“Under current law, we see higher state revenues with higher project capital costs because that would, we assume, increase the property tax burden. Under the bill as introduced by the Governor, higher capital costs would not have an impact on state revenues, and that's because the alternative volumetric tax basically locks in that exposure to tax for the midstream.”
- Speaker
- Dan Stickel
- Timestamp
- 108:32 – 108:59
- Transcript
- House Finance, 5/21/26, 1:30pm
- Community
- Alaska News
- Captured at
From the transcript
Under current law, we see higher state revenues with higher project capital costs because that would, we assume, increase the property tax burden. Under the bill as introduced by the Governor, higher capital costs would not have an impact on state revenues, and that's because the alternative volumetric tax basically locks in that exposure to tax for the midstream.
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
