On June 1, 2026, Assembly Members Erin Baldwin Day & George Martinez released an ordinance designed to expand housing options in Anchorage and implement the land use goals outlined in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan and 2040 Land Use Plan through a new zoning overlay for Missing Middle Housing.
The proposed overlay would allow development of “missing middle” housing types — including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, cottage courts, and townhomes — in targeted areas along key transportation corridors. A zoning overlay allows property owners in a designated area to opt-in to standards that deviate from what their zone typically allows without changing the standards for all other properties in the zone. The legislation is intended to empower property owners to maximize the use of existing land, improve affordability through increased housing supply, and support walkable neighborhoods served by public infrastructure.
“Anchorage must have more realistic housing options for working families, young professionals, elders, and longtime residents who want to age in place,” said Assembly Member Martinez, who represents District 5, East Anchorage and chairs the Assembly Community & Economic Development Committee. “The Missing Middle Housing proposal makes good on the promises made in the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan and activates areas that have already been identified as ripe for targeted housing investment.”
Adopted in 2017 as an update to the Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan (2001), the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan calls for concentrating future growth along major corridors where residents can more easily access jobs, services, and transportation options. Informed by months of community input, the Assembly Housing Action Plan (2023) calls for the removal of barriers to infill and new construction. The LaFrance Administration has set a goal to build 10,000 homes in 10 years to resolve the housing shortage where rising costs and limited supply have made it increasingly difficult for residents to find housing that meets their needs.
The Missing Middle Housing proposal advances those goals by aligning zoning regulations with the city’s adopted planning framework and encouraging incremental housing density in areas already served by roads, utilities, transit, and other amenities. The proposal also reflects the Assembly’s adopted economic development framework (AR 2025-159) by supporting more efficient use of existing public investment, proactive action to address housing needs, and broader access to housing opportunity.
“Over more than two years of public engagement, I’ve heard neighbors agree that Anchorage’s future depends on our ability to grow our housing supply efficiently and responsibly,” Assembly Member Baldwin Day said. “This legislation creates opportunities for more of our neighbors to find stability in homes that fit their needs while making smarter use of infrastructure and planning investments the Municipality has already made through years of public input.”
The Missing Middle Housing proposal refines the 2025 Transit Supportive Development Overlay (TSDO) proposal, which received public comment and was recommended for approval with amendments by the Planning & Zoning Commission last year. Key elements of the new proposal include:
Flexible lot size and coverage standards: the dimensional standards refer to existing subdivision standards to ensure lot size and coverage are compatible with existing utilities and infrastructure;
Neighborhood-scale height limits: 30ft in R-1 and 40ft for all other zones unless the underlying zone allows for taller buildings, so building height scales with existing neighborhood standards.
The ordinance will be introduced at the June 9 Assembly Meeting, and the sponsors intend to schedule the public hearing on the ordinance for September 15 and host opportunities for public input over the summer.
Press release provided by the Anchorage Assembly Legislative Services.
In Christian circles, the words “I forgive you” are spoken not as a polite cliché but as a radical witness to the Gospel. They echo in the most harrowing stories: a grieving parent, eyes wet with tears, stands before the murderer of their child and offers mercy. Why do Christians return so persistently to forgiveness, even when every human instinct screams for vengeance? What does it truly mean beyond simply “letting go?” The answer lies at the heart of Christian revelation. Forgiveness is not a feeling or a sentiment. It is a graced movement of the will— from hatred to mercy, from wrath to compassion. It requires us to distinguish righteous emotion from disordered passion, violence from trauma, and human justice from divine mercy. As St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, only when our passions are ordered by reason and grace can we fulfill Christ’s command.
Scripture leaves no room for doubt. In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus ties our forgiveness directly to God’s: “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.” He warns, “If you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matthew 6:14-15). The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matthew 18:21-35) makes the stakes clear: the servant who receives mercy but refuses to extend it faces judgment. Christ Himself models it from the cross: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34). Stephen echoes the same words as he is stoned to death (Acts 7:60).
Forgiveness, then, is not optional piety. It is participation in divine mercy. Jesus even grants his Apostles authority to forgive sins, declaring that what they loose on earth will be loosed in heaven (Matthew 18:18; John 20:23). What enables a parent to extend mercy to the killer of their child? Not denial of the evil, and certainly not the abandonment of justice. True forgiveness flows from a heart transformed by grace—one that recognizes that every sinner, including ourselves, stands in desperate need of God’s pardon. It wills the offender’s ultimate good: repentance, conversion, and eternal life.
Aquinas explains in the Summa Theologica that mercy is a virtue allied with charity. It does not abolish justice; it perfects it (ST I, q. 21). God’s mercy overflows justice rather than contradicting it. The forgiving parent does not excuse the crime or interfere with lawful punishment. Instead, they release personal vengeance from their own heart. They refuse to let hatred define them. In that act, they free themselves from the prison of bitterness.
To understand this, we must first separate healthy emotions from those that destroy the soul. Hatred and vengeful wrath poison the spirit, turning sorrow into a consuming fire. Yet anger itself is not evil. Aquinas devotes an entire question in the Summa to the topic (ST II-II, q. 158). He praises “zealous anger” (ira per zelum) when it is commanded by reason, seeks just punishment, and aims at correcting evil and restoring order. “He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral,” he writes, because such anger defends the good.
Jesus Himself displayed this righteous anger when He cleansed the temple (John 2:13-17). Scripture shows He did not lash out impulsively. He first saw the desecration, then deliberately made a whip of cords before driving out the money-changers. His anger was consequent—arising after reason had judged the evil and determined a just response.
Sorrow and pain also have their proper place. The parent’s tears are not weakness; they are the natural, healthy response to devastating loss. Grief must be felt, processed, and offered to God. Suppressing it only breeds greater disorder. These emotions— righteous anger, sorrow, pain— are not obstacles to forgiveness. They are the raw material grace shapes into love.
Central to the Christian response is the crucial distinction between violence and trauma. Aquinas defines violence as something “directly opposed to the voluntary” (ST I-II, q. 6). It is an external force imposed against the will— the brutal murder of a child, for example, inflicted from without and overriding every natural inclination toward life. Violence is the perpetrator’s objective sin.
Trauma, by contrast, is the interior wound left on the victim and those who love them. It is the psychological, emotional, and spiritual aftermath— the shock, intrusive memories, shattered trust, and lingering identification with victimhood. While violence is external and momentary, trauma is internal and can persist for years if left unhealed.
The Christian path honors both realities. Violence must be named as evil and met with justice (Romans 13:4). Trauma must be healed through counseling, community support, prayer, and the sacraments. Forgiveness addresses the relational and spiritual debt, releasing hatred without negating the need for accountability or healing. This distinction liberates us. We can pursue justice through lawful means, feel deep sorrow, and even experience zealous anger, yet still choose, by grace, to forgive. Forgiveness is an act of the will, empowered by the Holy Spirit. It refuses to let the perpetrator’s violence claim final victory over our hearts. As St. Paul writes, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12:21)
In a world plagued by school shootings, domestic abuse, and random brutality, Christians continue to say “I forgive you” because it proclaims the Gospel’s power. It is never easy. Often it is a daily battle, a journey rather than a single moment. Yet it is possible. The same grace that raised Christ from the dead can raise us from hatred to mercy. The parent who forgives does not minimize the loss. They simply refuse to be defined by it. In doing so, they become living witnesses to the crucified and risen Lord.
Christian forgiveness reveals the astonishing truth that mercy is stronger than violence, and love is stronger than death. It is the path to our own healing, and the key that looses both sinner and saint alike. May we have the courage to pray the words of the Our Father and the grace to live them.
On Tuesday, June 2, U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) chaired a Senate Commerce Coast Guard, Maritime, and Fisheries Subcommittee hearing on “The Blue Economy: Advancing American Fisheries, Maritime Strength, and Coastal Economies.” The hearing featured testimony from four expert witnesses, three of whom are Alaskan: Tommy Sheridan, director of the Alaska Blue Economy Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks; Jeremy Woodrow, executive director of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute; and Nathan Wardwell, managing partner of JOA Surveys, LLC. Sen. Sullivan has led efforts in Congress to secure America’s place in the global Blue Economy through enforcement, environmental stewardship, infrastructure investment, and workforce development.
“The Blue Economy supports millions of American fishermen, processors, mariners, sport fishermen, welders, scientists, engineers, military personnel, charter operators, tourism workers, and small business owners across the United States,” said Sen. Sullivan. “Yet workforce shortages remain one of the great challenges across nearly every sector. We are serious about advancing the Blue Economy. We must invest in workforce development, training, apprenticeships and educational opportunities to prepare the next generation of maritime professionals.”
The Blue Economy is vital to America’s economic strength, food security, and national security, especially in Alaska, which harvests over 60 percent of America’s commercial, sport, and subsistence seafood and holds more coastline than the rest of the country combined.
Below is a transcript of Sen. Sullivan’s opening statement in the hearing.
“Good morning. I want to welcome our distinguished witnesses. Apologize for my tardiness, but I think at least three of you understand. I just got in from Alaska last night, and you know what that’s like. So welcome, especially to the Alaskans. And this is a subcommittee hearing that examines the importance of America’s Blue Economy and the opportunities that presents for economic growth, innovation, job creation and national security.
The Blue Economy encompasses, the industry’s activities and, of course, the communities that rely on our oceans, coasts, Great Lakes to create economic opportunities, support jobs, strengthen national security, and sustain coastal communities, including the American fishermen. The Blue Economy is also central to America’s economic strength. In 2022, it generated more than $470 billion in goods and services and supported 2.4 million jobs.
It is one of the fastest growing sectors in America, in our economy and indeed the world, encompassing commercial fisheries and seafood, sport, fisheries, subsistence fisheries, maritime transportation, ports, tourism and recreation, and much more. For the United States, and especially for coastal states like my state, the great state of Alaska. These industries and community are not optional. They are essential.
I always do a little bit of bragging about the great state of Alaska here, but when we talk about coastline, we have more coastline than the rest of the country combined. I have a colleague from Minnesota here; I respect a lot. She talks about her state having 10,000 lakes. My state has 3 million lakes. America is a maritime nation.
Our economic success, food security, supply chains and national defense depend on safe, healthy and productive oceans. This hearing comes at a critical time as our nation races to strengthen our maritime industries and secure our place in the global Blue Economy, but so are other countries. The federal government is making significant investments in taking important steps to ensure America remains competitive and our coastal communities, continue to thrive.
Seafood and of course, our fishermen coastal communities remains one of the pillars of the Blue Economy. Alaska is the superpower of seafood, I’d like to say, producing more than 60%. Harvesting more than 60% of all commercial, sport, and subsistence seafood in America, and providing roughly 10 billion meals of healthy protein wild Alaskan fish each year. Our fisheries support thousands of jobs, sustain coastal communities, and help feed both our nation and the world.
President Trump’s executive order on restoring American seafood competitiveness recognizes an important reality. Seafood competitiveness is economic security and even national security. At the same time, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing remains a major threat, not just a global fish stocks and fair competition, but to the economic and national security of the United States. That is why my bipartisan fighting foreign illegal seafood harvest, or the FISH Act, which strengthens enforcement and proves international coordination and targets foreign bad actors, particularly China, is so important to stop this illegal fishing, what Senator Whitehouse calls pirate fishing.
We passed that in the Senate recently, and I believe it’s going to be passed in the House soon. That will be the most comprehensive IUU fish legislation in the history of the country.
This builds on the bill’s Senator Whitehouse and I passed the Save Our Seas Act, the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act, which were the most comprehensive ocean cleanup legislation in American history. And right now, in this committee, we are working on my comprehensive bycatch bill that we introduced last year.
We are hoping to mark that up. That will be the most comprehensive bycatch legislation in American history. Healthy oceans are both an environmental priority and an economic necessity and a national security issue. Tourism, charter fishing, wildlife viewing and countless small businesses depend on sustainable fisheries and healthy marine ecosystems. Alaska is also seeing exciting innovation through our growing mariculture industry, where kelp and shellfish growers are creating new opportunities and jobs in coastal communities.
Science and data collection are foundational to the long-term success of the American Blue Economy. Fisheries, fishery surveys and stock assessments support sustainable fisheries management, and that is NOAA’s key mission in this committee reminds them of that very regularly. Likewise, hydrographic services, including coastal mapping, charting and biometric surveys are essential for safe navigation, commerce and maritime operations across every sector of the American Blue Economy.
Advancing our Blue Economy also requires strengthening America’s maritime transportation network; ports, marine highways, vessels, terminals, and logistics systems are essential to moving goods supporting coastal states, maintaining resilient supply chains while enhancing our national security. That is why the administration’s maritime action plan is so important. Strengthening America’s maritime transportation will require long term investment, workforce development, and strong public private partnerships that improve port capacity, modern infrastructure, support domestic vessel operators and ensure reliable transportation networks for coastal communities within and across states.
Tourism is another driver of the American Blue Economy. Visitors bring significant revenue directly to our local communities, making it important that America remains competitive as a global destination. That is why I introduced the Visit USA Act to fully fund Brand USA, the public private partnership responsible for promoting the United States as an international travel destination. Ultimately, this all comes back to people.
The Blue Economy supports millions of American fishermen, processors, mariners, sport fishermen, welders, scientists, engineers, military personnel, charter operators, tourism workers, and small business owners across the United States. Yet workforce shortages remain one of the great challenges across nearly every sector. We are serious about advancing the Blue Economy. We must invest in workforce development, training, apprenticeships and educational opportunities to prepare the next generation of maritime professionals.
The United States possesses some of the richest ocean resources in the world, the best managed fisheries in the world. With the right investments, policies and partnerships, we can unlock the full potential of America’s Blue Economy while strengthening our economic and national security and supporting coastal communities for generations to come. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, many of whom traveled far from the great state of Alaska like I did last night, and to opportunities ahead, challenges they face and the policies needed to ensure a strong and prosperous maritime future in Blue Economy for America.”
Press release and transcript provided by Arianna Erkmann, Press Assistant at the Office of U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan.
SOLDOTNA, AK — Kenai Peninsula Borough Mayor Peter A. Micciche’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget passed the Borough Assembly unanimously on June 2nd, presenting a spending plan built on a continued commitment to fiscal restraint, taxpayer affordability, and long-term financial sustainability.
The proposed budget reflects a modest increase over last year — driven primarily by one-time additional local funding for the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District — while holding the General Fund property tax mill rate steady at its current level, the lowest general government mill rate in the state of Alaska for similar boroughs.
“Our responsibility is not only to today’s taxpayers, but also to the long-term affordability, sustainability and stability of services for future generations,” Mayor Micciche said. “This budget reflects that commitment. I recognize that inflation has been difficult on families and have designed a budget to ensure that the KPB does not contribute to the strain of rapidly rising costs for KPB families and seniors. I want to personally thank the KPB Finance Team for their hard work, as well as each KPB employee and the KPB Assembly for sharing that vision.”
Holding the Line on Taxes
The proposed FY2027 General Fund property tax mill rate remains unchanged — the lowest of any similar local government in Alaska. The Borough also notes mill rate reductions in several service areas. The only exception is a mill rate increase to the Seldovia Recreational Service Area specifically requested by the Community. The KPB continues to distinguish itself as the only local government in Alaska to have significantly and repeatedly reduced its mill rate and increased the residential exemption in response to rapidly rising property valuations. Sales tax revenues — one hundred percent dedicated to education funding since a public vote in the early 1960s — are projected to see a negligible increase over last year’s forecasted amounts.
Education Remains the Largest Investment
As always, the single largest component of the FY2027 budget is the Borough’s contribution to the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District, with no increase to last year’s $62.3 million, while avoiding the exorbitant strain of funding to the cap, which would have added $6.3 Million more to the $192 million FY27 budget and required a tax increase. Education-related expenditures already represent the substantial majority of the Borough’s General Fund budget. This budget clearly supports education without stressing the wallets of local taxpayers.
CPI-Based Budgeting Philosophy
The Micciche Administration continues its Consumer Price Index (CPI)-based budgeting approach, targeting expenditure growth at or below the rate of inflation over time. While the past two budget cycles reflect slightly higher increases to a 3-year 3.19% average (compared to FY24 at 2.5% and FY25 at 2.57%) due to one-time education funding, the Mayor’s FY27 KPB budget projects the administration’s highly-disciplined effort to control long-term spending in adherence to the 2.5% growth trend beginning the following fiscal year.
Key Budget Highlights
Affordable Adherence to the Basics: We will do what you have asked of us at an affordable, long-term cost: affordable, quality services that you have requested in the ballot box over time…Emergency Services, Roads, Solid Waste, Education Funding, Service Areas, etc.
Steady or Reduced Mill Rate: Mill rates were reduced in three service areas; the General Government remains stable at 3.85, the lowest in the state. This is a much-lower mill rate than the last several years. In spite of a 2.1% KPB-wide assessment increase, mill rate reductions coupled with residential exemption increases have kept tax bills relatively flat over the past 3 years compared to all other Alaska boroughs.
Roads: Meaningful funding has been allocated to the Road Service Area Capital Project Fund for road construction and improvements. Our goal is solving long-term road issues with solutions that last.
Solid Waste: Solid waste operations represent a significant share of the total General Fund budget. We have finally flattened the dramatic annual increases of the past into sustainable, solid waste budget management.
Capital Projects: Substantial investment is directed to school facility major maintenance, including HVAC upgrades, roof and window replacements, and security improvements, with additional support for general government capital needs.
Workforce Restraint: Borough-wide positions were reduced by 1.5 employees. A net reduction in General Services staffing was achieved, and an Emergency Services Radio Technician position was added to the 911 Emergency Dispatch Special Revenue Fund for an end result of 1.5 fewer employee positions.
Financial Condition
After several years of rapid Alaska-wide assessment increases, FY27, Borough-wide taxable assessed values are leveling off this year to a modest 2.1% growth. The Borough’s unemployment rate, as of early this year, remains consistent with anticipated levels. General fund revenues are drawn from a balanced mix of property taxes, sales taxes, state revenue, and federal revenue.
KPB Residents are encouraged to review the full budget document and budget presentation at the Kenai Peninsula Borough website.
“Our staff and service area boards, department heads and virtually every employee have worked incredibly hard to give residents the highest level of service at the lowest cost possible. It takes a great team to internalize that vision and reflect those values in everything they do every day. I’m proud of our current team for making this possible in this local government, something that has not been delivered in most others. We have the team and the values to make it happen. It is the best way to demonstrate to the public that we don’t just say our motto, “We work for you”, we live it every day.” – Mayor Micciche
Press release provided by Kenai Peninsula Borough Communications Director Joe Rizzo.
Today, June 3, is Dutch Harbor Remembrance Day, when Alaskans take a moment to remember and honor those who fought to defend Dutch Harbor in the Aleutian Islands from a WWII Japanese attack six months following the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The attack on Dutch Harbor, located on the Amaknak Island in Unalaska, was the first aerial attack by an enemy on the continental United States. Japanese pilots expected little resistance, but the U.S. intercepted a message three weeks earlier, allowing Navy and Marine personnel to prepare with anti-aircraft defenses. After encountering unexpected resistance at Dutch Harbor, Japanese forces shifted their attack to the Margaret Bay Naval Barracks, claiming the lives of 25 servicemen.
Japanese forces also launched assaults on Adak, Kiska, and Attu. The Aleut people were evacuated and held in internment camps in Southeast Alaska for three years where many of them died.
The brave soldiers of the United States Armed Forces and allied Canadian Forces fought for more than a year to reclaim the Aleutian Islands. The battle of Attu stands as one of the costliest American assaults in the Pacific with hundreds of servicemen making the ultimate sacrifice to liberate Alaska.
This year is the 84th anniversary of the bombing of Dutch Harbor. We pause to remember and honor all who were affected by the attack, paying tribute both to the military personnel who served and died to defend our Nation and to the Aleut people who died while imprisoned.
Governor Bill Walker instituted Dutch Harbor Remembrance Day in 2015, ordering flags to be flown at half-mast each year on June 3. “As a child, my dad told us stories about his serving on the front line in the Alaska Scouts in the Aleutian Campaign during World War II, and the brave soldiers who served alongside him,” said Governor Walker. “I encourage all Alaskans to honor the heroic men and women who courageously fought to defend our land.”
U.S. Senators Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) and Ashley Moody (R-Florida) are urging the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to uncover improper health care billing practices that lead to high levels of medical debt. Instances of high medical debt continue to be a top concern for Americans, and there are reports that indicate hospital bills charged to uninsured patients that end up as medical debt are often well in excess of the actual cost of providing the service.
“We are writing to request you investigate and provide recommendations to Congress for addressing inappropriate health care billing practices that lead to high levels of medical debt,” said the Senators. “Despite efforts by Congress and the Administration to insulate patients from ‘surprise’ medical bills in the No Surprises Act, after four years of runaway inflation and increasing health costs under the Biden administration, instances of high medical debt continue to be a top concern for our constituents.”
While most medical debt sent to collections is under $300, approximately 14 million Americans owe over $1,000. Three million have incurred medical debt that exceeds $10,000, representing almost 80 percent of the aggregate medical debt owed in the United States.
High hospital bills have been a key factor for those suffering from high levels of medical debt. Almost 70 percent of Americans with medical debt under $1,000 reported having no hospital bills at all, but over 70 percent of those with debt over $1,000 reporting owing debt to hospitals, according to a 2022 survey.
Just last month, an investigation found “facilities on average charge the uninsured almost five times what Medicare pays for the same procedure.” Senators Sullivan and Moody are directing HHS to investigate root causes of instances of inordinately high medical debt and provide recommendations to Congress.
Press release provided by Arianna Erkmann, Press Assistant at the Office of U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan.
Full Letter
Dear Secretary Kennedy:
We are writing to request you investigate and provide recommendations to Congress for addressing inappropriate health care billing practices that lead to high levels of medical debt.
Despite efforts by Congress and President Trump to insulate patients from “surprise” medical bills in the No Surprises Act1, after four years of runaway inflation and increasing health costs under the Biden Administration, instances of high medical debt continue to be a top concern for our constituents.
While most medical debt sent to collections is under $3002, approximately 14 million Americans owe over $1,000. Three million have incurred medical debt that exceeds $10,000, representing almost 80 percent of the aggregate medical debt owed in the United States.3 High hospital bills have been a key factor for those suffering from high levels of medical debt. Almost 70 percent of Americans with medical debt under $1,000 reported having no hospital bills at all, but over 70 percent of those with debt over $1,000 reporting owing debt to hospitals, according to a 2022 survey.4
Perhaps most disturbing, there are many reports that indicate hospital bills charged to the uninsured that end up as medical debt are often well in excess of the actual cost of providing the service. Just last month, an investigation by NBC News found “facilities on average charge the uninsured almost five times what Medicare pays for the same procedure.”5 Additionally, while cash rates for health care services are lower than the official hospital list prices, actually securing these lower rates requires navigating a complex bureaucracy that patients rarely can access without specialized advocacy they do not know exists. Instead, hospitals routinely send vulnerable, uninsured patients to collections using inflated sticker prices, which creates an unfair system penalizing the poorest patients, and disregards the community benefit mandate hospitals are required to uphold.
In your investigation, which should include Alaska and Florida, we encourage you to investigate root causes of instances of inordinately high medical debt. Recent academic work on initiatives to address symptoms, such as the largest study of medical debt relief programs involving over 83,000 individuals, found “no evidence that buying and then forgiving medical debts that are in collections improved on average beneficiaries’ finances, access to credit, or their physical or mental health.”6 Similarly, efforts by the last Administration to focus on the impact of medical debt on credit scores have been criticized as likely to lead to higher borrowing costs for all consumers, reduce the likelihood of medical providers to treat those perceived to be at high-risk of non-payment, and increase pre-payment requirements from medical providers.7
Thank you for your attention to this important matter, and we look forward to working with you further on this and other efforts to address root causes increasing health care costs.
JUNEAU — June 2, 2026 — A new analysis by DPHK Consulting has identified construction as Alaska’s fastest-growing industry, after its real GDP rose 10.8% from 2024 to 2025.
The business services firm reviewed the latest annual real GDP by state data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and ranked Alaska’s major industries by their percentage change in real GDP, measured in chained 2017 dollars, between 2024 and 2025.
Construction posted the largest increase among Alaska’s major industries, growing by 10.8%. Transportation and warehousing followed, rising 5.9%, while mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction ranked third, expanding 5.4%.
Across the economy, Alaska’s real GDP increased by 2.8%, from $55.95 billion in 2024 to $57.49 billion in 2025.
“Construction’s 10.8% increase shows where Alaska’s 2025 growth was most concentrated, with the sector expanding nearly four times faster than the state economy overall,” said a DPHK Consulting spokesperson. “The full ranking also highlights how uneven that growth was: several industries posted solid gains, while wholesale and retail trade only edged higher by 0.1%.”
Fastest-Growing Industries in Alaska
Rank
Industry
Real GDP, 2024
Real GDP, 2025
Percentage Change
#1
Construction
$2.49 billion
$2.76 billion
10.8%
#2
Transportation and Warehousing
$7.53 billion
$7.97 billion
5.9%
#3
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction
$8.59 billion
$9.05 billion
5.4%
#4
Professional and Business Services
$3.93 billion
$4.12 billion
4.7%
#5
Educational Services, Health Care, and Social Assistance
$5.24 billion
$5.48 billion
4.6%
#6
Information
$1.71 billion
$1.76 billion
2.9%
#7
Manufacturing
$1.24 billion
$1.27 billion
2.5%
#7
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, Rental, and Leasing
$7.13 billion
$7.31 billion
2.5%
#9
Wholesale Trade
$1.06 billion
$1.06 billion
0.1%
#9
Retail Trade
$2.88 billion
$2.88 billion
0.1%
Methodology
Industries were ranked by percentage change in real GDP between 2024 and 2025 using the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis table “SAGDP9 Real GDP by state.” Real GDP is measured in millions of chained 2017 dollars.
The table includes major Alaska industry groups with positive real GDP growth and reported 2024 and 2025 values. The analysis excludes aggregate/addenda lines, including “All industry total,” “Private industries,” “Natural resources and mining,” “Trade,” “Transportation and utilities,” “Manufacturing and information,” “Private goods-producing industries,” and “Private services-providing industries.” Rows marked “(NA)” for 2025 were excluded.
Source: “SAGDP9 Real GDP by state.” U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, April 9, 2026. Accessed June 2, 2026. BEA iTable source link.
About DPHK Consulting
DPHK Consulting is a business services firm that helps companies worldwide source trusted service providers. The firm aims to simplify vendor discovery, referral, and coordination.
This article was originally published in the author’s personal Substack on June 1, 2026.
It’s late May 2026, and you’re a thirty-something Alaskan. Maybe you’ve got kids in Mat-Su schools, a job that actually depends on real energy costs staying sane, a deep love for this state that’s never stopped believing we can develop our resources without selling our kids’ future to the highest corporate bidder.
You’re scrolling through your favorite social media or the news after a long day, and all these fake and uninformed Americans hammering the same drum again.
Urgent. Thirty days. Closing window.
Generational opportunity. Pass the bill or lose the pipeline.
Arctic energy conference the Same stage, Same energy conference where, just one year earlier, Glenfarne’s own developer stood up and told the room the project looked economically attractive without any government handouts.
This year? Same stage, different tune not financeable without the tax abatement. And oh, by the way, they’re still not telling us the total construction cost.
That’s not urgency.
That’s a pressure play.
And today, in a Senate Finance Committee hearing that your tax dollars paid for, the project’s own adviser dropped the mask on the public record.
I want to be clear about something before we go further. This isn’t a pipeline hit piece. I want this thing built. I want the construction jobs. I want North Slope gas flowing so our lights stay on and our homes stay warm without us begging for imports.
But right now, this deal is shaping up to be bad if we build it the wrong way and just as bad if we don’t build it at all.
The only path that actually works is the one where the people who own the gas us, the residents who live here capture the real value.
Anything less turns Alaska into a resource colony a piece of geography that Glenfarne, federal tax-credit chasers, and Asian buyers strip for profit while our schools close and our sovereignty quietly disappears.
Let’s walk through exactly what the public record shows. Every number. Every name. Every testimony detail. Because the Governor’s thirty-day clock is explicitly designed to stop us from asking the hard questions and those questions are the whole ballgame.
The “Closing Window” Nobody Will Name
Governor, before anyone votes on anything, let’s start with the most basic question on the table: what window, exactly, is closing?
You have called this special session urgent because of a closing LNG market window. So put it in writing. Identify the specific market condition or contract deadline that requires this tax structure to be enacted within thirty days.
And while you’re at it, confirm whether the December 31, 2027 IRS construction deadline for Section 45V Clean Hydrogen Production Tax Credits is a factor in the timeline your office and Glenfarne are actually working against.
Because here’s the thing.
One year ago at your own energy conference, Glenfarne said the project looked great with no tax breaks.
This year they reversed course entirely not financeable without them, and they still won’t disclose the full construction cost. That reversal happened on your stage.
It has never been explained. And now you’re telling the legislature telling us that it has to be done in thirty days or the window closes forever.
Which window? Name it.
If the real urgency is preserving two billion dollars a year in stacked federal tax credits rather than some LNG market window, that is a fundamentally different conversation.
And the public was never told about it.
What the Adviser Actually Said in the Room
On May 27, 2026, GaffneyCline Senior Director Nicholas Fulford sat before the Senate Finance Committee as the project’s own expert adviser.
He was there to make the case for SB 2001.
What he actually did was blow up the fiscal foundation of the entire bill on the record, under questioning, in real time.
He called the $35 billion cost figure “wishful thinking.” On $46 billion he offered only a hesitant “may be.”
He said natural gas itself “is not the driver” of the project’s value and “is not worth much.”
When pressed on what actually is worth something, he pointed to “secondary gases.”
When a senator asked him to name them, he didn’t. NGLs, for what it’s worth, can’t even go in the pipe.
So here’s what that means in practice every single fiscal note attached to SB 2001 every number the Department of Revenue used to tell the legislature what this deal is worth to Alaska is built on the Spring 2026 DOR model using $46.2 billion as the construction cost assumption.
The exact number Fulford just called wishful thinking. On the public record. In the hearing room.
Mr. Fulford on what specific cost basis did GaffneyCline determine that the $0.12 per mcf Alternative Volumetric Tax rate in this bill is appropriate for Alaska?
The Worley cost update hasn’t been completed or disclosed to the committee.
So when, exactly, will that estimate be available for independent legislative review before a permanent tax structure gets locked in?
A senator in that room responded to all of this by saying the legislature may need to ask for a concession. But concessions get negotiated before you lock in permanent terms with fiscal stability provisions that prevent future legislatures from ever revisiting the deal.
Once SB 2001 passes, Alaska’s leverage on the tax rate is gone forever. The urgency argument the thirty-day clock evaporated in real time inside that hearing room.
The $595 Million Carbon Capture Money Machine
Fulford’s own slides, Page 15, laid it out in clean numbers. Seven million metric tons of CO2 captured every year at the Gas Treatment Plant. Eighty-five dollars per ton under the federal 45Q carbon capture and sequestration tax credit. Run the math: that’s $595 million a year in federal tax credits flowing straight to the operator.
Now here’s what wasn’t in the slides.
Under HB 50, as amended by Senator Olson, Alaska collects $2.50 per ton in injection royalties on that same CO2 stream. Seven million tons.
Do the math again $17.5 million back to us. Less than three cents on the dollar for using Alaska’s geology, Alaska’s regulatory framework, and accepting Alaska’s long-term seismic liability underground. The 45Q credit runs twelve years once the facility is placed in service.
There is no revenue-sharing mechanism in SB 2001.
There is no statutory way for Alaska to touch any real slice of that $595 million annual windfall.
The state provides both the injection site and the legal framework, accepts the geological risk, and walks away with seventeen and a half million dollars while the operator banks nearly six hundred million.
What is the total projected 45Q credit value to Glenfarne and its partners over the full twelve-year credit period?
What is Alaska’s total projected royalty return over the same period?
Put those two numbers side by side. Put them on the record. Then explain to the people who own this gas why that ratio satisfies anyone’s definition of maximum benefit.
The Billion-Dollar Credit Nobody Mentioned
Now here’s where it gets wild. Because Fulford’s entire twenty-six-slide presentation didn’t mention hydrogen once.
Didn’t mention ammonia once. Didn’t mention Section 45V of the Internal Revenue Code at all, not in the section on economic benefits, not anywhere.
The Nikiski ammonia plant sitting on 130 acres with two anhydrous ammonia facilities and a cargo ship loading terminal? Invisible.
Completely absent from the “Other Sources of Economic Benefit” section of the project’s own adviser’s presentation to the Alaska Senate Finance Committee.
But the project record outside those slides tells the story clearly. Tokyo Gas letters of intent. Japanese institutional investors whose ESG rules demand carbon credentials. AGDC’s own hydrogen hub concept paper. Representative McCabe’s public statement that Japan won’t buy without CCUS.
That’s not environmentalism, that’s capital-market credentialing.
The Japanese buyers need a clean-energy label on the product to satisfy their institutional investors. The 45V credit is how you get it.
Here’s how the play works. At Nikiski, Steam Methane Reforming turns pipeline methane into hydrogen or ammonia for export. That process creates a separate CO2 stream. Capture it, inject it into Cook Inlet reservoirs, and the facility qualifies for up to $3.00 per kilogram of hydrogen under 45V. At 500,000 metric tons of hydrogen annually, that’s up to $1.5 billion a year in additional federal credits.
Those “secondary gases” Fulford wouldn’t name in the hearing room? That’s what he was talking about. The ones generating this second massive payout. The ones worth more than the gas itself.
Does Glenfarne’s project financial model include projected 45V credit revenue from hydrogen or ammonia production at Nikiski?
If so, what is the projected annual 45V credit value, and why was that figure not included in the section of the presentation titled “Other Sources of Economic Benefit”?
The question answers itself.
The Physics of “Clean” What the Label Actually Hides
Let’s talk about what the 45V “clean hydrogen” credential actually means, because this is where the whole environmental architecture of this deal gets shaky fast.
Steam Methane Reforming doesn’t eliminate carbon. It relocates it. The reaction splits methane into hydrogen and CO2. Without carbon capture, you’re looking at roughly twelve kilograms of CO2 per kilogram of hydrogen produced. Even at an optimistic ninety-five percent capture rate, about 6.6 kilograms remain.
And the capture equipment itself consumes fifteen to twenty-five percent of the facility’s gross output meaning you have to burn even more gas just to manage the CO2 the process creates.
To hit the full $3.00 per kilogram 45V credit tier, the IRA demands lifecycle emissions below 0.45 kilograms of CO2 per kilogram of hydrogen.
Here’s the problem, upstream methane leakage eighty times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 over a twenty-year window from 1970s- and 1980s-era North Slope infrastructure isn’t audited project-specifically.
The model just uses a 0.9% national average. The accounting boundary stops at the Nikiski gate. Combustion in Japan doesn’t count. The ESG credential gets manufactured here. The emissions happen over there.
Net result across the full lifecycle wellhead to power plant is almost certainly more greenhouse gas than simply burning the natural gas straight. Alaska accepts indefinite geological liability in two seismically active basins in exchange for federal credit programs whose climate benefit has not been independently verified at full lifecycle scale.
At what emissions intensity does GaffneyCline project a Nikiski hydrogen facility would qualify?
What annual credit value per kilogram corresponds to that tier?
Has any independent lifecycle assessment been conducted using project-specific upstream methane leakage rates from North Slope production infrastructure, rather than the IRS default national average of 0.9%?
If the answer is no, then Alaska is accepting permanent underground geological risk in exchange for a clean-energy label that hasn’t been stress-tested against the actual physics of this specific project.
That’s not a climate benefit.
That’s a checkbox.
The Real Deadline Nobody’s Talking About
Here’s the thing that should make every Alaskan sit up straight and re-read the Governor’s public statements very carefully.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed July 4, 2025, moved the 45V construction commencement deadline to December 31, 2027.
That’s nineteen months from right now. To meet it, the project has to satisfy either the Physical Work Test or the Five Percent Safe Harbor which at $46 billion means committing $2.3 billion in verifiable construction expenditure. After that, there’s a four-year continuity safe harbor.
The project’s own timeline targets first export gas in 2031. Without SB 2001, without fiscal stability, without the legal framework locked in now, Glenfarne can’t credibly start construction in time to hit the IRS deadline. The 45V credit up to $1.5 billion a year disappears.
The Governor has never mentioned this IRS deadline in any public statement about the bill. Not once.
Has Glenfarne or any affiliated entity taken steps to establish beginning of construction for purposes of Section 45V?
Does Glenfarne’s project development timeline require SB 2001 to be enacted within this special session in order to preserve the ability to satisfy the IRS Physical Work Test or Five Percent Safe Harbor before December 31, 2027?
Yes or no. Both parts. On the record.
If the answer to that second question is yes, if the real reason for the thirty-day special session clock is preserving eligibility for a federal credit program worth up to $1.5 billion annually that the public has never been told about, then we have been misled about the nature of this urgency from the beginning.
We’ve been told this is about an LNG market window.
It may actually be about an IRS filing deadline.
Those are completely different things, and the people who own the gas deserve to know which one is driving the bus.
Two Credits, One Project, One Pattern
Let’s stack it up, because this is the picture that the Governor’s framing actively works to prevent you from seeing all at once.
45Q on the North Slope CO2 stream from the Gas Treatment Plant: $595 million a year, twelve-year credit period, Alaska gets $17.5 million in royalties on the same stream.
45V on the Nikiski CO2 stream from Steam Methane Reforming at the ammonia plant: up to $1.5 billion a year in additional federal credits, never mentioned in the adviser’s presentation, no revenue-sharing mechanism exists.
Different molecules. Different injection sites. Combined annual federal credit value approaching $2 billion paid by American taxpayers while Alaska provides both injection sites, accepts both long-term geological liabilities in seismically active basins, and rewrites its school funding formula to make it all possible.
Does Glenfarne’s integrated project financial model include projected revenue from both 45Q credits on the North Slope CO2 stream and 45V credits on a Nikiski hydrogen facility CO2 stream simultaneously?
What is the combined projected annual federal credit value to the operator across both programs at full project capacity?
What is the corresponding total Alaska revenue from royalties, AVT, and any other mechanism over the same period?
Put those numbers on the table.
Side by side. Public record. Before the vote. Because if the combined credit value to the operator approaches $2 billion annually and the total Alaska take is a fraction of that with no mechanism to share in the upside, the constitutional question isn’t academic. It’s the whole deal.
How the Special Session Killed the Better Deal
This is the third time the legislature has tried to move a tax package for this project.
The first two rounds HB 381 and SB 280 in the regular 34th Legislature were actually being shaped into something with teeth.
Senate Resources, under Chair Giessel, built a framework with a volumetric tax rate at the LNG plant of $0.25 per mcf. It included legislative approval requirements for major ownership changes. Investor disclosure. A $5 per mcf in-state gas price cap to protect Alaska utilities.
A ban on passing construction cost overruns to ratepayers.
SB 2001 drops the LNG plant rate to $0.12 per mcf. Less than half. Every single protective provision from the Senate Resources framework, gone.
The ownership change approval, the investor disclosure, the utility price caps, the overrun prohibition all of it stripped out in the special session version.
What specific analysis supports reducing the rate by more than half from the Senate Resources framework?
Which of the Senate Resources protective provisions will be restored as amendments before this bill passes?
Thirty days forecloses real committee work, forecloses public testimony, forecloses the kind of iterative process that produced those protections in the first place.
That compression wasn’t an accident. It was the design. You get a weaker deal with fewer safeguards when you can only run one lap around the track instead of three.
What the Numbers Actually Do to Alaska Revenue
The Department of Revenue’s Spring 2026 fiscal model projects that under current law, property tax revenue from this project would start at $25 million initially that’s 2029, when in-state operations begin and ramp to $244 million annually at full export capacity in 2033.
SB 2001 gives full property tax abatement during construction.
That’s five-plus years of zero. Then it switches to the Alternative Volumetric Tax, which DOR projects will return roughly a quarter of the 20-mill equivalent on infrastructure of this scale.
At full development the AVT breaks down like this: state gets $250 million, Anchorage $36 million, Fairbanks North Star $9 million, North Slope Borough $111 million, Kenai $134 million, Mat-Su $31 million, Denali $11 million, others $28 million.
The Gas Treatment Plant and carbon capture facility the engine of the $595 million annual 45Q credit return only $90 million combined to the state and North Slope Borough.
Read that ratio again.
Three federal credit dollars to the operator for every one dollar of combined state-plus-borough AVT from the facility generating those credits.
The operator’s annual take on that single facility exceeds Alaska’s combined take by roughly six to one.
What is the estimated total property tax revenue foregone during the abatement period?
What is the net present value comparison between current law property tax collections and the AVT structure over the full twelve-year 45Q credit period?
If the NPV of foregone property tax revenue during abatement plus the structural discount of the AVT rate compared to current law wipes out most of the apparent benefit of this deal, Alaskans need to see that math before the vote. Not after.
Rewriting the School Funding Formula While Schools Are Literally Closing
Sections 1 and 2 of SB 2001 permanently exclude AVT-subject project property from the taxable property base that determines how much corridor communities have to contribute to local school funding.
The largest infrastructure project in Alaska history will not count toward the school contribution formula. AVT revenue itself doesn’t count as a local contribution either.
Legislative Legal Services flagged this on April 27, 2026, in a memo to Senate Resources. Potential equal-protection problem under the Alaska Constitution.
Districts with pipeline infrastructure become differently situated from other districts. The memo recommended a full fiscal-impact analysis by school district before any vote. That analysis has not been presented to the committee.
Has DEED or Legislative Finance completed the comprehensive fiscal impact analysis by school district that Legislative Legal Services recommended? If not, why is this committee voting on a permanent restructuring of the school funding formula before that analysis is complete? What is the projected net change in state education funding obligation resulting from the formula restructuring, and which districts gain and which bear additional burden?
Because here’s what’s happening in those districts right now, while we’re having this conversation.
The Anchorage School Board voted in February 2026 to close three elementary schools: Fire Lake, Lake Otis, Campbell STEM. Ninety million dollar deficit. Fairbanks closed three schools. Juneau merged its two high schools into one campus. Ketchikan voted unanimously in April to close two more elementaries to close an eight million dollar gap.
Mat-Su the borough that literally hosts the natural gas pipeline corridor, the borough that stands to get $31 million in AVT revenue under this bill, faces a $23 million budget hole that school closures won’t even fully close.
Statewide, Alaska enrollment is at its lowest point since 1998.
This is the moment we’ve chosen to permanently restructure the school funding formula. Under a thirty-day clock. While the project’s own adviser is calling the cost assumption “wishful thinking” on the public record.
The kids in Mat-Su schools right now kids whose parents want the pipeline built and the jobs to materialize are going to school in a borough that’s closing classrooms while a legislative special session reshapes how their education funding gets calculated, based on construction cost numbers the developer’s own expert won’t fully stand behind.
That’s not a policy trade-off. That’s a moral failure in slow motion.
The Constitutional Question That Doesn’t Have an Answer Yet
Article VIII, Section 2 of the Alaska Constitution is not ambiguous:
“The legislature shall provide for the utilization, development, and conservation of all natural resources belonging to the State… for the maximum benefit of its people.”
GaffneyCline themselves put that provision on their March 18, 2026 Senate Resources presentation slide and compared it to other LNG-producing nations. They cited it as the governing standard. Then their adviser stood in front of the Senate Finance Committee and testified that natural gas “is not the driver” of the project’s value, that it “is not worth much,” and that unnamed secondary gases are where the value actually lives.
If the project’s primary economic engine is stacked federal tax credits under 45Q and 45V not LNG export revenue and if those credits are structured so that no meaningful revenue-sharing mechanism ties Alaska’s return to the operator’s credit receipts then the constitutional question isn’t a legal technicality.
It’s the central issue.
On what basis does the administration conclude that the AVT rates in SB 2001, which contain no revenue-sharing mechanism tied to federal credit receipts, satisfy the constitutional maximum benefit standard given that the project’s own adviser has testified that natural gas is not the economic driver and that secondary gases carry the primary value?
The words “maximum benefit” don’t mean “some benefit.” They don’t mean “the deal we could get in thirty days.”
They mean the best we can actually do for the people who own the resource.
And right now, the best deal on the table gives a private operator approaching $2 billion a year in federal credits with no mechanism for Alaska to share in that upside, while Alaska provides the geology, the regulatory framework, the seismic liability, and a rewritten school funding formula to make it all work.
That is not maximum benefit. That is resource colonialism with an Alaskan flag on it.
The Environmental Claim That Doesn’t Survive the Full Lifecycle
Both credit programs rest on environmental claims that collapse when you trace the full lifecycle.
The 45Q credit is justified as a climate benefit from carbon sequestration you’re re-injecting underground what the gas processing brought up. But the combustion CO2 from the methane that travels the fourteen-hundred miles of pipe to Nikiski and then gets shipped to Japan and burned? That’s outside the accounting boundary. It doesn’t count.
The 45V credit is justified as clean hydrogen production. But the accounting boundary stops at the Nikiski gate. The shipping emissions don’t count. The combustion at the destination power plant in Japan doesn’t count.
Net across the full wellhead-to-power-plant lifecycle accounting for upstream methane leakage from aging North Slope infrastructure, the energy cost of the capture equipment itself, and end-use combustion in Japan the greenhouse gas footprint of this project is almost certainly substantially worse than simply burning the natural gas directly.
Alaska accepts indefinite geological liability in two seismically active basins. The operator captures nearly $2 billion a year in federal clean-energy credits. The credits exist because Japanese institutional investors need an ESG label to satisfy their fund rules. The climate benefit, on a full lifecycle accounting, is largely fictional.
Has the administration commissioned or received any independent lifecycle emissions analysis of this project from North Slope wellhead through LNG or ammonia combustion at destination accounting for upstream methane leakage at project-specific rates and combustion emissions at the point of use?
If not, on what environmental basis does the state justify accepting permanent geological liability in two seismically active basins in exchange for federal credit programs whose climate benefit has not been independently verified at full lifecycle scale?
If the answer is no, then Alaska is writing a geological blank check for a program whose environmental rationale has never been stress-tested.
That’s not stewardship. That’s liability
What Alaska Is Owed Before Any Vote
Before this committee votes before the session closes the public record needs four commitments made explicit.
Will the administration require Glenfarne to disclose, in writing, for the public record: the combined projected value of 45Q and 45V federal tax credits over the full credit period; the project-specific lifecycle emissions intensity of any planned hydrogen production at Nikiski; the current Worley capital cost estimate; and the specific IRS construction commencement steps Glenfarne plans to take and on what timeline, all of this before the permanent tax structure in this bill takes effect?
Yes or no. On the record.
Because right now, here’s what we know from the public record versus what we’ve been told.
We’ve been told there’s a market window closing in thirty days. The public record shows a potential IRS construction deadline for a $1.5 billion annual credit program that’s never been mentioned publicly.
We’ve been told $35 -$46-$78 billion is the project cost. The project’s own adviser called that wishful thinking.
We’ve been told the gas is the value. The project’s own adviser said gas isn’t the driver.
We’ve been told this is about LNG jobs and energy security. The economic architecture, as built, sends the primary upside stacked federal credits approaching $2 billion a year to the operator and foreign buyers while Alaska collects royalties worth less than three cents on the dollar and rewrites the school funding formula in the process.
The people who own the gas deserve better than this. Not “better” in the abstract better in the specific, documented, on-the-record way that the Alaska Constitution requires.
What You Can Actually Do Right Now
The committee record is still open.
Go to akleg.gov. Find your senator and representative. Every member has a public email address.
The questions in this piece every one of them are drawn directly from the public record, from Fulford’s testimony, from the DOR fiscal model, from the Legislative Legal Services memo, from the IRS statute.
They are not hostile.
They are not anti-development.
They are the bare minimum that any legislature working for the people who own the resources should have on the record before locking in permanent terms.
Copy them. Paste them into an email. Subject line: SB 2001 – Questions for the Record. Send it before the session ends. You don’t need to be a lawyer or an energy economist. You need to decide whether your legislators should have these answers before they vote.
Alaska First Means Getting This Right
We don’t have to choose between development and sovereignty. We never did.
Build it the wrong way…. With rushed tax breaks, no in-state supply commitments at fair prices, an AVT structure that captures a fraction of the value while the operator banks $2 billion a year in federal credits, equity dilution risks on our 25% stake, school funding formulas rewritten while classrooms empty — and we become the resource colony.
Jobs on paper. Sovereignty eroded. Ratepayers subsidizing Asia while future generations inherit the geological liability and the fiscal hole.
Don’t build it at all, and we miss the construction jobs, the revenue, the energy security, the domestic supply that keeps the lights on in the dark of January.
That failure is real too.
But the crossroads we’re standing at right now late May 2026, thirty-day clock, the project’s own adviser calling the cost number wishful thinking, the IRS 45V deadline ticking nineteen months away while nobody in the Governor’s office mentions it publicly, schools closing from Mat-Su to Ketchikan, this is exactly the moment where getting it right is still possible.
Not easy. Not inevitable. But possible.
The Constitution says maximum benefit for the people. Not maximum benefit for Glenfarne. Not maximum benefit for Tokyo Gas. Not maximum benefit for whoever ends up holding the 45V credits when the ammonia ships clear Cook Inlet.
Maximum benefit for the Alaskans who own the gas, who live on top of the geology, who send their kids to the schools that are closing while this deal gets rushed through a thirty-day session on assumptions the developer’s own guy won’t stand behind.
Alaska first doesn’t mean build anything at any cost. It means build it right, so the people who actually own this resource finally get the maximum benefit the Constitution has always promised them.
Every other version of this story is lose-lose. We’ve seen enough of those.
The following is a reprint of a press release provided by the Department of Labor and Workforce Development on 6/1/2026.
Alaska’s minimum wage will increase to $14.00 per hour on July 1, 2026. In November 2024, Alaska Statute 23.10.065 was amended through the passage of Ballot Measure 1 to include this increase. The minimum wage will increase to $15.00 per hour on July 1, 2027. Starting Jan. 1, 2028, the minimum wage will return to annual adjustments for inflation.
The Alaska minimum wage applies to all hours worked in a pay period regardless of how the employee is paid, whether by time, piece, commission, or another agreement. The minimum compensation an employee must receive per pay period is all hours worked in the pay period multiplied by the Alaska minimum wage. Any claimed exemptions to the minimum wage must be clearly and specifically named in Alaska law.
Salaried employees who are exempt from minimum wage and overtime requirements under Alaska Statute 23.10.055(b) as bona fide executive, administrative, or professional employees must earn a salary equivalent to twice the minimum wage for the first 40 hours worked. Accordingly, effective July 1, 2026, the minimum salary for these employees will increase from $1,040 per week to $1,120 per week.
