Alaskans urge Alaska Senate to pass LNG pipeline tax bills

Residents, business owners, and industry workers sent a wave of letters to the Alaska Senate Finance Committee on June 17 and 18 urging passage of HB 381 and SB 280, legislation supporters say is needed to advance the proposed Alaska LNG pipeline project. The correspondence came from across the state, including Nikiski, Wasilla, Homer, Anchorage, Delta Junction, and the Kenai Peninsula, and reflected broad public pressure on the committee to act. The House passed HB 381 on a 35–4 vote, with the Interior Delegation unanimously in favor, and the bill was referred to the Senate Finance Committee. Supporters argue the legislation is a necessary step before developer Glenfarne can reach a final investment decision on a project they describe as a long-term answer to declining Cook Inlet gas supplies.

Most writers demanded a clean bill without unrelated amendments and a public floor vote. "In industry our natural gas prices, which are in no way guaranteed, have risen 200% in 3 years," wrote Miles Jorgensen of Nikiski, an energy sector worker. "The sad fact is that the communities of Alaska have not seen this rate hike yet, but are about to as utility contracts expire." Deanna James asked senators to vote in the open and go on record. Pegge Erkeneff, a Kenai Peninsula business owner, wrote to Sen. Donny Olson the night of June 16 asking him to support HB 381 and ensure it came to a clean vote the following day. The Alaska Farm Bureau also submitted a support letter focused on energy costs for agriculture, noting that affordable energy is essential to the viability of greenhouses, food processing, cold storage, and other agricultural operations.

Not all correspondence focused solely on demanding an immediate vote. Mary Corcoran of Delta Junction wrote to thank senators for their extensive questions on the complicated bills, saying she admired their grasp of the technical, monetary, and community impacts involved.

Judy Patrick of Wasilla pushed back on the committee's stated concern about the state's share of tax revenue. "Maximum benefit for Alaskans doesn't necessarily mean dollars to fund government," she wrote. "It also means jobs and economic benefit for the entire state."

The bill would replace property taxes on the pipeline with a throughput-based alternative volumetric tax. Proponents in the correspondence argued that Alaska's property tax burden for a natural gas pipeline is 10 to 12 times higher than comparable LNG jurisdictions, and that the reform is intended to bring Alaska closer to a competitive baseline rather than below it. They also argued the reform is expected to increase public revenue over time, not reduce it, because without it the project is unlikely to be built. The proposed pipeline would run approximately 800 miles from the North Slope to Southcentral Alaska.

Some municipal voices have raised concern that the shift from property taxes could reduce predictable local revenue, though those concerns were not represented in the correspondence packet received by the committee. The source packet is overwhelmingly supportive and contains little opposing testimony.