Connect with us

West

Alaska hits back at insurers accused of using ‘woke’ underwriting to reshape energy policy as ANWR reopens

Published

on

Alaska hits back at insurers accused of using ‘woke’ underwriting to reshape energy policy as ANWR reopens

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

EXCLUSIVE: The state of Alaska sent warning letters Monday to four major insurance firms, saying their climate-related policies may violate state insurance and consumer-protection laws by creating an uneven playing field for energy projects.

The news comes as Alaska’s congressional delegation led a successful effort to disapprove – or overturn – Biden-era restrictions placed on energy exploration in Section 1002 of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) on Thursday, effectively lifting those restrictions. 

Alaska Attorney General Stephen Cox and Commerce Commissioner Julie Sande warned AIG, Zurich, Chubb and The Hartford that some of their policies may conflict with state rules designed to protect Alaska’s status as a leading investment destination, particularly for energy production.

“Alaska’s insurance code is built on a central premise: underwriting decisions must rest on risk, and that means no discrimination based on extra-legal political, environmental, or long-range policy commitments,” the beginning of each of the four letters read.

Advertisement

CLIMATE LAWFARE CAMPAIGN DEALT BLOW IN SOUTH CAROLINA

The Alaska pipeline parallels the famous ‘ice-road-trucker’ Dalton Hwy in Alaska. (Lance King/Getty Images)

“And where the insurance code doesn’t reach, our consumer-protection statute prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices, which could include misrepresentations of compliance with Alaska law in contractual dealings.”

Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy told Fox News Digital his administration is taking a close look at “friction points” that may make it harder to build things in the Last Frontier.

“With respect to how our projects get insured, we’re concerned that some of the underwriting standards being applied today—particularly broad Arctic exclusions and long-range climate-driven policy restrictions—may be shutting out responsible Alaska projects for reasons that have nothing to do with actual risk,” he said.

Advertisement

TRUMP ADMIN IMPLODES LITERAL BIDEN ROADBLOCK WITH POTENTIAL TO UNLEASH MAJOR MINING WINDFALL

Dunleavy said the letters are foremost meant to start a dialogue with the four insurers so that he and officials in Juneau can better understand their policies and underwriting criteria – and clear up any “misconceptions about our state.”

In the state’s letter to AIG CEO Peter Zaffino, Alaskan officials wrote of “substantial concerns” about the insurer’s treatment of the state’s oil and gas sector, amid documentation it published committing to “phasing out” underwriting of existing operation insurance risks and halting new investments for clients deriving 30% or more revenue from coal or oil-sands by 2030.

The company also cited a 2050 net-zero greenhouse gas emissions standard for its policies in a separate document footnoted in the letter.

TRUMP ADMIN ANNOUNCES BIG STEP TOWARD ‘ENERGY DOMINANCE’ WITH MASSIVE ALASKA LNG PROJECT ALLIANCE

Advertisement

“AIG’s net-zero underwriting goal necessarily will result in emissions requirements that do not appear to be tied to short-term actuarial risk within the policy period,” Juneau’s letter read.

“AIG’s goal appears to be an effort to reshape a lawful sector according to AIG’s long-term environmental commitments.”

In a sentiment expressed to The Hartford, Juneau officials wrote that, “when an insurer adopts blanket exclusions based on geography or on long-range public policy objectives untethered to risk, those exclusions function as de-facto prohibitions on investment.”

TOP INSURANCE COMPANY IN HOT SEAT AS BLISTERING NEW AD CAMPAIGN EXPOSES ‘RADICAL WOKE IDEOLOGY’

In its letter to Zurich’s North America executive Kristof Terryn, Alaska also cited a reported “net-zero” goal of 2050, writing that “whatever the merits of those commitments, Alaska law requires insurers to treat insureds with like risk characteristics alike and to base underwriting decisions on risk—not on corporate climate-policy preferences or extra-legal standards developed to “[l]imit… average temperature increases” in line with the Paris Agreement,” citing a company document.

Advertisement

It warned that Zurich in the future may run afoul of the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, but stressed “we do not reach that conclusion here, but it is part of our broader review.”

Alaska took issue with Chubb’s March 2025 announcement that it would no longer underwrite oil and gas projects in International Union for the Conservation of Nature management categories one through four – which it noted included ANWR.

AG LEADING SUIT AGAINST NY EFFORT TO PUNISH ENERGY FIRMS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE WARNS OF MAJOR REPERCUSSIONS

Cox and Sande wrote that the underwriting prohibition on ANWR is one that “uniquely affects Alaska” and that “Alaska has invested years of planning and permitting work to open responsible opportunity in the ANWR… no other state faces this kind of prohibition.”

Consumers’ Research executive director Will Hild told Fox News Digital that the situation reveals “woke capitalism masquerading as risk management.”

Advertisement

“[I]t threatens jobs, consumers, and President Trump’s energy agenda. Consumers’ Research applauds the Alaska delegation for standing up to these woke insurers and defending Alaskan consumers from political ideology.”

As a response to potential criticisms from a macro level, Juneau officials said Alaska is home to modern transmission systems, well-trained operators and “robust” environmental protection rules.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

ANWR is shown. (Fox News/On The Record)

In prior statements, Chubb CEO Evan Greenberg assured observers that his company will continue supporting energy development through its underwriting.

Advertisement

“We’re continuing to insure oil and gas because the world needs energy,” Greenberg said. “We don’t yet have great alternatives to gas and oil. And it would be irresponsible of us not to continue to insure those in a responsible way.” 

ChubbFacts, a noted fact-check site supporting the insurance giant’s arguments in cases such as this, pushed back on claims of “wokeness” and other critiques, saying that it insured some of President Donald Trump’s legal cases, as well as oil companies, manufacturers, construction firms, and American farmers as a leading agricultural insurer—regardless of politics.”

“We’ve taken heat from climate activists for continuing to insure energy companies, but our focus never shifts,” the company wrote on ChubbFacts.com.

Fox News Digital reached out to media contact addresses for The Hartford, AIG, Zurich and Chubb for additional comment.

Advertisement

Read the full article from Here

Advertisement

San Francisco, CA

San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie Blocks Vacant Grocery Store Tax Proposal | KQED

Published

on

San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie Blocks Vacant Grocery Store Tax Proposal | KQED


The Affordable Groceries Act aimed to increase access to grocery stores and pharmacy chains by taxing empty storefronts and establishing a fund to subsidize groceries.

A view down an aisle at a Safeway supermarket in Walnut Creek, California, on July 22, 2025. Mahmood, who represents the Tenderloin, claims that Lurie stepped in to swat down the grocery store tax proposal because Amazon, which owns Whole Foods Market, had been “lobbying intensely” against the proposal at City Hall for weeks.  (Smith Collection/Gado via Getty Images)

“They don’t like taxes on corporations. It’s just philosophical. But the unprecedented part is that yesterday, I got a call that they are going to actively oppose this,” Mahmood said of the Lurie administration. “The only conclusion I can draw is this comes from pressure that Amazon built.”

Advertisement

Mahmood, who represents the Tenderloin, claims that Lurie stepped in to swat down the grocery store tax proposal because Amazon, which owns Whole Foods Market, had been “lobbying intensely” against the proposal at City Hall for weeks.

According to Mahmood, Amazon lobbyists requested an exemption to the legislation for the company’s shuttered Whole Foods storefront on Market Street. Mahmood declined the request.

Supervisor Bilal Mahmood speaks during a rally for survivors of sexual assault and harassment at San Francisco City Hall in San Francisco on July 7, 2026. (Gina Castro for KQED)

“They said, if you do this, we will campaign against it,” Mahmood told KQED. “The explicit words from their lobbyists were, we just spent $250,000 against Prop D. We could probably do the same here again.”

Amazon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Proposition D, known as the Overpaid CEO Tax, appeared on the June primary ballot and aimed to tax major corporations to fill the city’s budget gaps. Opponents, including moderate political pressure groups and tech leaders, spent millions of dollars to defeat it. Lurie also urged a “no” vote. It ultimately failed to pass.

The closure of grocery stores and pharmacies has factored into affordability challenges in the city.

Advertisement

Nearly a third of San Franciscans living below the poverty line are food insecure, according to a 2024 report by the city’s Food Security Task Force, and nearly 110,000 residents utilize CalFresh, a food benefits program that the Trump administration has made qualifying for more difficult.

But Lurie has said Mahmood’s plan won’t help fill the city’s many empty grocery stores.

“Mayor Lurie is working to bring grocery stories to San Francisco’s communities. More taxes won’t achieve that,” said Charles Lukvak, the mayor’s spokesperson. “We support the Affordable Grocery Fund and will continue working with Supervisor Mahmood and the entire Board to bring more grocery stores to the city.”

Taxes collected on the vacant storefront proposal could have gone toward a new affordable grocery fund, which would also accept private donations if both measures passed. The fund would be intended for a variety of different affordability programs focused on healthy food.

Advertisement

Mahmood said Lurie urged Supervisor Connie Chan to cut the item from the upcoming Budget and Finance Committee agenda, striking its chances of going on the ballot this November.

A spokesperson for Chan said she supports the intent of the legislation but that it required more work and was not ready to go before the board or voters.

San Francisco Supervisor Rafael Mandelman speaks at a press event in front of San Francisco City Hall on Oct. 29, 2025. (Martin do Nascimento/KQED)

“Budget Chair Connie Chan agrees with Supervisor Mahmood’s intent for this measure — we need more neighborhood grocery stores — but she also understands that much work needs to be done to this measure to deliver that intent,” said Robyn Burke, Chan’s spokesperson. “Supervisor Mahmood has amendments he wants to make to his legislation that he is still working on.”

Mahmood said he had support from Supervisors Chyanne Chen, Danny Sauter, Stephen Sherrill and Myrna Melgar for the proposal.

He has a final Hail Mary he is holding out for that could allow the proposal to move forward after a motion next Tuesday, if Board President Rafael Mandelman steps in to initiate a vote. Mandelman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“When a proposal to make groceries more affordable gets pulled from the agenda before the public even gets to weigh in, that’s a problem no matter who asked for it,” Mahmood said. “San Franciscans deserve an up-or-down vote, in public, from their elected leaders.”

Advertisement





Source link

Continue Reading

Denver, CO

What’s going on with the Nuggets? Unpacking an NBA offseason on hold

Published

on

What’s going on with the Nuggets? Unpacking an NBA offseason on hold


To the well-trained eye, Denver figured to be one of the epicenters of this NBA offseason.

With two starters due for a combined $25.8 million salary increase, and with a potential rising star on the bench determined to land a lucrative contract extension, something had to give. The Nuggets were about to get too expensive for owner Stan Kroenke to stomach. Especially after their debacle of a playoff run, which ended before it could begin.

This was the prevailing sentiment for two months leading up to free agency. Almost all Nuggets-related chatter, both inside and outside Ball Arena, was about which player(s) they would sacrifice in a trade. Team president Josh Kroenke poured jet fuel on the rumor mill when he declared in May that “everything is on the table” except trading three-time MVP center Nikola Jokic.

Another high-ranking official in the Kroenke sports empire, Kevin Demoff, had hinted months earlier that Denver’s inclination might be to avoid the luxury tax entirely next season as to avoid paying the NBA’s punitive “repeater tax” rates. That was long before the Nuggets revealed to their power brokers that they were nowhere close to championship-worthy.

Advertisement

So, uh, what’s going on in Denver?

More than a week since the league’s free agency period began, most teams have completed their offseason business. The Nuggets have been puzzlingly idle. A few highlights so far: Tim Hardaway Jr. leaving for Miami as expected, Jonas Valanciunas getting waived for salary cap relief as expected, Marvin Bagley III and Tyus Jones signing one-year deals.

Team President Josh Kroenke walks in a hallway after listening to head coach David Adelman of the Denver Nuggets speaking to members of the media after the Minnesota Timberwolves’ 110-98 Game 6 NBA Playoffs series win at the Target Center in Minneapolis, Minnesota on Thursday, April 30, 2026. Minnesota eliminated the Nuggets 4-2. (Photo by AAron Ontiveroz/The Denver Post)

Going all-in or playing it conservatively?

Something doesn’t add up. As in, it adds up to a sum that continues to leave most NBA observers skeptical. Denver is leaving everyone guessing right now, even other teams.

Should fans be frustrated by the lack of action? Encouraged by it? Or is everything simply on hold?

There are two sides to this to unpack: the financial and basketball perspectives. They’re obviously intertwined, but when trying to make sense of this situation, it’s best to start with the financial side, because that was an obstacle that seemed to be motivating Denver’s roster decisions even before the on-court problems that emerged against Minnesota.

Advertisement

Before last season, the Nuggets were choosing between two extension-eligible 2022 draftees who had one year remaining on their rookie contracts: Christian Braun and Peyton Watson. They chose Braun, the more proven player at that point, an efficient 15-point-per-game starter the previous season, and a strong (if flawed) defender. They signed him to a five-year deal that would go into effect in 2026. They felt comfortable taking Watson to restricted free agency and maybe even losing him. Three years into his career, he seemed to be developing into a solid 3-and-D bench player, and maybe not much more than that.

The Nuggets were looking ahead to their 2026-27 payroll and didn’t want to commit large chunks of money to both players. Watson told The Denver Post in October: “From what I understand, it was just a financial business decision. Obviously, with the new CBA and the second apron, things of that nature, they wanted to stay out of that.”

Braun went on to have an injury-riddled season, the worst of his career. Watson had the best season of his career, particularly by showcasing his off-the-dribble ability when Jokic was hurt in January.

And so the Nuggets knew they would be entering the 2026 offseason with six starter-level players whose combined salary would result in a roster payroll above all three tax thresholds: the luxury tax ($200.4 million), first apron ($209 million) and second apron ($221.7 million). They wanted to keep Watson, recognizing the importance of his two-way talent and athleticism. They signaled as much to other teams.

If their previous actions had already indicated they were prepared to sacrifice him to stay under the second apron, then changing course and keeping him would surely mean sacrificing someone else.

Advertisement

This was the foundational logic that led people around the NBA to believe they were almost guaranteed to trade a starter. An oversimplification of the salary cap math looked like this: Lose one of your six starter-level players to get under the second apron, or lose two to duck the tax entirely. Perhaps other creative ways to shed salary would emerge, but this was the basic state of the union. Jon Wallace and Ben Tenzer would be tasked with threading the needle between cutting payroll and improving the roster.

From this perspective, the fact that Denver has not traded any of the six starter-level players yet can ironically be interpreted as an aggressive stance, not a conservative one. The moves that were expected to have happened by now would’ve been motivated primarily by money, not purely by basketball. Could it be that the Kroenkes are going all-in to chase a second championship? Suddenly, in the last few days, there’s been reporting from national media outlets such as The Athletic that “Denver’s ownership has not given its front office a mandate to cut costs.” The Post has been told similarly.

But that didn’t seem to be the case three weeks ago when the Nuggets were actively exploring the trade market for Braun and Cam Johnson, as The Post and other outlets reported.

What can it mean? Maybe there’s been a change of heart, and an executive decision has been made to spend lavishly. Maybe it’s connected to the team’s pursuit of LeBron James in free agency (how do you even begin to pitch him on coming to Denver if you’re not willing to pay up?), or maybe it’s a reaction to Jokic’s decision to wait one more year to sign a new extension. As direct as he was in publicly stating his plan to sign next summer, maybe the pressure of him entering the last guaranteed season of his current contract scared the Nuggets straight.

Maybe this is an earnest, full-throttle statement of championship intent.

Advertisement

Or maybe the abrupt timing of this leakage is a little too convenient.

Peyton Watson (8) of the Denver Nuggets roars after dunking against the Utah Jazz during the first quarter at Ball Arena in Denver, Colorado on Monday, December 22, 2025. (Photo by AAron Ontiveroz/The Denver Post)
Peyton Watson (8) of the Denver Nuggets roars after dunking against the Utah Jazz during the first quarter at Ball Arena in Denver, Colorado on Monday, December 22, 2025. (Photo by AAron Ontiveroz/The Denver Post)

Gauging the Watson market

The Nuggets have multiple reasons to want the rest of the NBA to believe they’re working with a blank check right now. One of those reasons: Watson.

Negotiations have clearly not gone smoothly. The line of demarcation is $25 million. That’s Braun’s average annual value on his new contract — the deal Denver prioritized over Watson — and now it’s the number Watson’s camp can fixate on. His side can point to last season and claim that going forward, he is worth the same amount or more. The Nuggets can point to the previous three years and say Braun’s overall body of work is better so far. As this is happening, another team is reportedly lingering, with a desire to poach Watson. The Clippers reside in his hometown, and they’ve already made moves this summer to get younger and clear their books.

Watson is a restricted free agent, meaning the Clippers must extend him an offer sheet, the terms of which Denver can match to retain him. Offer-sheeting a player can be risky because it ties down your cap until the situation is resolved, with no guarantee that you will successfully land the player you’re targeting. The Nuggets are saying behind the scenes that they’re prepared to match any offer sheet. Basically, they’re trying to scare off LA (and any other suitor) by indicating the offer sheet would be a waste of time, and the only real way to get Watson from them is to execute a sign-and-trade, sending Denver other assets in exchange for the right to sign the RFA. Utah just did this with Walker Kessler, who ended up with the Lakers via sign-and-trade. How can you bolster your leverage in a situation like this? By signaling publicly that you’re willing to pay an exorbitant payroll and tax bill to keep Watson and everyone else.

This also sends a message that you aren’t desperate to trade a starter (or two) to keep Watson — that you’re more than happy to hold on to Johnson, Braun, Aaron Gordon, or Jamal Murray if the offer isn’t strong enough.

If there is a spending mandate, then other teams might look to take advantage with low-ball trade offers.

Advertisement

So maybe the lack of a spending mandate could turn out to be a bluff for leverage. Or maybe it’s a real edict, a genuine commitment to competitiveness at all costs. There’s almost no way to know for sure until the Nuggets take an action to back up their words. For now, inaction has the appearance of aggression, as Denver attempts to feel out the market.

Certainly, it seems like the key domino will be how the Watson dilemma works itself out — either in the form of a contract extension, or an unmatched offer sheet, or a sign-and-trade, or a begrudgingly accepted qualifying offer ($6.5 million).

ESPN front office expert Bobby Marks (a former NBA executive) projected this week that if the Nuggets retain Watson at a $25 million cap hit and don’t trade any starters, their luxury tax bill next season would exceed $170 million — an almost unprecedented amount that includes second apron and repeater tax penalties. That’s in addition to what the raw roster payroll would be.

Between player salaries and taxes, it would be a $400 million team.

Which finally brings us to the basketball perspective on Denver’s offseason holding pattern. It would be one thing to pay that much if the Nuggets had just lost the NBA Finals in a tight six-game series with their current roster — if they knew for a fact that a championship was barely out of reach last season.

Advertisement

But the Nuggets didn’t make the Finals. They didn’t win a single playoff series. They lost in the first round to an injured opponent. They weren’t close.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Seattle, WA

Seattle Kraken Sign Goaltender Victor Östman and Defenseman Ville Ottavainen to One-Year Deals | Seattle Kraken

Published

on

Seattle Kraken Sign Goaltender Victor Östman and Defenseman Ville Ottavainen to One-Year Deals | Seattle Kraken


SEATTLE (July 10, 2026) — Today, Seattle Kraken General Manager Jason Botterill announced that the club has signed goaltender Victor Östman and defenseman Ville Ottavainen both to one-year, two-way deals ($850,000 AAV) for the 2026-27 season.

Östman, 25, played his first full professional season with the Coachella Valley Firebirds of the American Hockey League (AHL), appearing in 36 games and posting a 17-15-3 record, 2.81 goals-against average, .906 save percentage and two shutouts. The 6-foot-4 goalie tallied two assists, leading all rookie netminders and tying for fifth among all AHL goaltenders. He posted a season-high 42 saves in a single game. The Danderyd, Sweden, native made his first NHL career start with the Seattle Kraken on April 16, 2026, stopping 35 shots.

Ottavainen, 23, appeared in 53 games with Coachella Valley in his third season with the Firebirds, recording 17 points (3g/14a). The 6-foot-5 blueliner finished the season with 71 penalty minutes, ranking fourth on the roster, while placing second in assists and fourth in points among Coachella Valley defensemen. During the Calder Cup Playoffs, Ottavainen scored one goal and added three assists. In 193 career regular-season AHL games, the Oulu, Finland, native has totaled 66 points (14g/52a), adding nine points (1g/8a) in 36 career playoff games.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending