Alaskans are still paying high prices for oil.

We are paying outrageously high prices for a resource from our own ground while seeing too little benefit. This is not a resource problem. It is a system problem. And it is fixable.

When oil prices rise, Alaska should not just collect more revenue. It should capture more value and return it to Alaskans in a way that is timely, predictable and meaningful.

There is a clear path to do that. When oil prices rise above certain thresholds, the state can be structured to capture a larger share of that increase and return a portion of it to Alaskans more quickly.

This is not a new concept. Alaska has adjusted its fiscal system before in response to changing economic conditions. It can and should do it again.

First, the state can structure its production taxes so that when prices spike, the public share increases accordingly. If companies benefit from higher global prices, the state should as well.

Second, a portion of the additional revenue should be automatically reserved for immediate relief, not debated months later.

That could mean energy rebates, fuel cost offsets or direct payments tied to price increases, so people get this benefit when they are paying higher costs.

Third, relief efforts should be targeted where they are needed most. In many parts of Alaska, especially rural communities, energy costs are not just high; they are a barrier to living in your own home.

When geopolitical events like the Russian invasion of Ukraine spike prices and disrupt energy supply, those rural energy costs skyrocket, as described in a recent Alaska Beacon op-ed written by a chief scientist at the Alaska Center for Energy and Power and the president of the Alaska Federation of Natives. Any serious policy must recognize and address this reality.

To get there, we have to stop leaving our fair share of Alaska’s resource income on the table.

We also need the will to implement a forward-thinking energy policy that breaks our dependence on overpriced oil and gas.

This means eliminating outdated oil and gas tax credits that still pay out even when those companies are highly profitable, closing loopholes and special carve-outs that reduce what large producers contribute as their fair share of corporate income taxes, and creating a Department of Energy to bring Alaska’s energy operations under one roof rather than scattering them across agencies.

Alaska holds enduring advantages in global energy markets: political stability, established regulatory systems and long-term production potential. These strengths give the state leverage in how it structures its fiscal framework.

This is about more than fuel prices. It is about whether Alaska can generate stable, long-term revenue to grow an economy that will sustain its population.

In recent years, the state has faced ongoing challenges in funding education, maintaining infrastructure and retaining residents. At the same time, a significant share of the value generated from resource extraction does not remain in state.

That imbalance should concern all of us. The resource-based fiscal solutions outlined above are part of a comprehensive plan that can address that imbalance.

Alaska should not be a place where resources are extracted, profits leave and communities are left to manage the consequences.

If nothing changes, the pattern is likely to continue: Prices rise, Alaskans pay more and the long-term challenges persist.

Alaska has the resources, the position and the leverage to get our fair share and invest in its future. I have a plan to do it. No more excuses. Let’s get it done.

Tom Begich is a former Alaska state senator, a small-business owner and a candidate for governor of Alaska. He has worked with communities across the state on education, energy policy and juvenile justice.

• • •

The Anchorage Daily News welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.

Alaska wildlife agents can resume shooting and killing black and brown bears — including from helicopters — as part of a plan to help recover a caribou herd that was once an important source of food for Alaska Native hunters, a judge ruled Wednesday.

Two conservation groups, the Alaska Wildlife Alliance and Center for Biological Diversity, sought to halt the program while their lawsuit challenging its legality plays out. But Superior Court Judge Adolf Zeman said the groups had failed to show that the state acted without a reasonable basis for approving the plan.

The timing of the ruling is important: The Mulchatna caribou herd in southwest Alaska is expected to begin calving soon. The babies are particularly susceptible to being eaten by bears or wolves.

State officials see the bear-killing program as important to helping the caribou herd recover. The herd, which once provided up to about 4,770 caribou a year for subsistence hunters from dozens of communities, peaked at around 190,000 animals.

But the caribou population began declining in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and by 2019 numbered around 13,000 animals. Last year, the population was estimated around 16,280, according to the state Department of Fish and Game. Hunting has not been allowed since 2021.

The state killed 180 bears from 2023 to 2024, most of them brown bears, plus 11 more last year, according to the conservation groups’ lawsuit. According to the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, 99 bears, including 20 cubs, were killed by the state from the air in less than a month in 2023.

The groups argue that the Alaska Board of Game last year authorized reinstating the program without key data on the bears’ population numbers and sustainability.

Cooper Freeman, Alaska director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement the groups want to see the caribou herd thrive, “but the state simply hasn’t shown that the unrestrained killing of bears is going to help us get there.”

“We need to stop this disgraceful waste of the state’s limited resources and work based on science to protect all our wildlife,” Freeman said.

State attorneys have said that officials took a “hard look” at factors related to bear numbers in adopting the plan. Alaska is home to an estimated 100,000 black bears and 30,000 brown bears.

“The herd has persisted at low numbers but started showing a positive response since 2023, when bear removal during calving seasons began,” they wrote in a court filing.

The Alaska Department of Law welcomed Zeman’s decision “to allow this management program to continue during the upcoming caribou calving season, a crucial time for herd recovery,” spokesperson Sam Curtis said by email. The department represents the board and Department of Fish and Game.

“Continuing this program makes sense in light of the scientific record,” Curtis said.

Attorneys with Trustees for Alaska, representing the conservation groups, are reviewing the ruling and “will consider all available options,” spokesperson Madison Grosvenor said by email.

The program has been the subject of ongoing litigation. A judge last year, in a case previously brought by the Alaska Wildlife Alliance, found fault with the process in which it was adopted and concluded the state lacked data on bear sustainability.

Emergency regulations implemented by the state were later struck down. A subsequent public process was announced surrounding plans to reauthorize the program, which the board did last July.

According to the Alaska Wildlife Association, a group of state biologists in 2020 determined that the main reasons for the herd’s decline were disease and a lack of food and “bear predation isn’t even in the top three identified causes of mortality among the Mulchatna herd.”

“We are concerned that big game management in Alaska has become a process whereby population objectives for wild ungulates are established based on public demand rather than on habitat capacity, promoting unsustainable management,” the alliance says in a position paper.

The Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport has reached new heights, becoming the largest cargo hub in the U.S. last year.

It may be a first for the Anchorage airport, based on historical data from the Airports Council International.

The ascendance is based partly on the airport’s steady growth in cargo volume landed there in recent years, according to figures from the group.

It came even as President Donald Trump’s tariffs upended global trade patterns, the group’s latest rankings show.

A key part of the rise? The state’s strategic perch near much of the industrialized world.

But perhaps more important in the latest figures was the large decline in cargo volume at the Memphis International Airport last year.

The FedEx superhub has long been the dominant cargo airport in the U.S., and sometimes the world. But FedEx has restructured its operations, contributing to the airport’s drop in cargo volume.

That helped the Anchorage airport leapfrog past Memphis last year.

With 3.9 million tons of cargo landed, Anchorage was behind only the Hong Kong and Shanghai airports, globally.

In recent years in particular, the Anchorage airport has become a critical crossroads for aviation shippers, in part due to the increase in e-commerce packages moving between Asia and the U.S.

Carriers often drop into Anchorage to refuel, allowing them to haul more of their valuable payload, and less fuel traveling between continents.

“Aircraft can reach 90% of the industrialized world within 9 1/2 hours from the airport,” said Teri Lindseth, the airport’s development manager, in an interview Friday.

Also important is the “targeted effort by the airport development team and the (Alaska) Department of Transportation to expand Anchorage’s cargo presence and overall airport development,” she said. “We’ve focused on supporting our existing partners at the airlines, creating opportunities for growth, and we’re seeing that strategy pay off.”

Over 30 cargo carriers using the airport have helped boost those numbers, Lindseth said.

Some of the carriers have significantly increased their cargo landings in Anchorage last year, she said, including China Airlines and Taiwan-based EVA Air Cargo, and Kalitta Air and Atlas Air, based in the U.S., she said.

Greg Wolf, head of the Alaska International Business Center, said that the airport has done a good job marketing the benefits of the Alaska route to cargo carriers.

The extra cargo each jet can carry as it lands in Anchorage helps give extra oomph to the numbers, compared to other airports, he said.

The Anchorage airport’s rise to first place came as Alaska reached its highest-ever volume in foreign exports, at $6.7 billion, Wolf said.

Some of that product moved by air, adding to the airport’s cargo numbers, he said.

And while Trump has slapped extra-high tariffs on China, Alaska exports still traveled there, apparently after first reaching other Asian countries with lower tariffs before making their way to China, Wolf said.

Alaska’s export value to China fell to fourth last year — behind Korea, Australia and Japan — though it’s typically been the state’s top export partner.

“I’ve talked to businesses, not just from Alaska, but other American businesses, and they’ve done their best to work around the tariffs,” he said.