“In our minds, the putative $600 million in royalty and tax would become 5— if we did what we'd be allowed to do, that would become $510 million, because it would come from general fund revenue.”
- Speaker
- Dan Stickel
- Timestamp
- 45:24 – 46:12
- Transcript
- House Finance, 5/21/26, 1:30pm
- Community
- Alaska News
- Captured at
From the transcript
In our minds, the putative $600 million in royalty and tax would become 5— if we did what we'd be allowed to do, that would become $510 million, because it would come from general fund revenue. Is that right? Co-chair Josephson, yes, it would be a potential appropriation from the state. I think we're still working through exactly how we plan to present that in this chart, whether it's a state revenue and then a separate appropriation to the municipalities, or whether we show it as municipal revenue directly. But we will be coming— I anticipate we will be coming before the committee in the near future with a presentation on that bill.
Related Coverage
Alaska gas line faces economic challenge even with tax breaks
Alaska LNG needs $8.48 to $9.07 per thousand cubic feet to break even, but global prices are $8 to $9. • Governor's tax plan cuts state revenue from $29.7 billion to $22.5 billion over the project's life. • Capital cost overruns and producer gas prices pose bigger risks than tax relief can fix. • State could invest $4.4 billion for a 25 percent equity stake.
House Resources gas line bill would cost municipalities $13B under governor's plan
Governor's plan cuts municipal revenue by $13 billion, House Resources version cuts only $2 billion • Governor replaces property tax with volumetric tax statewide, House Resources keeps property tax on facilities • Both versions reduce state revenue, project remains economically challenged at current market prices
