1:27
Adam Prestidge
18:41 - 20:09
"Amendment 14, uh, um, Summarizing, relates to the state's clawback option, which we discussed at some length in the hearing yesterday. It basically takes the carefully negotiated arrangement between Glenfarm and AGDC and removes all of the, I guess, the careful considerations around it and institutes an automatic reversion to the state with no compensation to, to the developer in the event that a milestone is lapsed. It's— we'd view that as extremely punitive to the project. Our legal counsel advises us that that could potentially qualify as an unconstitutional taking and potentially a violation of the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would severely hinder the developer's ability and willingness to continue to operate in the state of Alaska."
“Amendment 14, uh, um, Summarizing, relates to the state's clawback option, which we discussed at some length in the hearing yesterday. It basically takes the carefully negotiated arrangement between Glenfarm and AGDC and removes all of the, I guess, the careful considerations around it and institutes an automatic reversion to the state with no compensation to, to the developer in the event that a milestone is lapsed. It's— we'd view that as extremely punitive to the project. Our legal counsel advises us that that could potentially qualify as an unconstitutional taking and potentially a violation of the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would severely hinder the developer's ability and willingness to continue to operate in the state of Alaska.”
- Speaker
- Adam Prestidge
- Timestamp
- 18:41 – 20:09
- Community
- Alaska News
- Location
- Alaska
- Captured at
- June 27, 2026
From the transcript
Amendment 14, uh, um, Summarizing, relates to the state's clawback option, which we discussed at some length in the hearing yesterday. It basically takes the carefully negotiated arrangement between Glenfarm and AGDC and removes all of the, I guess, the careful considerations around it and institutes an automatic reversion to the state with no compensation to, to the developer in the event that a milestone is lapsed. It's— we'd view that as extremely punitive to the project. Our legal counsel advises us that that could potentially qualify as an unconstitutional taking and potentially a violation of the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would severely hinder the developer's ability and willingness to continue to operate in the state of Alaska. What I will say again to recap, if there is any concern that actions by the committee to institute— if actions by the legislature to provide tax arrangements for the project were to be put in place, then that value, the monetary value of that tax arrangement, would not be factored in for any repurchase that would come up in this scenario.