JUNEAU — The final hours of Alaska’s legislative sessions are often dedicated almost entirely to budget negotiations. Not this year.

With under 60 hours remaining until the Alaska Legislature must adjourn its session, lawmakers on Monday appeared to focus their attention on energy bills.

Legislators began the session declaring that they would focus on policies to address a looming shortage of Cook Inlet natural gas, but with hours remaining in the session, no significant energy legislation had passed both chambers, and the possibility of agreement between Gov. Mike Dunleavy, the House and the Senate on key measures appeared to be slipping away.

Disagreements over key bills could mean lawmakers fail to adopt them before Wednesday’s end-of-session deadline — potentially compelling Dunleavy to call lawmakers into a special session to continue working on the bills.

Senate President Gary Stevens, a Kodiak Republican, said that the House and Senate had struck an agreement under which the Senate would pass a carbon sequestration bill and the House would pass a bill that creates an integrated energy transmission system — potentially allowing both policy pieces to be adopted this year.

Neither had happened as of 5 p.m. on Monday, when the House concluded a two-hour debate on a lengthy list of amendments to the transmission bill.

“We’re waiting for that,” said Stevens, adding that senators “hesitate to send” the carbon storage bill to the House until the House makes “some progress” on their side of the bargain.

The two energy bills — carbon sequestration and transmission — are second only to the budget in importance this session, according to Stevens.

Stevens said the governor may call lawmakers into a 30-day special session if they don’t pass the energy-related bills by Wednesday.

“He’d be right to do that, because it’s really crucial. The problem we’re having with the House is — they can’t move very fast, so they can’t get that energy (transmission) bill to us,” said Stevens. “What happens if we just don’t do it? Well, I would guess the governor would call us into a special session.”

When asked if Dunleavy was prepared to call the Legislature into a special session if the two major energy bills failed to pass, Jeff Turner, a spokesperson for the governor’s office, said on Monday that “there is time remaining in the session to pass both bills.”

The House was expected to have its final vote on the transmission bill on Tuesday.

Lawmakers repeatedly delayed floor sessions on Monday as they met behind closed doors to discuss the energy provisions. The crush of bills gumming up the process was exacerbated by the House’s 12-hour debate on Saturday over a divisive transgender sports ban, which left a feeling of acrimony among legislators.

The House was scheduled to hear House Bill 307, meant to modernize the Railbelt electric grid, on Sunday. The bill was ultimately rescheduled for Monday.

Rep. Will Stapp, a Fairbanks Republican, said the bill was focused on “addressing and eliminating wheeling and pancaking rates, and creating a more equitable system for energy across the Railbelt.” Stapp called the current system of regional utilities “geographic fiefdoms.”

“It has been very challenging to be able to get all the different organizations and stakeholders in a room to agree on something,” said Stapp, adding that “time and inertia” would not help the bill.

Several Republicans representing districts in the Kenai Peninsula raised concerns about the measure, mirroring the opposition of the Homer Electric Association.

Rep. Justin Ruffridge, a Soldotna Republican, said part of his concern was because Cook Inlet natural gas was in his “backyard” and he was worried the bill would encourage a move away from that natural gas and toward renewable energy production, including from wind and solar projects.

“No internal resource production statewide. No Cook Inlet natural gas, no gas pipeline, no anything. We will be a resource state that essentially imports our energy needs,” said Ruffridge.

The proposal for an integrated transmission system has divided Railbelt utilities. The bill is seen as a priority for Dunleavy, whose energy policy adviser Andrew Jensen discussed the measure with lawmakers in the Capitol Sunday after 10 p.m. Jensen was back in the House gallery when debate began around 3 p.m. Monday. Jensen declined an interview request on Monday.

House Speaker Cathy Tilton, a Wasilla Republican, said that lawmakers could “absolutely” pass the necessary bills by the Wednesday deadline.

“It’s an ever-moving target, though,” she added. “At this point in time, I think that we can. But, like I say, it’s always fluid around here.”

Tilton said the transmission bill and carbon storage bill are “high priorities” for the House “because it’s important to help with the cost of energy.”

Meanwhile, the Senate was scheduled on Tuesday to pass House Bill 50, which would develop a statutory framework for the state to lease depleted gas reservoirs to store carbon dioxide deep underground.

Once pitched as a way to generate significant new state revenue, a carbon storage bill is now being supported as a way to boost oil and gas industry investment in the state. It’s unclear how much carbon sequestration could cost or benefit Alaska. The Department of Revenue stated that “the tax revenue potential of the bill is uncertain at this stage.”

The House was also expected to take a final vote Monday on House Bill 223, which would provide royalty relief to natural gas producers. However, even if the bill passes the chamber, key Senate members have raised concerns over the prospect of forgoing state revenue without the guarantee of increased production.

Stevens said the most important task of the session remains passing the budget. Lawmakers have yet to agree on what is seen as one of the most critical — and contentious — parts of the budget, the size of the Permanent Fund dividend. The Senate favors a payout of roughly $1,600 to eligible Alaskans, while the House proposal — which would require a sizable draw from already-depleted state savings — called for a nearly $2,300 dividend.

Stevens said the Senate was “having trouble getting meetings with the House” to discuss the budget. “But now they have agreed to meet with us,” he said Monday afternoon.

Sen. Bert Stedman, a Sitka Republican who is one of the chief budget negotiators, said Monday afternoon that the budget negotiations would need to be completed by 9 a.m. on Tuesday.

If the conference committee does not complete its work by early Tuesday morning, it will become increasingly difficult to complete the task of approving the spending plan in both the House and Senate before the Wednesday night deadline.

“People don’t like to be here until midnight, but if we have to be, we’ll do that,” said Stevens.

• • •

FAIRBANKS, Alaska (KTVF) – Alaska senators, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, as well as Rep. Mary Peltola, have introduced new legislation directing a land exchange between the federal government and Chugach Alaska Corporation for the purpose of resolving conflict.

The Chugach Alaska Land Exchange and Oil Spill Recovery Act would mitigate strife between the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS) Trustee Council’s Habitat Protection Program which protects the ecosystems of the EVOS spill areas, and Chugach Alaska Corporation’s (Chugach) responsibilities to its Alaska Native shareholders. The responsibilities to the Alaska Native’s come from the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) which protects the lands that belong to the Native corporation, the same lands the EVOS protection program is working on.

The land exchange conducted by the new legislation would mandate that Chugach trade 231,036 acres of subsurface estate for 65,403 acres of fee simple land owned by the federal government. The land traded by Chugach must be under surface fee and conservation easements on surface land owned by the federal government.

“The 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill forever changed the lives of Alaskans, particularly those living in the Chugach region. Chugach’s subsurface rights were restricted and subjugated to the EVOS Program’s environmental conservation goals, which unfairly prevents Chugach from realizing the economic benefits of its mineral interests under ANCSA,” Senator Murkowski said.

“I helped set this land exchange in motion in 2019 when I authored and shepherded a major lands package, which required the land study, into law. Now we are addressing its findings, permanently conserving EVOS program lands, and providing Chugach and its shareholders a fair resolution of their ANCSA claims,” Murkowski added.

“Since its original passage in 1971, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) has been amended many times to assist emerging needs of Alaska Native communities across the state,” Senator Sullivan stated.

“The Chugach Land Exchange Act should be no exception. This bill facilitates a land exchange for Chugach Alaska Corporation based on a congressionally-mandated study completed by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service in late 2022. This legislation would provide Chugach with lands that will help create economic sustainability and cultural benefits for thousands of Alaska Native shareholders, as intended under ANCSA,” Sullivan continued.

“35 years after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, the conversation on how to best serve the people, environment, and resources of Prince William Sound is still ongoing. A patchwork of conflicting surface and subsurface rights has left everyone unable to effectively use the land,” said Rep. Peltola.

Peltola went on to say, “The Chugach Land Exchange and Oil Spill Recovery Act would free Chugach Alaska Corporation to use their lands for the benefit of their shareholders and give the federal government a clearly defined area to manage. This is a commonsense solution that gives everyone in Prince William Sound a clear understanding of land use and management.”

“Introducing this bill represents a meaningful and long-awaited step on the path towards healing for the Chugach region and shareholders following the devastation of the Exxon Valdez oil spill,” said Chugach Alaska Corporation’s Chairman of the Board Sheri Buretta.

“Resolving the existing split-estate conflicts will empower Chugach to exercise self-determination for its people as intended by ANCSA. We are grateful for Senator Lisa Murkowski’s leadership, as well as the support of Senator Dan Sullivan and Representative Mary Peltola, in their ongoing advocacy for a fair and just land exchange on our behalf,” Buretta added.

For background and history on the Exxon Valdez oil spill and Chugach Region, the full press release is available here.

Copyright 2024 KTVF. All rights reserved.

By MICHAEL TAVOLIERO

Article VII, Section 1 of the Alaska State Constitution states, “Schools and institutions so established shall be free from sectarian control.”

This provision is aimed at ensuring that Alaska’s public education system, which includes its university system, remains impartial and free from influence or control by any particular religious or ideological group. It underscores the importance of maintaining neutrality and inclusivity within the state’s educational institutions.

If you agree with my constitutional reading, then how can this best be approached by our state government? 

The National Education Association-Alaska has over 12,000 members. It is obligated to represent its members. However, its ideological control over the Alaska education system is considered ubiquitous and multilayered in local school districts, our state bureaucracy and our tripartite government, the executive, legislative and judicial branches, and the federal government. 

In a seismic legal upheaval, Alaska’s educational landscape is in tumult, with the future of homeschooling hanging in the balance. Recent judicial action has delivered a stunning blow by striking down laws supporting the state’s correspondence education program, citing them as unconstitutional.

The reverberations of this decision are felt across the state, as over 20,000 homeschool students face uncertainty, and public-school districts are thrust into chaos, tasked with integrating these displaced students back into traditional classrooms. With the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development now at the center of this urgent crisis, the need for a swift resolution looms large. 

It’s baffling to witness our state government hesitating, caught in indecision over the crucial next steps: Do we pursue a legislative remedy or take the matter to the Supreme Court? The urgency of this issue cannot be overstated, yet inexplicably, the government remains on the defensive, failing to seize the initiative. Let’s be clear: This is not just about politics or legal wrangling. It’s about the very future of our children, the very future of our state. The time for action is now.

To address the issue of NEA-Alaska violating Article VII, Section 1, the governor of Alaska holds significant authority and avenues for action.

Firstly, under the state constitution’s Article III, Section 16, the governor has the authority to ensure the faithful execution of the laws, including constitutional mandates such as sectarian control in education. This authority empowers the governor to take appropriate legal action to enforce compliance with constitutional provisions and legislative mandates, as well as to restrain any violation of constitutional or legislative powers, duties, or rights by state officers, departments, or agencies.

Additionally, Article III, Section 23 grants the governor the authority to make changes in the organization of the executive branch or in the assignment of functions among its units for efficient administration. These changes, when requiring the force of law, are set forth in executive orders. The legislature has a specified period to disapprove these orders, after which they become effective. The governor also has administrative order authority which can be solidified into regulations without legislative review.

Moreover, the governor’s oath of office, as mandated by Article XII, Section 5, requires the Governor to uphold the U.S. and Alaska constitutions. This oath underscores the governor’s commitment to respecting and adhering to constitutional principles, including those related to education policy and sectarian control.

The governor and all members of the state legislature are required to comply with Article XII, Section 5. Additionally, every public official and employee of the state before entering upon the duties of office are required by AS 39.05.040 and AS 39.05.045 to take and sign an oath which includes supporting and defending both the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alaska.

Do the members of the NEA-Alaska support this when teachers have also taken an oath? The oath is same per 4 AAC18.010(a)(5) and AS 39.05.045 so all contracts for teachers and administrators must include in this all Alaska public school contracts.

This brings into question the practical application of the state’s Legislative Ethics Act, specifically Section AS 24.60.010, and the role of the Ethics Committee when the governor identifies a constitutional violation.

If you agree with my constitutional reading, how can any of our state government and our teachers support the continuation of NEA-Alaska’s sectarian control of education in the light of the oaths taken?

In practical terms, the Governor can utilize legal mechanisms such as executive orders or administrative orders to address concerns regarding sectarian control in education. These orders could outline specific actions or directives aimed at ensuring that schools and institutions remain free from sectarian influence or control. Additionally, the governor may use this opportunity to reign in the NEA-Alaska’s unconstitutional behavior through regulation.

Furthermore, the attorney general, as the legal advisor for the state, can work with the governor to assess the legal basis for any actions taken against NEA-Alaska or other entities perceived to violate constitutional provisions.

Regarding campaign donations to members of the legislature, the constitutional mandate for schools to be free from sectarian control may influence donor behavior and legislative decisions. Donations from organizations like NEA-Alaska may face greater scrutiny, and legislators receiving such contributions may be questioned about their commitment to upholding constitutional principles as well as their oath of office.

Will such a declaration of unconstitutionality by the governor trigger the Alaska Public Offices Commission to investigate every donation which supports this unconstitutionality? The governor certainly has the authority to demand this.

Ultimately, the governor’s authority, combined with legal and ethical considerations, provides avenues for addressing concerns related to sectarian control in education and ensuring adherence to constitutional mandates.

If the governor determines that NEA-Alaska has violated Article VII, Section 1 of the Alaska State Constitution, specifically regarding the freedom of schools and institutions from sectarian control, he has the authority to act, including addressing public education union contracts through administrative orders immediately. 

Administrative orders issued by the governor typically pertain to the organization and functions of the executive branch. If the governor declares unconstitutionality, the structural components of NEA-Alaska may be challenged. The governor could also take indirect actions within the scope of his authority to address concerns related to sectarian control in education.

For example, the governor could utilize administrative orders to initiate investigations or audits into public education union activities to determine compliance with constitutional mandates. If violations are found, the governor could work with relevant state agencies to enforce corrective measures or impose penalties as allowed by law.

Additionally, the governor may leverage his authority to influence legislative action or budgetary decisions that impact public education union contracts. By working with the state legislature and other stakeholders, the governor could advocate for policy changes or funding allocations aimed at addressing issues related to sectarian control in education.

Ultimately, any actions taken by the governor must adhere to constitutional principles, respect the rights of all parties involved, and comply with applicable laws and legal procedures. The governor must carefully consider the legal and practical implications of his actions and ensure that they align with the broader goals of promoting impartiality and inclusivity in Alaska’s public education system.

But the fact remains as open as the air we breathe, in Alaska, the education system is controlled by one entity, and one entity alone, and that is NEA-Alaska.

Michael Tavoliero writes for Must Read Alaska.