A summary sheet is seen during ballot review on Tuesday, Aug. 27, 2024, at the headquarters of the Alaska Division of Elections in Juneau. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
A summary sheet is seen during ballot review on Tuesday, Aug. 27, 2024, at the headquarters of the Alaska Division of Elections in Juneau. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
The first two votes in Alaska’s Aug. 18 primary election have already been cast.
According to records published by the absentee and petition office of the Alaska Division of Elections, two voters — one in South Carolina and another in Hawaii — returned their ballots on July 17.
Thousands more voters will cast their ballots in the coming weeks. Absentee ballots were mailed to overseas and military voters starting July 2, and absentee ballots will start going out to the general public on July 24. Early in-person voting starts Aug. 3.
In the primary, voters will pick one candidate for each office. The top four vote-getters for each race, regardless of party, will advance to the general election on Nov. 3.
If there are four or fewer candidates running for a particular office, all candidates advance to the general election.
For Alaska’s statewide races, that isn’t an issue. There are 17 people running for governor, each running on a combined ticket with a lieutenant governor candidate:
If one of the top four finishers withdraws from the race, they are automatically replaced with the fifth-place finisher. If there are multiple withdrawals, the replacement process continues until there are four candidates.
Registration for the primary election has closed, but Alaskans may register for the general election until Oct. 4. Residents can check their voter registration at myvoterportal.alaska.gov.
Juneau police are investigating after human remains were discovered Sunday evening at a residence in the 6500 block of Glacier Highway. Officers responded after someone cleaning out the property of a deceased family member reported finding what appeared to be human remains inside a chest freezer in a locked outbuilding.
Below is the full press release.
JPD/CBJ- On Sunday, July 19, 2026, at approximately 7:59 p.m., the Juneau Police Department responded to a residence in the 6500 block of Glacier Highway following a report of possible human remains discovered on the property.
The reporting party advised officers they had been cleaning out the residence following the death of a family member when they located what appeared to be human remains inside a chest freezer in a locked outbuilding on the property.
Officers responded and confirmed the presence of deceased human remains. A preliminary identification has been made, and investigators believe the remains may be those of an adult male family member. Next of kin has been notified. Positive identification is pending confirmation by the State Medical Examiner’s Office.
The length of time the remains have been in the freezer is unknown. Investigators have determined that no missing person’s report related to the deceased was ever filed with the Juneau Police Department.
The remains have been transported to the State Medical Examiner’s Office, where an autopsy will be conducted to confirm the identity of the deceased and determine the cause and manner of death.
At this stage of the investigation, there is no known threat to the public. The investigation remains active and ongoing.
Anyone with information that may assist investigators is encouraged to contact the Juneau Police Department at (907) 586-0600. Those wishing to remain anonymous may submit tips through Juneau Crime Line at www.juneaucrimeline.com.
NOTN- Eaglecrest Ski Area is off the mountain tonight with a new “Christmas in July” event downtown.
Director of Snow Sports Erin Lupro said the event will run this evening from 4–7 p.m. at Deckhand Dave’s food truck area, featuring live music from Steady Goin’ from 5–7 p.m., festive decorations and on-site season pass sales.
“If you do buy your pass at the event, we will give you an ornament to put into a box of your choice to win a Christmas present, and if you buy your season pass at the event, you have an option to pick a present that you might like. It varies from some Eaglecrest swag, of course, all the way up to, we might have a helicopter ride in one of those boxes.”
July is the only month Eaglecrest offers a payment plan for season passes, with installments stretching through October.
On the operations side, Lupro said the ski area is coming out of a “rough budget cycle” but has now begun winter hiring for lift operators, rental shop staff and instructors, with many returning employees retained.
Opening day is set for Dec. 12, with 87 operating days planned, “pretty much a copy-paste” of last winter, she said.
“The beginning of last season was a little rough, both for the community and for the staff because we want the same thing as the community. We want to be able to provide what is so much fun for all of us. So this winter, I know it’s the big elephant in the room. What will Eaglecrest be doing? We were able to work through the budget, and the only change is we have a small window in February where we’re open from 9:00 until 3:00 a little bit longer, and then switch to 4:00. So that’s the only difference that we made to the calendar for this operational season.” Lupro said.
Former Eaglecrest staffer Julie Jackson Piper will return as general manager on Aug. 31.
Fishing boats in the Robert E. Galovin Small Boat Harbor in Sand Point are seen on Aug 7, 2025, before heading out to the Area M fishery. (Photo by Theo Greenly)
A legislative audit committee instructed the state auditor to investigate the past three years of process and legal compliance of the board tasked with developing policy and managing Alaska’s fisheries.
Rep. Louise Stutes, R-Kodiak and chair of the House Fisheries Committee, made the request for the special audit of the Alaska Board of Fisheries. The bicameral Legislative Audit and Budget Committee approved it at a hearing on Thursday.
Rep. Louise Stutes, R-Kodiak, speaks on the House floor on the last day of the regular legislative session on May 20, 2026. (Photo by Corinne Smith/Alaska Beacon)
“The breadth and frequency of stakeholder complaints about the Board’s process make it clear the Board has lost the public’s trust. As Chair of the House Fisheries Committee, I am compelled to act,” Stutes wrote.
She said the board has been “increasingly characterized as lacking transparency, unethical, and/or unlawful.”
The seven-member Board of Fisheries is appointed by Gov. Mike Dunleavy and confirmed by the Legislature. Each member serves a three year term. The legislative audit committee authorized an examination of the board’s activity from an Oct 12, 2023 meeting through July 1 of this year.
In a letter requesting the audit, Stutes cited concern that board members have “ethical impairments,” and pointed to recent action by the Acting Attorney General Cori Mills overruling the board’s decision to implement some fishing restrictions in an Aleutian Island fishery, Area M, as evidence.
In an unusual move, Mills stepped in and voided the regulations passed by the Board of Fish in February that implemented restrictions on the Area M fishery to allow more salmon to pass through to Western Alaska spawning streams. Area M has been the center of years of fierce debate and growing concerns from subsistence and Tribal communities in Western Alaska, where salmon runs have reached crisis lows.
Following the board’s February action, Aleutian fishing groups, local and Tribal governments filed ethics complaints against several board members citing conflicts of interest, then a lawsuit challenging the board’s action. The acting attorney general voided the decision in May. In response to that action — and in support of Western Alaska subsistence and Tribal communities — advocates filed a motion to reconsider that challenged the Attorney General’s authority to void the regulation changes and asked a court to review the decision. A judge denied the request.
The Board of Fish’s chair did not respond to a request for comment on the audit on Monday.
On Monday, a spokesperson for the Alaska Department of Law said that following the Attorney General’s disapproval memo, the board has an opportunity to reconsider the regulations to the Area M fishery “as long as they conform to the proper process.”
“In general, disapproval memos are rare as we are normally able to work with the respective state agencies throughout the regulations process and ensure the regulations comply with all necessary statutory requirements,” said Sam Curtis, a public information officer with the department. “In this case, the Department of Law took action pursuant to the Ethics Act and those proceedings are confidential by law. We cannot disclose any further information.”
Legislative committee approves the audit request
In the hearing on Thursday, Sen. Scott Kawaki, D-Fairbanks questioned the motives of the special audit request. He said claims that the board actions lacked transparency or were unethical were “rather inflammatory.”
“I want to make sure that the request is targeted at the board process and whether the processes are being adhered to, and so it’s not an opinion,” he said. “If there’s a disagreement, you can litigate and you can go to Superior Court, and that seems like that process should be separate.”
Stutes told the twelve House and Senate committee members present that the audit would focus on the board’s process and procedures only, not actions taken by the board.
“We’re not addressing any decisions that have been made by the Board of Fish. Our intent through this audit is to address the process in which these decisions are being made,” Stutes said.
Kris Curtis, a Legislative Auditor for the state and that leads the Division of Legislative Audit told lawmakers at the hearing that her office has extensive experience auditing state boards — including the Board of Fish and the Board of Game — and that the state audit would adhere to the criteria outlined in the request. That includes compliance with fisheries regulations and statutes, public notice and comment requirements and compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act and Executive Branch Ethics Act.
“We conduct all of our audits in accordance with auditing standards that require that we maintain our independence, both in fact and appearance. I have no concerns about that,” Curtis said. “To be able to address these objectives using objective criteria, we will gather sufficient, appropriate evidence, like we always do for every performance audit we issue, and we will come back to the committee with an independent, objective report.”
Curtis replied to lawmakers’ questions about the Attorney General’s decision by saying it would be evaluated by auditors.
“The answer is absolutely,” she said. “It’s informative. It’s factual. If we didn’t, we would be deficient. We will also be collecting other evidence. We will be having interviews. We’ll be reaching out to stakeholders. We’ll be examining meeting meetings. We’ll be looking at meeting minutes. We’ll be looking at the process. We’ll be doing all kinds of audit procedures.”
Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, asked her what would happen if auditors found the Attorney General acted improperly.
Curtis said her office would assess the case law cited in the decision. “If I found the Attorney General acted inappropriately, I would have to probably consult legislative, legal or outside counsel, depending on the subject and whatever we’re looking at, to inform us, the legislative audit team, about what decision they made. It’s not uncommon to seek additional legal advice when evaluating something,” she said.
House Speaker Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, and a former commercial fisherman, acknowledged that the Board of Fish has often drawn criticism and controversy.
“You’ve audited just about every moving thing out there, if I recall, as a long-term legislator, and this issue is always going to be controversial,” he said. “There is a lot of concern out there on a number of fronts about the Board of Fisheries, as there always is.”
Edgmon noted that the auditors’ recommendations can be taken up by the Legislature if needed.
Curtis said auditors will work closely with the Board of Fish, who will have an opportunity to respond to the audits’ findings and recommendations. With the committee’s approval, Curtis said her office will likely begin the audit investigation in August and complete its work in four to six months.
JPD- A 36-year-old Juneau man suffered life-threatening injuries after being struck by a vehicle late Sunday night near the Douglas Bridge, below is Juneau Police Department’s press release on the situation.
At approximately 11:05 p.m. on Sunday, July 19, 2026, the Juneau Police Department responded to the intersection of 10th Street and Egan Drive following a report of a vehicle-versus-pedestrian collision.
The preliminary investigation indicates that a 36-year-old Juneau man was riding a skateboard over the Juneau-Douglas Bridge toward 10th Street when he entered the intersection at 10th Street and Egan Drive against a red traffic signal and was struck by a black 2025 Toyota RAV4 traveling inbound on Egan Drive.
The skateboarder sustained life-threatening injuries and was transported by Capital City Fire/Rescue to Bartlett Regional Hospital for treatment.
The driver of the Toyota RAV4 remained at the scene and cooperated with the investigation.
The Juneau Police Department’s Major Accident Response Team (MART) responded to assist with the investigation.
This investigation remains ongoing. The preliminary findings are based on the evidence currently available and may change as additional information is obtained. No charges have been filed at this time.
Anyone who witnessed the collision or has additional information and has not yet spoken with investigators is encouraged to contact the Juneau Police Department at 907-586-0600 and reference this incident. Anonymous tips can also be submitted through JuneauCrimeLine.com.
State senators crowd around Matt Kissinger, commercial director of the Alaska Gasline Development Corp., shortly before lawmakers voted Thursday, July 16, 2026, on a compromise version of a tax break intended to benefit the trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline. (Corinne Smith photo/Alaska Beacon
On Wednesday, one day before the Alaska Legislature voted on a multibillion-dollar tax break for the proposed trans-Alaska gas pipeline, Rep. Calvin Schrage, I-Anchorage, gave the pipeline’s lead developer a sneak preview of the bill.
For weeks, Schrage had been in charge of negotiating a compromise version of the tax break that could get approval from the state House, Senate and Gov. Mike Dunleavy.
He walked Glenfarne Alaska President Adam Prestidge through the compromise, explaining section by section how skeptics in the state Senate had given ground on labor issues and project timing. Skeptics also were no longer insisting that the pipeline be subject to a revised tax on privately held oil and gas firms.
Given those changes, Schrage asked: Could Glenfarne support the bill?
According to Schrage, Prestidge said it could, and Glenfarne would publish a news release to that effect.
Glenfarne disputes Schrage’s account, and that difference in perspectives appears to have contributed to a failed vote on Thursday that killed the bill — and possibly with it, the current version of the gas pipeline project.
“The governor’s probably in a bad mood,” said Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka, “but he was definitely told on several occasions when we were negotiating this bill that this is our last and final offer. The bill goes down, it’s dead. There’s no playing around.”
Glenfarne has repeatedly said that changes to the state’s petroleum property tax are needed in order to get financing for the pipeline project, which is expected to cost as much as $54.5 billion.
The bill wouldn’t have guaranteed a pipeline, but as Rep. Will Stapp, R-Fairbanks, said earlier this year, the lack of a bill would guarantee not having a pipeline.
The tax break would require the state and local governments to forgo more than $10 billion in revenue over 30 years, and some legislators are skeptical of the proposal. Getting their votes required a compromise.
A tax revision, variously called an “S Corp tax” or “pass-through entities tax” would apply certain income taxes to some companies that don’t currently pay them. It was included in the pipeline bill to win the votes of skeptical lawmakers, but prior versions of the tax have drawn opposition and led to an impasse.
On Thursday, after Schrage told fellow lawmakers that Glenfarne supported the new version, a bipartisan, bicameral committee voted 4-2 to advance it to the full House and Senate.
No news release came, and Schrage talked to Prestidge again.
Hilcorp, an oil and gas firm owned by billionaire businessman Jeffery Hildebrand, is the operator of the Prudhoe Bay and Point Thompson oil and gas units on the North Slope. Those units would supply gas for the pipeline that Glenfarne intends to build.
Hilcorp is also the company that would be most affected by the revised tax.
“What I heard from Glenfarne is that Hilcorp told them that if they came out in support of the bill, that they would make all their contractual negotiations impossible for them, and essentially threatened to use their future negotiations, which they knew they would have to enter into, to leverage them and and make things incredibly difficult,” Schrage said.
After Thursday’s committee vote, pro-development groups issued a statement asking legislators to vote down the revised bill, citing the tax revision and its potential effect on natural gas prices in the state.
“When you tax entities that are providing you with a commodity, it will increase the end cost of said commodity,” said Steve Wackowski, president and CEO of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, a trade group that signed the statement.
Before the state Senate voted on Thursday afternoon, lawmakers there learned that Glenfarne and the Alaska Gasline Development Corp. — a state-owned firm developing the pipeline with Glenfarne — might have issues with the S Corp provision after all.
AGDC owns 25% of the gas line project, while Glenfarne owns 75%.
They called for a brief break in order to talk with Prestidge and Matt Kissinger, the commercial director of AGDC, in private.
Kissinger told senators that AGDC was fine with gasline-related provisions of the bill but had no comment on the pass-through provision because AGDC isn’t a tax-paying entity.
“They wouldn’t touch that with a 10-foot pole because they answer to the (governor),” said Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka on Friday.
By phone to senators on Thursday, Prestidge said Glenfarne opposed the S Corp provision.
Members of the 14-person Senate majority caucus left that meeting with no agreement on whether or not to pass the bill. It ultimately passed the Senate by a single vote after Sen. Matt Claman, D-Anchorage, changed from “no” to “yes.”
Before the House could vote, Gov. Mike Dunleavy issued a statement saying he opposed the latest version of the bill and would veto it if it passed the House.
No veto was needed: Only 19 members of the House voted for the bill, two short of what was needed to advance it.
Only one of the House’s 21 Republicans — Rep. Louise Stutes, R-Kodiak — voted for the bill; all of the House’s Democrats and independents voted for it. That flipped a vote on a prior version, when opposition came from a handful of Democrats and independents.
Several Republicans who voted against the bill said they did so because it would affect companies that are drilling for oil and gas in Cook Inlet — Hilcorp, as well as HEX and Furie. Armstrong Oil and Gas, a firm active on the North Slope, would also be affected.
Partially because of corporate secrecy and partially because of the haste with which the compromise advanced, there was no information on how much each company would pay.
In addition, members of the all-Republican House minority caucus were excluded from the closed-door negotiating that led to the compromise bill. The exact text of the final version came as a surprise to them.
“All of a sudden, we would have a tax on our three most important companies, which would be Hilcorp, HEX, and Armstrong,” said Rep. Kevin McCabe, R-Big Lake. “I think (voting no) was the right thing to do, and my whole caucus apparently agrees, as well as the Senate minority.”
Schrage, who voted for the bill, disagreed.
“The bill worked for Glenfarne and would have allowed them to keep moving the project forward and given them a shot. They were happy and pleased with the work product. I don’t think they ever loved the S Corp provision, but it didn’t harm them. And it was only when Hillcorp came in to essentially leverage the parties at play that everything fell apart,” Schrage said afterward.
Glenfarne disputes Schrage’s account of what occurred, calling it “misleading and incorrect.”
“Glenfarne didn’t take a position on a bill we hadn’t seen, and once we saw the bill we immediately opposed it, including our June 19 statement to the media. This tax increases commercial and economic uncertainty in Alaska for the whole industry working together to support this project and bring energy relief. A $16 project energy price cap and tax-driven cost increases make project economics increasingly challenged,” said spokesman Tim Fitzpatrick by email.
Fitzpatrick’s statement refers to a clause in the gas pipeline bill that caps the price of natural gas for Alaskans. If taxes rise on Hilcorp, it could then raise the price of North Slope gas it sells into the pipeline, making it difficult for Glenfarne to meet the required price, said those familiar with the issue.
“It’s frustrating that Hillcorp has so much influence over the state of Alaska,” said Sen. Lyman Hoffman, D-Bethel on Friday. “Glenfarne or the governor wouldn’t stand up to them for the better interests of the state of Alaska.”
Schrage says he has phone records and text messages to back up his account.
“I think the evidence is pretty clear,” Schrage said. “The governor, Glenfarne and minority Republicans all indicated support for the bill passed out of the conference committee minus the closure of the passthrough entity tax loophole which the entire AKLNG project was exempted from. Given that exemption and the support for the rest of the bill, what possible reason would Glenfarne have to oppose the bill other than pressure from Hilcorp?”
Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, took to social media on Thursday to accuse Dunleavy of working for “a Texas billionaire,” the owner of Hilcorp.
“Yeah, that’s bulls**t. OK, that’s bulls**t. He’s just — and you could quote me, that’s bulls**t. OK, he’s a bulls**tter,” Dunleavy said of Wielechowski, speaking to reporters after a news conference on Thursday evening. “He is one of a handful in the Senate and the Democrats that are going to try and kill this gas line for the very people they purport to represent — poor people, single moms with kids — that their bills are going through the roof. Why doesn’t he give a rip about them? Why doesn’t he care about them?”
“Why is he insisting on an S Corp in this bill?” Dunleavy asked.
Because Dunleavy would veto a standalone bill, Wielechowski said afterward.
“The reason that it hasn’t been passed is because he’s threatened to veto it, and you need 45 votes to override that, and there’s zero chance we’re going to get it,” Wielechowski said.
Alaska is facing a long-term deficit, with spending on services and the Permanent Fund dividend expected to greatly exceed the amount of available revenue. Legislators have been trying since 2017 to pass a bill containing the S Corp provision.
Dunleavy has vetoed numerous standalone tax bills, saying repeatedly that he will not approve any that are not part of a comprehensive plan to bring state expenses and revenue into line over the long term.
“He’s killed all of the new revenue bills that we’ve offered,” said Sen. Cathy Giessel, R-Anchorage.
“This is a huge gap in our revenue stream. It is an inequality in our tax structure,” she said, noting that other oil companies pay the tax that Hilcorp would pay. “How is it that Conoco and Exxon have been able to pay this tax and still continue to explore on the North Slope?”
Dunleavy said insisting on an S Corp provision in the gas pipeline bill amounts to hostage-taking.
“So you can’t get an S corp bill passed that’s unvetted, that nobody really knows what it does, unless you hold the people hostage with a gas bill? Well, that’s a representative for you. That’s a senator for you. That’s pretty sad, to be perfectly honest with you,” he said. “Pretty sad.”
CBJ-The American Red Cross will host a free workshop and resource fair on Sunday, July 19 at the Mendenhall Valley Library. The event is designed to help older adults, individuals with access or functional needs, and medically fragile persons prepare for emergencies.
The event begins at 12 p.m. with a presentation, available both in-person and online, followed by a planning workshop and resource fair from 1 to 3 p.m.
Attendees will have the opportunity to build an individualized disaster plan, complete an emergency contact card, learn how and where to safely store important documents and more.
Registration is free and available online at bit.ly/4vZJlPL. Information for virtual attendance will be provided upon registration
The Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, which is one of the largest immigrant detention facilities in the western U.S. (Grace Deng/Washington State Standard)
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested an Alaska state attorney in Anchorage and is holding him in an ICE detention facility in Washington state, according to an agency spokesperson.
Shucheng Yang, a 32-year-old Chinese national, was arrested in Anchorage on July 10.
“Yang violated the terms of his admission and is a deportable alien,” said Jason Chudy, an ICE Public Affairs officer, by email on Thursday. He said Yang is currently detained in the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, Washington, pending immigration proceedings.
Yang is an attorney with the Alaska Department of Law’s labor, business and corporations section, according to the state employee database. Yang was admitted to the Alaska Bar Association and licensed to practice law in the state in June 2025. A spokesperson for the department declined to respond to questions about his immigration status, employment status or work authorization when hired, saying the department does not comment on personnel matters.
Chudy declined to say how Yang violated the terms of admission into the country. “To be clear, work authorization does NOT confer legal status in the United States,” he said in the email.
He referred further questions about Yang’s work authorization to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. A spokesperson for USCIS referred the question back to ICE, and said the agency does not comment on individual immigration cases.
The state requires applicants to self-disclose their employment eligibility and work authorization through the I-9 verification process during hiring, according to the Alaska Department of Administration, as reported by Alaska News Source.
There are no state criminal charges against Yang, according to court records. Yang pleaded no contest on June 26 for a speeding citation.
A spokesperson for the Municipality of Anchorage confirmed the Anchorage Police Department issued the traffic ticket on April 25. “They have had no other interaction with Mr. Yang since April,” said Nora Morse, communications director for the municipality, by email on Thursday.
“The Anchorage Police Department does not ask for someone’s immigration status as part of a routine traffic stop,” Morse said.
A spokesperson for the ACLU of Alaska said they were trying to get in touch with Yang’s attorney, and had no other information on his case.
The Alaska Department of Corrections contracts with ICE to hold detainees in Alaska under an agreement with the U.S. Marshals. A spokesperson confirmed that Yang was detained in Alaska for two days after his arrest until he was transferred on July 12.
DOC has held 17 people arrested by ICE since June 1, and 73 people since the beginning of the calendar year, according to spokesperson Betsy Holley on Thursday.
A bumper sticker on a car parked in Midtown Anchorage on June 29, 2026, expresses support for the Glenfarne-Alaska Gasline Development Corp. plan for natural gas pipeline tax concessions. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
A few months from now, if developers of the proposed trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline move forward with the project, they will ask Alaskans for something between a few hundred million and a billion and a half dollars.
The request is optional, but if the state doesn’t chip in, Alaska’s 25% ownership of the pipeline will dwindle to a smaller fraction, and any profits will similarly shrink.
Two other requests for cash could come as soon as next year, to first fund a gas treatment plant on the North Slope and then a natural gas export facility on the Kenai Peninsula.
As state lawmakers debate a multibillion-dollar tax break for the pipeline project this week, a confidential memo and legislative testimony show the break won’t be the last financial request from Alaskans.
Keeping the state’s 25% ownership of the Alaska LNG project will cost at least $4 billion, according to estimates from the Alaska Department of Revenue.
If the state spends that money, and if the project is built and sells gas as planned, the department estimates the state will earn more than $21 billion through 2062, almost five times its initial investment.
But there’s a risk: if the pipeline project costs more than expected, the state of Alaska will be asked to pay more.
“We have reserved the option for the state of Alaska to elect to invest or not,” Frank Richards, president of the Alaska Gasline Development Corp., told the Senate Finance Committee on June 4. “The project will proceed forward without the state investment, but we wanted to give the state that opportunity should it elect to, eyes wide open.”
A potential investment for the state
Last year, the Gasline Development Corporation, a state-owned company charged with building the gas pipeline project, sold the lead role in the project to Glenfarne, a private multinational developer.
According to a confidential memo analyzing the deal, Glenfarne agreed to pay $10 million and fund the project’s development until the “Final Investment Decision,” the point at which investors start to put down money and contracts go out for construction.
Glenfarne has 75% ownership of 8 Star Alaska, the parent company of the pipeline project. The state — through AGDC — has 25% ownership. AGDC’s ownership share stays the same regardless of how many new investors come into the project.
But ownership of 8 Star Alaska may not mean much.
The Alaska LNG project includes three separate “subprojects” — a gas treatment plant on the North Slope, the pipeline itself and an export terminal on the Kenai Peninsula.
Each of those subprojects is its own subsidiary company, and not all of the subproject profits will go back to 8 Star Alaska.
“The real value is down in the three subsidiaries of 8 Star,” said Sen. Cathy Giessel, R-Anchorage, in a July 2 podcast interview.
Right now, each subsidiary is subject to the same 75-25 ownership split as 8 Star, but that changes at FID, when other investors put in their money.
At that point, said Matt Kissinger, AGDC’s commercial director, there will be enough money to build each subproject, but the state will have the opportunity to push out other investors and preserve its 25% ownership.
“All the investors will be in; they’ll all be committed, and then we’ll have 180 days for the state to decide to back them out of some of their commitment,” he said.
According to a draft analysis of last year’s Glenfarne-AGDC deal, AGDC has “the right to invest in up to 25%, but not less than 5%, of each sub-project at FID.”
The 5% minimum — if AGDC takes any share at all — was negotiated with Glenfarne, Kissinger said, because if the state is going to push out another investor, it needs to do so for a meaningful amount.GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.SUBSCRIBE
Part or all of the 25% buy-in could be taken by AGDC. The state could buy in directly, or another state-owned corporation like the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, Alaska Railroad or the Alaska Permanent Fund Corp. could do so.
If the state and public corporations don’t reach the 25% maximum, then Alaska residents, Alaska Native corporations and other in-state companies would have a chance to take some or all of the remainder.
On June 25, the AGDC board voted unanimously to approve the creation of a subsidiary that will allow individual Alaskans to invest in the project through AGDC.
“No more funds are required by the State of Alaska to invest for this project to proceed forward, it’s just that we have the option to, and if Alaskans want the opportunity to invest, that’s the structure that we’re going to set up for them,” Richards told the board.
AGDC and Glenfarne expect the pipeline subproject to reach FID this year. The gas treatment plant and the export facility FIDs are expected no sooner than 2027.
Department of Revenue estimates a $4.4 billion cost
Keeping the state’s share of the project at 25% is likely to be expensive. Glenfarne estimated last month that building the pipeline alone will cost as much as $16.9 billion.
In an example scenario AGDC presented to legislators last month, the company suggested developers could take out loans for 70% of that cost.
The Alaska Department of Revenue is independently using that percentage for its baseline predictions, too.
The developers could cover the remaining 30% by selling part of the pipeline subsidiary.
If the state wants to keep 25% ownership of the whole project, that would mean buying 25% of that 30%.
Using some assumptions, “that would result in $4.4 billion in nominal terms that would be required to invest in the project,” said Dan Stickel, the Department of Revenue’s chief economist, on May 21.
That’s on top of the tens of billions of dollars in production taxes, property taxes, royalties and fees that the state would receive regardless of whether or not it takes an additional ownership share.
What happens if Alaska doesn’t buy in?
“That (25% ownership) will definitely be diluted. That’s the mechanism that was designed,” Kissinger told state lawmakers.
AGDC’s scenario, presented to legislators on June 4, suggested 8 Star Alaska would keep 35% of the pipeline subsidiary. AGDC would have a quarter of that 35%, or 8.75% of any profits after debts are paid.
If 8 Star Alaska keeps less than that 35%, then the state’s quarter would shrink correspondingly.
While investing in the project increases the potential profits, there’s also a risk, said Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka, on June 16. If the project costs more than expected, the state and other investors would have to pay more money to keep their share of the project.
“If the state wishes to take that risk, and if the state wishes to be a paying member of the project … you would be paying 25% of any of the investment dollars coming in to maintain that,” Kissinger said on June 3.
Where would Alaska get the money?
Current state law allows AGDC to borrow money without legislative approval.
“Right now, under the current statutes, AGDC has extremely broad bonding authority. We can raise revenue bonds — provided there is no recourse back to the state — without any further approvals,” Kissinger said on June 26.
What’s a revenue bond?
The Alaska Constitution severely limits the kinds of government borrowing that the state is responsible for and must repay through taxes. Corporations like AGDC can instead issue revenue bonds, which are repaid by the corporation’s profits. There’s no obligation for the state to bail out a corporation that can’t pay its bond holders.
The current version of the gasline tax break being considered by state lawmakers would limit AGDC’s borrowing power.
Legislators would have to meet within 90 days — possibly in special session — to approve any bonds.
The Alaska Department of Revenue would be required to analyze the investment and make a recommendation to legislators.
Another funding possibility is that the state could offer things instead of money in order to pay for its share of the project.
“What we’re hoping to do is to utilize state materials, state assets, to be able to provide to the project in lieu of cash,” Richards told the House Finance Committee on May 27. “The gravel that will be used for access road and pipe bedding and pipe backfill and pipe storage yards and camp facilities represents about 20 million cubic yards of material, so that has a value of roughly $60 million and if we are able to then utilize that value and gain equity, then that would be a non-cash option that we would like to exercise for the state.”
In an interview on Tuesday, Richards said the state could also offer the land that the pipeline will use. Instead of paying something like $9 million per year in rent to the Department of Natural Resources, the state could simply deed the land to the pipeline operator and receive a share of the pipeline subsidiary in return.
Lawmakers could also appropriate money directly from the state treasury to AGDC in order to fund the project.
Rep. Andy Josephson, D-Anchorage, said on May 21 that in order to come up with the money for the 25% investment, the state’s independent financial adviser recommended overdrawing the earnings reserve of the Alaska Permanent Fund.
“I know that’s sacrilege to talk about, and it’ll be left for the next Legislature … but $4 billion is something this state could probably borrow or find, I guess,” he said.
“This is such a significant decision for what I call the re-electeds,” said Josephson, who is retiring and not running for re-election. “If they don’t do it, they could be chastised for decades and remembered for not doing it, but if the project has significant cost overruns, they could be chastised for that.”
“I would agree, it’s a very significant decision,” Stickel said.
Speaking June 19 on the floor of the state Senate, Sen. Jesse Kiehl, D-Juneau, said he is terrified of what might happen if the state invests and there is a cost overrun that requires more money to complete the project.
“Does it go bankrupt, and we just leave it? Nobody in this room is that naive. There’s one deep pocket around this project. There’s one entity that’s had a 50 year dream of building the pipe. There’s one place you can go for billions and billions of dollars,” he said.
Left unsaid was the name of the Alaska Permanent Fund.
NOTN- City manager Katie Koester told the Assembly of the Whole Monday evening, that the Burns Building renovation, or the new City Hall is delayed and will not allow offices to move out of temporary space by year‑end as planned.
“We are not going to be able to move out of the Marine View building or this building by the end of the calendar year as we had originally hoped, so we have entered into an additional six-month lease with Marine View. We anticipate the project to be complete by May.” Koester said.
Bids are still being received; alternates in the bid package total about $1.3 million for items such as flooring, ceiling work and mechanical controls. The city has signed a six‑month lease extension for its space at Marine View, and Koester warned that lease costs and schedule slippage could draw on project contingency.
Koester said they may request additional funding or transfer from the lands fund if needed and will update the Assembly when bid results are finalized and a construction award is required.
The Assembly also moved forward with two parallel paths to dispose of the current City Hall at 155 Heritage Way after extended discussion.
Members voted to advance an ordinance for a sealed competitive bid sale with a $2.5 million minimum and also directed staff to prepare a negotiated‑sale ordinance for consideration with the Sealaska Heritage Institute’s $1.5 million proposal.
Members cited community and year‑round benefits from a cultural use, but others pushed to test market interest through bids.
“Not everything can be quantified, so I weigh the value of having a known entity being in this space.” Said Assembly member Maureen Hall, “I see the quandary. Do we open it up for a bid and go with the highest bidder, or see what it is and then scale back to an entity that’s going to provide year-round benefit and additional benefit to the community as far as sharing of resources.”
The twin approach schedules both options for the same public‑hearing timeline so the Assembly can weigh competitive offers against a negotiated community proposal.
