State fall revenue forecast released: $6.5 billion


The Department of Revenue released of the Fall 2023 Revenue Sources Book, a report that shows where money will be coming from for the State’s budget, including Revenue’s latest forecast for oil price, oil production, and tax revenue.

Unrestricted General Fund revenue, before accounting for the operating transfer from the Permanent Fund Earnings Reserve, is forecast to be $3.0 billion for Fiscal Year 2024 and $2.7 billion for Fiscal Year 2025.

The Permanent Fund is set to transfer $3.5 billion to the General Fund for FY 2024 and $3.7 billion for FY 2025. These amounts include funds available for general government spending and annual payment of dividends to qualifying Alaska residents.

For FY 2024, the total is $6.5 billion. That number will factor into Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s proposed budget, which he is releasing on Thursday.

The Permanent Fund operating transfer remains a large source of funding to the General Fund, contributing 48% of undesignated general funds for FY 2023 and projected to contribute a range of 54% to 62% for each of the next 10 years, the report says. 

In FY 2023, the Alaska North Slope oil prices averaged $86.63 per barrel. The Fall revenue forecast incorporates the most current indicators from the financial markets and is based on an annual average ANS oil price. The ANS oil price for FY24 is projected at $82.39 per barrel and $76 for FY 2025. Oil prices are expected to decline beyond FY 2025, stabilizing at $70 per barrel by FY 2033.

In FY 2023, ANS oil production averaged 479,400 barrels per day.  ANS oil production is expected to average 470,300 barrels per day for FY 2024 and 463,800 for FY 2025, respectively, before climbing to 633,000 barrels per day by FY 2033. 

Since the department’s Spring 2023 Revenue Forecast, released in March 2023, the ANS oil price forecast has increased by $9.39 per barrel for FY 2024 and $6 per barrel for FY 2025. 

The ANS oil production forecast decreased by 26,100 barrels per day for FY 2024 and by 34,200 barrels per day for FY 2025.  Driven by the revised outlook of oil price and production, the Unrestricted General Fund revenue forecast increased by $228 million for FY 2024 and $79 million for FY 2025.  

The Revenue Sources Book is available on DOR’s website at


  1. I was a resident of Alaska until 1992. At that time, evidence had shown the environmental zealots of the day that harvesting oil & gas resources there in Alaska, can & does work well with sustaining America’s energy and commodities resource reserves, while fuelling Alaska’s budgetary requirements. At the time, some nearly 85% of Alaska’s State budgetary requirements, alone, were met by these royalties. I & others proposed a gradual process (that would cover a decade) use some of the Permanent Fund in order to create “State Budgetary Forward Funding. It didn’t fly, as the PF has always been sacred from such usage. Fast-forwarding to today, Alaska is struggling to maintain its own “State’s Rights”, of which continues to ensure it maintains control over all resources extraction. As events are graphically illustrating there, the environmentalist zealotry has gained control of the US Federal Environmental Protection Industry and certainly the Department of Interior. Environmentalists’ goals appear to be eliminating all Alaskan mining and certainly fossil-based exploration and extraction. A different topic of discussion would entail America’s “Energy Transition” plans for the next 40 years. The Chinese have one. It includes a gradual phasing-out of fossil fuel-based energy resources — not wholesale elimination! In the case of Alaska and it’s budget, IF mining and oil & gas extraction elimination is to be Alaska’s future, then leadership there would be wise to allow the Federal intrusion in Alaska to be further fueled with its budgetary requirements paid by Citizens of the contiguous US… not the Permanent Fund! Our Forward Funding idea was proposed at a time when Alaskans and Alaska were more United in forging Alaska’s future. Today it is not the case as the USA is steeped in fissiparous social calamities, where Alaska’s rights and future economies are victim. Simple: if Alaska cannot mine Pebble, Trilogy Metals or even Nova Gold, nor further oils & gas exploration and extraction, then the citizens of the conterminous USA must provide Alaska’s ENTIRE State Budgetary requirements. That is a fair trade! No?

    • Foreign owned pebble would have received all the money, competed with Anchorage for Cook Inlet natural gas to run the mine, Pedro Bay native Corporation said no to the use of needed land for the pebble ore slurry pipeline, Trump said no mine, Biden said no mine, Alaska’s congressional Delegation said no mine, Courts ordered pebble to pay for 6.4 million to investors for liing about the value of the mining claims, in fact pebble has not received one single permit, pebble also lost all partners, Rio Tinto, Anglo American, First Quantum Minerals, and Mitsubishi.
      I’m with Senator Ted Stevens who said ”Wrong Mine Wrong Place”.

  2. Great news. Senators Stedman, Hoffman and Giessel can now figure out their personal shares of all of this and then condition the remaining distribution (if any) to the rest of us, provided we maintain good behavior.

  3. ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS(!!!) … Should be cutting every Department by 25%, “except” for DOT and State Troopers.

  4. Well this article and conjunction with the other article on the proposed budget shows that the clowns in Juno couldn’t balance a checkbook with a dollar in it.
    How in the world do you spend twice with the state brings in and yes, we have the PFD but if it wasn’t there, how would the state support itself couldn’t afford the taxes nobody could afford to live here except for the politicians.
    Maybe if we were all taxed at 25 or 30% people would get off their lazy rear ends and vote for their money. It just Confuses me to the fact that people don’t mind giving their money to the politicians to spend for them. You work hard all year long live paycheck to paycheck but the politicians have no problems spending and then asking for more.
    Greedy Juneau

  5. $6.5 billion in revenue and $14 billion in spending? They must be products of the Alaska elementary math education system. Those figures are bass ackwards.

  6. Agreed with above comments regarding fiscal responsibility. However, many of the US states seem to not see a relationship between spending and earning. Alaskans would be prudent to reduce spending and devise ways to earn, hence the comments above. The 3-generation Alaskan would be wise to study issues pertaining to “commodity sovereignty”. Without Control over just about all critical, strategic and main commodities such as nickel, graphite copper, and just about any element used in manufacturing EV’s, the USA and Alaska will not have a future. There are 3 rare and large deposits today in the US (Minnesota, Arizona & yes Alaska), where enactment of mines are seen as being in “the “wrong place, etc. —- today Alaskans and Americans have little say in any of these “environmental movement propaganda/Chinese propaganda out comes”. No mines, no sovereignty. Persons here who vote for less spending, if done, would still need to find money for State pensions and public works projects that still cost!

  7. Alaska has unique problems due to its geographical size and low population – under 1 million. Even though its two large cities, Anchorage and Fairbanks – contain most of the population, the cost of providing needed state services to the rest of the state are astronomical. If the state can’t get control of all the land it was promised in the Statehood Act of 1959 and allowed to use those lands to generate needed revenue, the present situation will continue. There are just too few residents to generate enough income through taxation to maintain needed state services.

Comments are closed.