Fishing vessels are seen in Homer’s harbor on Oct. 22, 2025. A resolution passed by state lawmakers urges federal officials to extend the ban on Russian seafood imports. Russian fish competes for market share with Alaska’s fish. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
A legislative resolution urging a continued and better-enforced ban on Russian seafood in the United States is headed to Gov. Mike Dunleavy.
Part of a series of actions by Alaska lawmakers to try to shore up the state’s ailing seafood industry, House Joint Resolution 29 won final passage last week and was transferred to the governor on Monday.
The resolution calls for continuation of the ban on Russian seafood imports imposed in 2022, after that country’s invasion of Ukraine. The ban was expanded in 2023 to cover imports of Russian seafood to the U.S. through a third-party country, usually China, where fish are processed.
The import ban is set to expire later this year. That makes the resolution timely, supporters aid.
Among the supporters is Jeremy Woodrow, executive director of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute.
Woodrow, in testimony to the Senate Resources Committee on Feb. 27, said a stockpile of Russian fish that was in the U.S. before the ban went into full effect is just now being depleted.
“We need more time to really capture the U.S. marketplace. Our industry has not recovered yet,” Woodrow said. Even though last year’s fishing season was better, it was still one of the worst years in the last 20 years, he said.
“This is one measure that will help our fishermen. We’re starting to see the fruits of this ban coming into play, but we need more time to provide stability to our industry. We need more time to see it come to fruition,” he told the committee.
In addition to seeking an extension of the import ban, the resolution calls for stronger monitoring and enforcement to “ensure fair trade, protect the state’s seafood industry, and promote sustainable and ethical seafood production.”
Legislative resolutions do not have the power of law, but they can influence actions by Congress, the federal executive branch or other institutions.
The Russian seafood import ban resolution was not among the measures introduced by the Joint Legislative Task Force Evaluating Alaska’s Seafood Industry, formed in 2024. However, it addresses an aspect of international trade, one of the issues raised by the task force. The task force’s report recommended an update to a Russia-focused resolution passed by the legislature in 2022, Senate Joint Resolution 16.
Russian king crab is displayed at a Costco in Anchorage on Nov. 14, 2022. The crab, from the Barent Sea, was distributed by Arctic Seafoods of San Francisco, and was part of inventory stockpiled before the U.S. government banned fish imports from Russia. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
The eight-member task force, comprising Senate and House members from fishery-dependent districts, issued its recommendation report in January 2025, at the start of last year’s session. Recommendations for action resulted in the introduction of a series of bills intended to help the industry, which has struggled with low fish prices, glutted international markets, high costs and other challenges.
Other bills focus on tax credits and revenues
One of the task force’s bills, aimed at encouraging seafood product development and diversification, is headed for a vote in the Senate this week.
That measure, Senate Bill 130, concerns the state’s fisheries product development tax credit system. Currently, seafood companies are allowed to deduct the cost of new equipment used to develop value-added products from salmon, herring, pollock, sablefish and Pacific cod. The bill would expand that to all fish species, including shellfish. That is in line with the recommendation in the task force report, which identifies arrowtooth flounder, fish meal and crab shells as examples of some underused or discarded products that could be processed into something marketable.
The bill, in the amended form before the Senate, also seeks to expand the range of technology for which investment would qualify for credits, and it would extend the sunset date for the credit to 2037. Currently, the tax credit is due to expire next year.
The revenue impact of the bill, if it wins final passage, is difficult to determine because there are several unknown variables, said the fiscal note prepared by the state Alaska Department of Revenue. Estimated annual revenues losses to the state would range from $1 million to nearly $4 million, according to the fiscal note.
Another task force bill, aimed at helping fishery-dependent local governments, had not moved out of the Senate Finance Committee as of Tuesday. That measure, Senate Bill 135, would allow municipalities to increase their share of fisheries business tax and fishery resource landing tax revenues. Currently, the state and local governments split those tax revenues equally. The bill would allow local governments to get up to 75% of the tax revenues.
The legislature passed two seafood task force bills last year, each of which had wide support. However, Dunleavy vetoed one of the bills.
The bill that escaped the governor’s veto, House Bill 116, allows for the formation and operation of member-owned commercial fishing insurance cooperatives. Such cooperativesexist in other states and were used by some Alaska fishers. The bill passed unanimously.
The vetoed bill, Senate Bill 156, would have transferred $3.69 million from a defunct state loan fund to the Alaska Commercial Fishing and Agriculture Bank. The state-owned bank needed the boost to keep serving the seafood industry, bill supporters argued. But Dunleavy argued that the cost of the action was too great for the state budget to bear.
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.”
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.
Members of the Alaska House of Representatives convene on the first day of the second session of the 34th Alaska State Legislature on Jan. 20, 2026 (Photo by Corinne Smith/Alaska Beacon)
The Alaska Legislature on Wednesday approved a stopgap budget bill amid an ongoing debate among lawmakers around war-driven oil revenues and whether to draw from state savings.
The stopgap budget bill contains $449.6 million in state spending including for disaster relief, construction, education, correctional officer overtime and some public assistance programs — expenses accrued since the Legislature and Gov. Mike Dunleavy adopted the state budget last year.
But the question of how and when all the items will be funded is still uncertain. Lawmakers chose to rely on anticipated oil revenue to fund the bill rather than drawing from savings.
The Alaska Senate passed the budget bill by a 19 to 1 vote on Wednesday, with Sen. Robert Meyers, R-North Pole opposing. The bill was quickly transferred to the Alaska House where it passed unanimously by all 40 members. The bill now moves to the governor’s desk for his consideration.
The Legislature created a select bicameral conference committee to hammer out differences between House and Senate versions of the budget bill over the last week.
The final bill includes $75 million for disaster relief to cover the state’s response to the Western Alaska storms last fall, and almost $100 million for fire suppression. It contains $20 million for the Alaska Department of Corrections for overtime spending, as well as $34.4 million for Medicaid and $12.8 million for other public assistance programs through the Alaska Department of Health. The bill allocates nearly $130 million toward the Alaska Higher Education Fund which provides grants and scholarships to students.
The spending bill also includes a time-sensitive appropriation for Alaska’s construction industry. It contains $70.2 million in state dollars to unlock roughly $630 million in federal grant funding that industry groups have said is essential for the summer construction season.
But how the nearly $450 million budget bill is funded is still in question.
Legislators have been closely watching oil prices since the start of the Iran war, which state forecasters have projected could potentially generate hundreds of millions in state revenue for Alaska.
Lawmakers agreed that if oil-driven state revenues from now until June 30, the end of the fiscal year, are not sufficient to cover the stopgap budget, then the Legislature will draw from state savings. That roughly pencils out to an average of $74 per barrel of oil through June to cover state spending, according to data provided by the House Finance Committee.
But that vote to confirm drawing from savings again failed in the House on Wednesday — the fourth vote held in the House this year. To draw from Alaska’s main $3 billion savings account requires support from three-quarters of the House and Senate.
The Senate approved the immediate draw from savings on Wednesday by a 16 to 4 vote, but it failed to pass the House by a vote of 22 to 18. It takes 30 votes in the House to spend from the savings reserve.
On Thursday, House Speaker Rep. Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham, expressed concern at sending the budget bill to the governor with what he said was no “backstop” funding from savings.
“So if the price of oil goes down, the governor may not have the money ultimately, to finish up or to pay for operations,” he said for this fiscal year.
Edgmon said he is concerned with banking on future oil prices to pay the state’s bills.
“It’s the first time, I think maybe perhaps in Alaska’s history, we’ve ever done it this way,” he said. “It’s going to be very interesting to see how this plays out, because oil prices can certainly go up as well, but they can also go down. And it’s not the way that I like to operate in terms of being fiscally responsible.”
Members of the Republican House minority caucus in opposition from drawing from savings expressed confidence in oil revenues providing enough funding to cover state expenses.
“Everything in this bill the state currently projects enough revenues to fund,” said Rep. Will Stapp, R-Fairbanks on Wednesday. “We still have many days in session, happy to revisit in the event oil price changes and we need to structure something in order to meet our obligations. That is not a requirement at this moment.”
The stopgap budget bill now moves to Dunleavy who can sign or veto the bill or let it pass into law without his signature.
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.
An oil tanker sits at the dock in Valdez, where vessels pick up crude moved from the North Slope by the Trans Alaska Pipeline System. (ConocoPhillips photo)
The Alaska Senate approved a measure to boost state taxes on oil and gas production on Wednesday. Lawmakers tacked it on to what would have been a routine renewal of a state oil royalty agreement.
Sen. Forrest Dunbar, D-Anchorage, sponsored the amendment to House Bill 194, saying it would close a corporate income tax loophole and potentially capture more than $100 million in new state revenues each year — at a time when Alaska is in dire need of revenue to pay for state services.
Sen. Forrest Dunbar, D-Anchorage speaks on the Senate floor on Mar. 25, 2026 (Photo by Corinne Smith/Alaska Beacon)
“Can we afford this loophole while we close schools? Can we afford this tax subsidy while we slash the permanent fund dividend? Can we afford this tax subsidy while our infrastructure languishes, while we struggle to recruit and retain state troopers and firefighters and maintenance crews?” Dunbar said. “The answer is no.”
The provision would impose the state’s corporate tax rate on oil and gas companies doing business in the state, at a maximum rate of 9.4% for companies whose net profits are more than $5 million per year.
Alaska’s oil prices are surging amid the Iran War, and state forecasters are projecting hundreds of millions in potential state revenue in the coming months. Despite the spike in oil prices, Dunbar said lawmaker action to capture more revenue from the oil and gas industry is long overdue.
“There is still a long term revenue problem in this state, regardless of short term prices connected to the Iran war,” he said. “Now is the time to do this. Prices for oil are high. These corporations are doing very well. You fix the roof when the sun is shining.”
The Senate approved the amendment by an 11 to 8 vote, then passed the underlying legislation by a 12 to 7 vote, with Sen. Kelly Merrick, R-Eagle River, absent.
The original legislation was introduced by the governor, and passed the Alaska House last year. It would renew a three-year oil royalty agreement between the state and Marathon Petroleum Corporation, for state owned oil to be processed at its refinery in Nikiski, on the Kenai Peninsula. The proposed contract is estimated to generate between $4 million to $18 million in state revenue.
However the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Jesse Bjorkman, R-Soldotna, objected to the new oil tax provision, saying the Senate should take time to evaluate how the tax measure would affect the broader industry and energy supply for Alaskans.
“I’m a no vote on this amendment, because we do need a legitimate plan,” he said. “We don’t rush things. We don’t do things in a half-cocked manner, because that’s how mistakes are made.”
He said lawmakers should model potential revenue measures so they know how they will function within a state fiscal plan.
Lawmakers have been hotly debating Alaska’s oil and gas tax structure for years. A bill introduced last year, Senate Bill 92, would change the way the state’s corporate income tax applies to the oil company Hilcorp, which is an S-corporation, and the state’s largest oil producer. Hilcorp is a privately held, Texas-based energy company that since 2020 has operated the Prudhoe Bay oil field in the North Slope, as well as most of the operations in Cook Inlet.
That bill is currently in the Senate Rules Committee and has not moved this year.
The measure approved by the Senate on Wednesday would enact state taxes not just on Hilcorp but many companies, and collect revenues that would otherwise be leaving the state, Dunbar said in an interview after the vote.
“To be clear, it’s not just Hilorp that might be affected by this, but that is one of the large, obvious holes we see in our oil tax structure right now that is causing us to shift tens of millions, and over the long term, hundreds of millions of dollars, from schools and roads and the permanent fund dividend to out of state companies and individuals,” he said.
The amended bill now goes to the House for a concurrence vote.
Dunbar urged support for the measure, citing financial woes in his own district where the Anchorage School Board has voted to close three elementary schools and cut hundreds of staff positions to help address a $90 million budget shortfall.
“I hope they agree that it’s not an acceptable world where the price is high and this industry is booming and we are closing Lake Otis Elementary School because we don’t have enough money,” he said.
A polling place sign at the State Office Building in Juneau on Aug. 15, 2022. (Photo by Lisa Phu/Alaska Beacon)
The Alaska House of Representatives passed an elections bill aimed at streamlining the state’s voting process and updating the voter rolls with a bipartisan vote on Monday. If signed into law, the bill would implement a new ballot tracking system, provide paid postage for all absentee mail-in ballots and implement provisions for faster election results, among other changes.
The House passed Senate Bill 64 by a 23 to 16 vote on Monday evening, with Rep. Ashley Carrick, D-Fairbanks, absent. Three members of the House minority caucus joined the majority in supporting the legislation: Rep. Sarah Vance, R-Homer, Rep. Kevin McCabe, R-Big Lake, and Rep. Jeremy Bynum, R-Ketchikan.
Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, sponsored the legislation as chair of the Senate Rules Committee and said at a news conference on Tuesday the bill was at least a decade in the making and the result of a bipartisan effort.
“We’re going to agree on the things that we can agree on, things that just fundamentally make our elections better. And after 10 years, I think this bill does that,” he said. “It’s not a perfect bill. There are still things that need to be worked on, but this goes a long way towards improving our election system for every single person in the state of Alaska.”
The House made a variety of changes to the bill that the Senate passed last year, and the bill now goes back to the Senate for a concurrence vote on Wednesday. If signed into law by Gov. Mike Dunleavy, some elections changes would be implemented immediately, like a review of the voter rolls. Changes to ballot tracking and curing would go into effect after the August primary.
Lawmakers have focused on updating the state’s voter rolls to make sure voters are currently living in Alaska. Wielechowski said the new system will help the state maintain active voter rolls.
“We have 105% more registered voters than we have eligible citizens in the state of Alaska,” Wielechowski said, calling the discrepancy a “fundamental problem.”
“Everyone in Alaska knows that our elections in Alaska are probably the most difficult elections to conduct in the United States for a variety of reasons, but mostly because of geography, because of weather, because people are just spread out over such a vast area,” he said.
Under SB 64, the Division of Elections would send a notice to confirm address and residency in Alaska if the voter has:
Registered to vote in a another state
Received a driver’s license in another state
Registered a vehicle in another state
Served on a jury in another state
Receives a residential property tax exemption in another state
Receives public assistance in another state
If the bill passes, the Alaska Division of Elections will review the voter rolls and, based on a list of factors, send a postcard by mail to verify a voter’s address and establish residency. Once the notices are sent, voters have a period of 45 days to respond and confirm their Alaska residency to the division — or be moved to an inactive voter list for a period of 28 months or two elections.
Some members of the Republican House minority caucus expressed concern that military members stationed overseas would be kicked off the voter roles.
Rep. Sarah Vance, R-Homer and a member of the minority caucus, spearheaded the House version of the bill and said that even if voters are inactive, they will still be on a master voter list for eight years, under federal law.
“We cannot cancel, according to federal law, someone off of the master register for eight years. So this includes the military voters,” she said. “But I want to make sure that everyone else understands they’re not going to be inadvertently canceled either.”
Under the bill, voters would be able to show identification issued from a federally recognized tribe to register to vote or for voting. To confirm active voting status, voters would be able to contact the division by calling, emailing or by voting.
Under the Senate’s version of the bill, the state would have done away with the requirement of a witness signature for all absentee mail-in ballots, but the House objected to that change and opted to keep the witness signature.
If passed, the bill would also allow voters to fix mistakes on their ballot – a process called ballot curing — by requiring the division to contact the voter by phone or email within 24 hours. Within two to five days, the division would send notification by mail. The voter would have to return a form to correct the ballot with a copy of identification by email or by mail within 10 days of the election for their ballot to be counted.
If passed, the bill would require the state to provide paid postage for all absentee mail-in ballots. The state would also enact a new tracking system so that voters will be notified when their ballot is received and counted.
Wielechowski said that will help with transparency, as will new provisions to get election results published faster. Additionally, the elections department will start reviewing ballots 12 days ahead of Election Day — five days earlier than under current law — to allow more ballots to be counted on Election Day.
Require all absentee ballots to be received within 10 days of Election Day;
Establish a new rural community liaison position within the Division of Elections to support rural districts, including recruitment and training of poll workers;
Require the Permanent Fund Dividend Division to share data to improve the accuracy of the voter rolls’
Require the state to develop a cybersecurity program, and notify the public if there is a data breach;
Require the division to publish results for all rankings in the precinct results.
Require presidential ballots to include a line for write-in votes for president and vice president
Updates crimes of unlawful interference with an election, ballot tampering and election official misconduct
Wielechowski said the new rural liaison established by the bill would be charged with helping small, rural communities prepare to hold their elections, coordinate equipment and polling places, and hire poll workers to improve operations on Election Day.
“That person is responsible for working with the local villages … working with those communities to ensure that all the citizens are able to exercise their fundamental right to vote,” he said.
“The polls never opened in Wales in 2024 in the primary. The polls in Anaktuvuk Pass in 2024 opened up 30 minutes before closing, and roughly seven people out of about 250 were able to vote in that election in person,” Wielowski said.
The changes to Alaska’s process of voting and elections this year could come amid potential sweeping changes to national elections.
The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a case that would require all ballots to be received by Election Day in order to be counted for federal elections.
All ballots received after that deadline would be thrown out, which could potentially disenfranchise thousands of Alaska voters who cast ballots that may be delayed by weather, flight delays or election logistics challenges.
“It’s going to create some havoc in our election system, and it may very well require a special session for us to come in and deal with it,” Wielechowski said. “And so you could get in a situation where you have ballots coming in that don’t count for the federal election, but do count for the state election. And so there would have to be some kind of way that you figure out how to process those ballots in a different manner.”
The Supreme Court is expected to rule next summer.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is putting pressure on the U.S. Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which would, in part, require voters to present identification and proof of U.S. citizenship in person when they vote.
Alaska Republican U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski has loudly opposed the bill, saying it’s logistically impossible for most Alaskans, as the state only has six in-person elections offices and fewer than a dozen DMV offices. Republicans U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan and U.S. Rep. Nick Begich III have supported the bill, saying they don’t think it would be hard to comply with its requirements.
The U.S. Senate is currently debating the bill amid another contentious debate around funding for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and ending a five-week partial shutdown for the department. On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune said the Senate may drop the voting bill in order to reach an agreement with Democrats over funding DHS, and return to it after Easter, according to reporting by Politico.
A crewman aboard the Alaska Marine Highway System ferry Malaspina dons a life jacket during a rescue boat drill Monday, Nov. 24, 2014 in Lynn Canal.
(James Brooks photo)
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
A crewman aboard the Alaska Marine Highway System ferry Malaspina dons a life jacket during a rescue boat drill Monday, Nov. 24, 2014 in Lynn Canal.
(James Brooks photo)
The state of Alaska is looking for someone to take the Matanuska, one of the first three ships built as part of the Alaska Marine Highway System after statehood.
In a public notice published Friday afternoon, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities said it is now looking for “interested parties regarding the opportunities to dispose of the vessel in a manner that honors its historic significance while allowing it to continue serving Alaska in new innovative ways.”
DOT is primarily looking for people or groups interested in operating the Matanuska “as a museum vessel, maritime training ship, tourism or hospitality venue, community facility, research platform, heritage site, or other maritime or public-serving use,” according to a detailed document accompanying the public notice.
Any applicant would have to demonstrate that they have the financial resources necessary to take care of the ship.
Retired ferries are notoriously expensive to operate, and idealistic plans for other ships have repeatedly fallen apart. The former Washington state ferry Kalakala was turned into a cannery in Kodiak, recovered and towed back to Washington, but fell derelict and almost sank into a canal before being scrapped in 2015.
Built in 1963, the Matanuska served as an active ferry for almost 60 years and still has a gold-painted funnel indicating its status as the “Queen of the Fleet,” the oldest operating ship in state service.
Despite that honor, the Matanuska has been out of regular service for at least three years, and has been laid up in Ketchikan for use as a “hotel ship” by the ferry system. Last year, DOT officials said the ferry system lacked the money needed to return the ship to service, and they recommended fully retiring it.
Proposals for the Matanuska’s future are due to DOT by 2 p.m. April 14.
“Letters of interest proposing scrapping, dismantling, or scuttling the vessel may be submitted for informational purposes,” the agency said, but for the time being, it’s looking at ideas to reuse the ship.
Members of the bicameral conference committee charged with writing a compromise supplemental budget sign the final documents on Monday, March 23, 2026, at the Alaska Capitol in Juneau. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
By: James Brooks, Alaska Beacon
Members of the bicameral conference committee charged with writing a compromise supplemental budget sign the final documents on Monday, March 23, 2026, at the Alaska Capitol in Juneau. (James Brooks photo/Alaska Beacon)
The Alaska Legislature is preparing to re-vote on a key spending bill that will cover millions of dollars in disaster response and construction projects in the current fiscal year.
On Monday, a bicameral conference committee voted 5-1 to send an amended version of the bill to final votes in the House and Senate. Those votes may take place Wednesday.
The state’s fast-track supplemental budget contains $449.3 million in spending — expenses accrued since legislators and Gov. Mike Dunleavy adopted the state budget last year.
Legislators are separately working on a budget for the next fiscal year, which begins July 1. A vote on that is expected at the end of the legislative session in May.
The supplemental budget bill includes $70.2 million to unlock grant-funded construction projects principally paid for by the federal government — a major lobbying priority for the state’s construction industry.
It also includes tens of millions for the state response to last year’s wildfire season and millions more as a down payment for the state’s response to ex-Typhoon Halong, which devastated Western Alaska last fall.
The new spending would largely be paid for with new revenue the state expects because of higher oil prices caused by the Iran war.
As long as prices remain high through June 30, the end of the fiscal year, legislators expect there will be enough general-purpose money to cover the expenses, plus a smaller package of budget amendments already proposed by Dunleavy.
Those amendments arrived too late to be added to the supplemental bill.
If oil prices don’t match expectations, the bill contains language that would allow the state to use the Constitutional Budget Reserve, the state’s principal savings account, to cover the difference plus $20 million in “headroom.”
That clause may run into problems in the House, where the 19-person House Republican minority caucus has voted several times against spending from the reserve.
It takes 30 votes in the House and 15 in the Senate to spend from the reserve; while the Senate has met that threshold and is expected to do so again this week, it isn’t clear whether the House will do so.
The 21-person, predominantly Democratic coalition that controls the House would need to attract at least nine minority votes, and in earlier votes, it was unable to do so — something that forced the bill into a bicameral conference committee for further negotiations.
Rep. Will Stapp, R-Fairbanks and the minority’s negotiator on the conference committee, was the only lawmaker to vote against the revised bill on Monday, saying he doesn’t believe any kind of spending from the reserve is necessary at this point.
Members of the House majority have argued that allowing reserve spending — if necessary — would provide surety for construction businesses making summer plans.
They have also argued that time is of the essence: Delaying action on the bill would mean those companies might have to defer purchasing and hiring decisions ahead of the summer construction season.
Members of the House minority argued that as previously written, the bill would have allowed members of the majority to direct the spending of hundreds of millions from the reserve, even if it wasn’t needed to balance the supplemental budget.
That version was cut to less than $375 million in spending, an attempt to attract minority votes, but while that approach worked in the Senate, it did not succeed in the House.
When the House failed to pass the reserve vote, lawmakers there sent the bill to the conference committee for further work.
While that committee was able to finalize a draft compromise, it won’t be clear until later whether that compromise can pass out of the Legislature.
