
“This is our moment,” he said to the House Resources Committee on Monday, calling the gas line “an incredible project.”
Glenfarne, a New York-based company, signed on to develop the pipeline last January. It owns 75% of the project while the Alaska Gasline Development Corp., a state agency, owns the remaining 25%.
But the economics of the $46 billion gas line remain uncertain.
Glenfarne chose to split the project in two. The first phase would see construction of a pipeline for domestic consumption, with delivery of gas targeted for 2029. The second phase would construct a plant and shipping terminal in Cook Inlet for export.
Alaska’s current tax structure means a 2% property tax can be levied on oil and gas infrastructure.
Dunleavy’s tax proposal would impose a volume-based alternative. A new tax would be levied at 6 cents on every thousand cubic feet of gas, which would increase by 1% annually.
The tax would only be imposed once the pipeline delivers an average of 1 billion cubic feet of gas per day or 10 years after gas starts being produced.
Dan Stickel, economist with the Department of Revenue, on Wednesday said reducing property taxes would help with front-end costs. He said the agency is not examining Dunleavy’s bill as a tax cut because it would help spur the pipeline and potentially lead to new state revenue.
Stickel told the House Resources Committee that AGDC and Glenfarne have said the project will not move forward without property tax relief.
At full capacity, the pipeline is expected to deliver 3.5 billion cubic feet of gas per day. Southcentral Alaska’s demand for Cook Inlet gas equates to roughly 70 billion cubic feet of gas per year.
Glenfarne Group CEO and founder Brendan Duval and Alaska LNG President Adam Prestidge stand while Gov. Mike Dunleavy recognizes them during his State of the State address on Jan. 22, 2026. (Photo by Corinne Smith/Alaska Beacon)
Adam Prestidge, president of Glenfarne Alaska LNG, said the project would be an “industrial renaissance” for Alaska. It could create 7,000 jobs during construction and spur new opportunities such as data centers, he said.
Wearing a lapel pin in a House Resources Committee hearing that said “build the line,” Prestidge told lawmakers discussions on gas agreements are ongoing with Alaska utilities. He said agreements could be signed and made public in the next couple of months.
“This is the only way to significantly bring down the cost of energy for Alaskans,” he said.
‘Huge give’
The Alaska Department of Revenue estimates the state would receive $22.5 billion in revenue from the gas line through 2062. The majority of that windfall would come from production taxes and royalties.
Compared to Alaska’s current tax regime, Dunleavy’s proposal would see the state miss out on $200 million per year from property taxes once the pipeline is at full capacity, projections show.
The alternative tax structure proposed by the governor would see $64 million per year collected by municipalities at full gas production and $9 million annually by the state.
For municipalities, there would be a bigger hit.
The gas line is expected to be built through four municipalities that collect property taxes: the North Slope Borough, Denali Borough, Matanuska-Susitna Borough and the Kenai Peninsula Borough.
Under Alaska’s current tax structure, municipal governments would be expected to share in $17.3 billion from the pipeline through 2062. Under Dunleavy’s tax bill, it would be below $4 billion.
Anchorage Democratic Sen. Bill Wielechowski, vice-chair of the Senate Resources Committee, spoke at a Tuesday news conference. He said legislators would look closely at Dunleavy’s proposed tax break and determine whether a 90% cut in property taxes is appropriate.
“I don’t know anybody in the Legislature who doesn’t want a gas pipeline. The question is, what is it going to take to get it?” Wielechowski said.
State projections show that under both tax systems, the owners of the pipeline are expected to collect $60 billion over the next 36 years.
Anchorage Republican Sen. Cathy Giessel, chair of the Senate Resources Committee, estimates Alaska has invested $1.1 billion to build a natural gas pipeline, but nothing has been built.
On Tuesday, Giessel cited costs like public safety that could be borne by communities along the proposed pipeline. She said it would likely take until the second phase of the project before 1 billion cubic feet of gas is produced per day. Meaning, it could take years before municipalities collect Dunleavy’s volume-based tax, she said.
“That’s a long time for these communities to have no property tax,” she said.
State data suggests local governments would take $6.3 billion in property taxes through 2042. Dunleavy’s volume-based tax would net them $1.3 billion over the same period.
“This is a huge give to the company,” Giessel said. “Will it still be enough for them? I don’t know.”
Mayors in impacted communities are set to testify on the governor’s tax proposal on Friday afternoon before the Senate Resources Committee.
A sign hangs outside the director's office of the Alaska Division of Elections, Thursday, March 19. 2026, in Juneau, Alaska. (AP Photo/Becky Bohrer)
A sign hangs outside the director’s office of the Alaska Division of Elections, Thursday, March 19. 2026, in Juneau, Alaska. (AP Photo/Becky Bohrer)
AP- The tiny Alaska Native village of Beaver is about 40 minutes — by plane — from the nearest city. Its roughly 50 residents rely on weekday flights for mail and many of their basic supplies, from groceries to Amazon deliveries of everyday household items.
Air service plays an outsize role in the nation’s most expansive state, where most communities rely on flights for year-round access. Planes also play a critical role in elections, getting voting materials and ballots to and from rural precincts such as Beaver and in delivering ballots for thousands of Alaskans who vote by mail — some in places where in-person voting is not available.
The vast distances and relative isolation of so many communities make Alaska unique and are why its residents have a significant interest in arguments taking place Monday before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Many here worry that a case from Mississippi challenging whether ballots received after Election Day can be counted in federal elections could end Alaska’s practice of accepting late-arriving ballots. Alaska counts ballots if they are postmarked by Election Day and received within 10 days, or 15 days for overseas voters in general elections.
“These processes have been in place for a long time just to ensure that our ballots are counted,” said Rhonda Pitka, a poll worker and first chief in Beaver, which sits along the Yukon River 110 miles (177 kilometers) north of Fairbanks.
If the court decides ballots in all states must be received by Election Day, she said, “They’ll be disenfranchising thousands of people — thousands of people in these rural communities. It’s just basically saying that their votes don’t count, and that’s a real shame.”
Some ballots already arrive late
Alaska is one of 14 states that allow all mailed ballots postmarked by Election Day to arrive days or weeks later and be counted, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures and the Voting Rights Lab. An additional 15 provide grace periods for military and overseas ballots.
But Alaska’s geography, weather and great distances between communities — Alaska is more than twice the size of Texas, the nation’s second-largest state — raise the stakes for voters. The unusual way the state counts its votes also makes a grace period important, advocates say.
Under Alaska’s ranked-choice system for general elections, workers in small rural precincts call in voters’ first choices to a regional election office. All ballots, however, ultimately are flown to the state Division of Elections in the capital, Juneau. There, the races not won outright are tabulated to determine a winner.
Even with Alaska’s current 10-day grace period, ballots from some villages in 2022 were not fully counted because of mail delays. They arrived too late for tabulations in Juneau, 15 days after Election Day.
If the Supreme Court rules that ballots cannot be counted if they arrive at election offices after Election Day, scores of Alaska voters could be affected. About 50,000 Alaskans voted by mail in the 2024 presidential election.
“I think there’s probably no other state where this ruling could have a more detrimental impact than ours,” Alaska’s senior U.S. senator, Republican Lisa Murkowski said in an interview.
Murkowski sees the case — a challenge by the Republican National Committee and others to Mississippi’s allowance of late-arriving ballots — as an effort to end voting by mail nationwide.
‘Seeing a level of voter intimidation’
The RNC argues such grace periods improperly extend elections for federal office, but Mississippi responded that no voting occurs after Election Day — only the delivery and counting of already completed ballots.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments as the U.S. Senate is debating legislation being pushed by President Donald Trump that would require people to show proof-of-citizenship to register to vote and a photo ID to cast a ballot.
Taken together, Murkowski said such efforts could discourage people from voting.
“I think we’re seeing a level of voter intimidation, I’ll just say it,” she said. “I feel very, very strongly that the effort that we should be making at the federal level is to do all that we can to make our elections accessible, fair and transparent for every lawful voter out there.”
Alaska’s other congressional members, Rep. Nick Begich and Sen. Dan Sullivan, both Republican allies of Trump who are seeking reelection this year, support the SAVE America Act now before the Senate. But they also said they want to ensure that ballots properly cast on or before Election Day get counted.
“We’ll see what the courts choose to do on that issue, but I do think that we need to allow for time for ballots to come in from the rural parts of our state,” Begich said during a recent visit to Juneau.
Alaska officials highlight challenges to the court
A court filing in the Mississippi case by Alaska Attorney General Stephen Cox and Solicitor General Jenna Lorence did not take sides but outlined geographic and logistical challenges to holding elections in Alaska.
In Atqasuk, on Alaska’s North Slope, poll workers counted votes on election night in 2024, tallies they would normally relay by phone to election division officials. But the filing said they could not get through and “chose what they saw as the next best solution — they placed the ballots and tally sheets into a secure package and mailed them to the Division, who did not receive them until nine days later.”
The filing seeks clarity from the Supreme Court, particularly around what it means for ballots to be received by Election Day.
While it is clear when a ballot is cast, “when certain ballots are actually ‘received’ is open to different interpretations, especially given the connectivity challenges for Alaska’s far-flung boroughs,” Cox and Lorence wrote.
Effect on Native voters
Lawyers with the Native American Rights Fund and Great Lakes Indigenous Law Center said in filings with the court that limited postal service in rural areas means that some ballots might not be postmarked until they reach Anchorage or Juneau, which can take days.
In the 2022 general election, between 55% and 78% of absentee ballots from the state House districts spanning from the Aleutian Islands up the western coast to the vast North Slope arrived at an election office after Election Day, they wrote. Statewide, about 20% of all absentee ballots in that election were received after Election Day.
Requiring ballots to be received by Election Day, they warned, would “disproportionately disenfranchise” Alaska Native voters. The lawyers represent the National Congress of American Indians, Native Vote Washington and the Alaska Federation of Natives.
Michelle Sparck, director of Get Out the Native Vote, a nonpartisan voting rights advocacy group affiliated with the Alaska Federation of Natives, worries about creating confusion and fear among voters.
She sees the case before the Supreme Court and the Republican SAVE Act as “a multipronged attempt to take control or wrest control of elections away from states.” Alaska, she said, already has enough inherent barriers for many voters.
“There is a minute record of election fraud — not at the rate that requires this heavy-handed response through the legislature and the Supreme Court,” she said.
