Connect with us

Alaska

Proposal to enshrine Permanent Fund dividend in Alaska Constitution fails to clear House

Published

on

Proposal to enshrine Permanent Fund dividend in Alaska Constitution fails to clear House


JUNEAU — A proposal to enshrine the Permanent Fund dividend in the Alaska Constitution failed to be approved by the House on Thursday.

House Joint Resolution 7 would pay out whatever dividend was set in state law. The 1982 dividend formula still exists in state law, but it has not been followed by the Legislature since 2016. That statute would dictate that Alaskans receive a dividend this year of roughly $3,400. But such a payment would require spending over $1 billion more than the state has in revenue.

Two-thirds of the House and Senate need to vote in support of a constitutional amendment to put it before voters.

Advertisement

The amendment, proposed by Nikiski Republican Rep. Ben Carpenter, failed on a 22-18 vote. It needed 27 votes to advance to the Senate.

Members of the Legislature have long advocated for a comprehensive fiscal plan that could include a new dividend formula, a spending cap, budget reductions and new sources of state revenue.

Carpenter said enshrining the dividend formula in the constitution would compel legislators to enact a fiscal plan to balance revenues and expenditures.

“This is the first step,” he said, adding, “What it does do is something very simple. It just says, ‘We’re going to follow the law.’”

Supporters said that legislators should put the proposal before Alaska voters and trust them to decide whether it should be approved.

Advertisement

Opponents of the measure said enshrining the dividend in the constitution would lead to a fiscal crisis and not necessarily compel any further action to reform the statute governing the annual dividend size, or other elements of a fiscal plan.

“Those who are tempted to vote for this need to ask themselves: Do the supporters of this proposal genuinely in their hearts and in their souls intend to renegotiate and reform the formula?” Rep. Andy Josephson, an Anchorage Democrat, said in a floor speech.

But even if lawmakers were successful in reforming the dividend formula, Josephson said that Gov. Mike Dunleavy — who has supported large dividend payouts during his tenure — would be unlikely to sign a bill changing the formula.

“I think that those who support this proposal are morally obligated … to be the leaders to fix the dividend,” said Josephson. “They cannot say, ‘Well, jeez, you know, someone else will do it.’”

[Alaska House passes operating budget with dividend around $2,300, extra school funding]

Advertisement

Dunleavy has repeatedly used his veto pen to nix pieces of legislation. He has shown openness to reforming the dividend formula, and in 2021 proposed a plan that would change the dividend formula, reserving half the Permanent Fund earnings draw for state services. Without additional revenue sources, that plan would still leave the state with hundreds of millions of dollars in annual deficits.

Jeff Turner, a spokesman for the governor’s office, said Dunleavy has repeatedly said that the first step in a fiscal plan is to resolve the dividend formula.

The Senate has favored a statute that would reserve three-quarters of annual Permanent Fund earnings to pay for state services, which itself could become unaffordable without new revenue, according to some projections, but neither the House nor the governor have signaled support for that idea.

Josephson said that the only way to afford the annual dividends as they’re currently written into statute without triggering a fiscal crisis would be to impose a billion-dollar sales or income tax. Alaska is the only state that has neither a statewide sales tax nor a statewide income tax.

Carpenter’s constitutional amendment proposal advanced to the House floor in February. For almost two months, it had not come up for a final vote or floor debates.

Advertisement

After marathon floor sessions to debate and pass the operating budget, several legislators said they were surprised the dividend amendment was brought up for a vote Thursday. The debates spanned over three interrupted hours. There were long breaks, and unusual procedural motions to advance other fiscal plan bills from legislative committees.

House members voted 37-3 to advance Senate Bill 107 from the Finance Committee. That would change the dividend formula to the 75-25 model. If that formula was followed this year, the PFD would be around $1,360.

In a brief interview after the floor session ended, Carpenter said he was not surprised by the outcome. But, he said that he thought there would be more votes in support of the amendment.

”It was pretty clear over the last couple of weeks that people were not confident that components of a fiscal plan were actually going to move,” he said. But, he added, there could still be time this legislative session to vote on the amendment again.

• • •

Advertisement

How they voted:

Rep. Jamie Allard, R-Eagle River (Y)

Rep. Jennie Armstrong, D-Anchorage (N)

Rep. Thomas Baker, R-Kotzebue (Y)

Rep. Ben Carpenter, R-Nikiski (Y)

Rep. Ashley Carrick, D-Fairbanks (N)

Advertisement

Rep. Julie Coulombe, R-Anchorage (Y)

Rep. Mike Cronk, R-Tok (Y)

Rep. Maxine Dibert, D-Fairbanks (N)

Rep. David Eastman, R-Wasilla (Y)

Rep. Bryce Edgmon, I-Dillingham (N)

Advertisement

Rep. Zack Fields, D-Anchorage (N)

Rep. Neal Foster, D-Nome (Y)

Rep. Alyse Galvin, I-Anchorage (N)

Rep. Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage (N)

Rep. Cliff Groh, D-Anchorage (N)

Advertisement

Rep. Sara Hannan, D-Juneau (N)

Rep. Rebecca Himschoot, I-Sitka (N)

Rep. Craig Johnson, R-Anchorage (Y)

Rep. DeLena Johnson, R-Palmer (Y)

Rep. Andy Josephson, D-Anchorage (N)

Advertisement

Rep. Kevin McCabe, R-Big Lake (Y)

Rep. CJ McCormick, D-Bethel (N)

Rep. Tom McKay, R-Anchorage (Y)

Rep. Donna Mears, D-Anchorage (N)

Rep. Genevieve Mina, D-Anchorage (N)

Advertisement

Rep. Dan Ortiz, I-Ketchikan (N)

Rep. Mike Prax, R-North Pole (Y)

Rep. George Rauscher, R-Sutton (Y)

Rep. Justin Ruffridge, R-Soldotna (Y)

Rep. Dan Saddler, R-Eagle River (Y)

Advertisement

Rep. Calvin Schrage, I-Anchorage (N)

Rep. Laddie Shaw, R-Anchorage (Y)

Rep. Will Stapp, R-Fairbanks (Y)

Rep. Andi Story, D-Juneau (N)

Rep. Louise Stutes, R-Kodiak (N)

Advertisement

Rep. Jesse Sumner, R-Wasilla (Y)

Rep. Cathy Tilton, R-Wasilla (Y)

Rep. Frank Tomaszewski, R-Fairbanks (Y)

Rep. Sarah Vance, R-Homer (Y)

Rep. Stanley Wright, R-Anchorage (Y)

Advertisement

• • •

Sean Maguire reported from Juneau and Iris Samuels from Anchorage.





Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Alaska

Wayne and Wanda: I’m ready to break up with Alaska but facing resistance from everyone

Published

on

Wayne and Wanda: I’m ready to break up with Alaska but facing resistance from everyone


Dear Wanda and Wayne,

I never thought I’d be the person writing this letter, but after this winter, I think I might be done with Alaska. I was born here, grew up here, raised my family here, and never imagined living anywhere else. I defended Alaska to the haters. I rolled my eyes at people who retired to Arizona. I told myself long winters are worth it because summers are the best.

But this winter broke something in me. It was so long, dark, icy and relentless. By the time spring finally arrived, I felt angry that winter took so much out of me and that I spent months feeling trapped by weather, darkness and road conditions. Angry that I’m getting older and still structuring my life around surviving winters instead of enjoying my life. And at the time I’m writing this, this spring has sucked! My heat is still coming on every day. I’m still wearing my puffer jackets!

Part of me wonders if it’s not really about the winter at all. I’m divorced and my two kids are grown and doing their own thing, both staying in Alaska for now. For the first time in my life, nothing is really anchoring me to a place. And if I’m being honest with myself, in addition to feeling trapped by the weather, I’m bored with it here. The dating scene feels impossibly small. Every time I open a dating app, it’s the same people. Half the time I already know them, or know someone who dated them (and broken up with them for a good reason!).

Advertisement

So I’m sketching out plans to move somewhere warmer, bigger and completely unfamiliar. I think I want to know what life feels like somewhere else while I’m still young enough to enjoy it. I really feel this is a moment for a big change.

The problem is that nobody seems supportive. When I bring it up, people act like I’m having a midlife crisis. Friends tell me I’ll regret it. Family members remind me that the kids are here. Other Alaskans give me the usual speech about how the Lower 48 is generic. It’s gotten to the point where I almost don’t talk about it anymore because I’m tired of defending myself.

But all the resistance has me questioning myself and whether moving is a legitimate and logical step, or whether I’m just exhausted from a hard winter and romanticizing a different life. How do you know the difference between running toward something and simply running away?

Wanda says:

You’re asking whether you’re running toward or away from something — essentially if you’re taking a positive step or being reactive. Those aren’t mutually exclusive. Sometimes we leave both because we’re exhausted by what we’ve been carrying, and also because we are moving toward something new at the same time.

Advertisement

Every reason you listed for staying in Alaska has changed. You raised your children here? They’re grown. You had a marriage here? That chapter is closed. You tolerated winters for the sunny payoff? Nailed it: This spring has sucked.

Now you’re primed for a reset, and questioning how you want the near term and future of your life to unfold is not a crisis, it’s taking action. And it’s way more productive than floating along season to season in a fog of monotony, settling for an unfulfilling existence. Your friends and family may genuinely believe they’re protecting you from a mistake, but they’re also protecting their own worldview. Your decision to leave can feel like an implicit criticism of their choices.

But this isn’t a committee decision, and you’re a grown woman capable of major decisions, who absolutely should explore life’s possibilities without defending it to everyone you know. So go explore. Visit places. Rent before you buy. Spend a winter somewhere else. Gather information instead of arguments. And know that no matter where you land, you can always come home again — even if it’s just for a long visit in the middle of summer.

Wayne says:

This isn’t a midlife crisis that can be glossed over with a motorcycle, lip filler, a 20-something boyfriend (who probably went to high school with your kids — yikes), or kicking off your Cowgirl Era with a hat, boots and a two-week Nashville dive bar tour.

Advertisement

This is an existential crisis with your health and happiness at risk. And you’ve faced it thoughtfully, sat with it thoroughly, and are now making the best decisions selfishly. Good for you! You can’t fault your family and friends for also being selfish and wanting you to stay in AK. Of course they don’t want their mom and friend moving far away. But you’ve got to mute that noise and focus on what’s best for you.

Yes, Alaska life is special, but it sure isn’t easy. And we don’t get medals for stubbornly battling through decades of winters. What we do get is some sweet and fleeting summer moments followed by more winters. You know that, and it’s not enough for you anymore.

Most people would totally understand an 18-to-20-year-old Alaska kid taking off to see what else is out there in the world. What, we’re supposed to stop being interested in new experiences once we hit a certain age? And we’re expected to stick around someplace forever just because we’ve always been there?

It’s time for you to go. See what life feels like when you’re not scraping ice off your windshield in May. See how much fun you can have with new people in new places. It’s exciting, it’s living, and you deserve it.

[Wayne and Wanda: Is it the winter blues I can’t shake off, or something more?]

Advertisement

[Wayne and Wanda: Rebuilding my social life after a divorce]

[Wayne and Wanda: My relationship is poised for big steps, and I’m anxious]





Source link

Continue Reading

Alaska

Here’s Why Alaska Air Shares Popped Higher This Week | The Motley Fool

Published

on

Here’s Why Alaska Air Shares Popped Higher This Week | The Motley Fool


Shares in Alaska Air Group (ALK 1.16%) rose by 12.7% in an excellent week for airline stocks. The move comes as the sector climbs a wall of worry driven by soaring jet fuel prices stemming from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. While the market’s prior concerns are understandable, there’s growing anecdotal evidence suggesting that airlines, including Alaska Air, might emerge from the period in better shape than many expect.

This week’s airline updates

Southwest Airlines (LUV 0.83%) CEO Robert Jordan gave a presentation at the Bernstein 42nd Annual Strategic Decisions Conference, and his remarks surprised the market. It’s no secret that jet fuel prices have soared, and that’s challenging airlines’ profitability. Still, it doesn’t appear to have affected end demand, with Delta Air Lines previously telling investors that strong demand in the first quarter was continuing into the second quarter, even as it raised prices.

Today’s Change

(-1.16%) $-0.54

Advertisement

Current Price

$46.05

That positive trend, with Southwest’s Jordan telling investors that Southwest had participated in seven consecutive fare increases with “no drop off in demand at all.” Jordan went on to note that “I’m becoming increasingly bullish that we will be able to cover these fuel increases with revenue increases,” and also believes that “the industry will retain a much higher percent of the fare increases that would be typical historically.”

Advertisement

What it means to Alaska Air

Given that Alaska competes with Southwest on some routes and is suffering from rising jet fuel prices, the news from Southwest is particularly relevant. For example, in its recent first-quarter earnings report, Alaska’s management said higher fuel costs would impact earnings per share (EPS) by $0.70 in the first quarter and by more than $3 in the second quarter.

Air passengers.

Image source: Getty Images.

These are significant numbers from an airline that analysts expect to report a $0.77-per-share loss in 2026 and then $6.32 in EPS in 2027. However, if Alaska can offset fuel costs with higher prices, then those estimates might need a positive revision.

Lee Samaha has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends Alaska Air Group, Delta Air Lines, and Southwest Airlines. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Alaska

State of Alaska Secures Win in Fight for Transparency Around Oil Development

Published

on

State of Alaska Secures Win in Fight for Transparency Around Oil Development


 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Image-SOM

(Bethel, AK) –Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a favorable opinion for the State of Alaska in ConocoPhillips Alaska v. Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC), agreeing that State laws requiring disclosure of oil well data are not preempted by federal law.

“Alaska relies heavily on our resources and resource development,” said Acting Alaska Attorney General Cori Mills. “We are also stewards of those resources for the citizens of Alaska. Alaska’s law both allows resource development now, and encourages further development and exploration in the future. We’re pleased that the Ninth Circuit recognized that federal law has not overridden Alaska’s balanced approach.”

The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission regulates oil and gas operations throughout Alaska, including within the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska (NPR–A). Under Alaska law, companies need permits from the AOGCC to drill and must submit well data. The AOGCC is required to keep well data confidential for 24 months.

Advertisement

ConocoPhillips drilled several wells on lease holdings within the NPR–A and submitted data to the AOGCC. When the 24-month period expired, the AOGCC notified ConocoPhillips of the upcoming well data disclosure. ConocoPhillips sued in federal court to stop the disclosure process claiming that the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act, the federal law allowing private exploration in the NPR–A, preempted Alaska’s 24-month disclosure law. The federal district court found Alaska law preempted, and the AOGCC sought appellate review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the AOGCC. The federal Production Act does not preempt state law. The Ninth Circuit therefore reversed the district court’s holding to the contrary.

“The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is pleased with the court’s decision upholding Alaska law,” said AOGCC Commissioner Jessie Chmielowski in a declaration filed in the litigation court. “Alaska’s balanced approach to well data confidentiality leads to increased exploration activity, not less. Alaska law allows for a two-year confidentiality period on exploration well data to leverage a company’s investment in drilling. Thereafter, making the data public has incentivized exploration on the North Slope. Placing well data in the public record allows competing companies to evaluate different exploration concepts or interpretations based on seismic data that, without well data, are just educated guesses.”

# # #



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending