Video Clips
Quoted moments from Alaska public meetings, hearings, and press conferences.
Clips from Alaska State LegislatureClear
0:17
Dan Stickel“It does start with the same effective tax rates as the House version and simply fixes those rates and allocations in, in statute. The Senate version then added in the two doublings of the tax rate that was a major change from the House version.”
Alaska Legislature: Joint Conference on HB381, 6/27/26, 10am ·
0:24
Dan Stickel“for a pipeline-only portion of the project, you'd have a 6-cent per MCF tax rate, and then once the full project was in operations, we would estimate that the tax rate on a weighted average basis would be about 10.6 cents per 1,000 cubic feet.”
Alaska Legislature: Joint Conference on HB381, 6/27/26, 10am ·
0:22
Mike Cronk“if we do nothing, these numbers go away, we have nothing here. There's zero revenue brought to this state. There's zero revenue brought to many communities.”
Alaska Legislature: Joint Conference on HB381, 6/27/26, 10am ·
0:55
Adam Prestidge“The 2032 completion of construction is more about managing theoretical risk that lenders and investors will look at when they make an investment decision on the project. And so regardless of how we all want to move fast, Regardless of the timing around the energy availability out of the Cook Inlet, lenders and investors will just see this numerically and assign it a hypothetical risk that will make the project more expensive. And so we don't see it adding any additional incentive that isn't there already. It just adds risk to the project that will be priced into the financing.”
Alaska Legislature: Joint Conference on HB381, 6/27/26, 10am ·
0:34
Dan Stickel“In the version that passed the House, our break-even price was $8.57 under our baseline scenarios for gas delivered into the global market. Under the version that passed the Senate, it was $8.62 per 1,000 cubic feet. So a 5 cents per 1,000 cubic feet increase from the House version to the Senate version.”
Alaska Legislature: Joint Conference on HB381, 6/27/26, 10am ·
0:32
Dan Stickel“the capital expenditure weighting and the project component weighting, that applied both for calculating the initial tax rates, but then also applied for calculating the sharing out to municipalities. And that sharing out to municipalities has also been fixed in statute. In the Senate version of the bill. So removing some of that complexity. The other addition that the Senate made is the two step-ups.”
Alaska Legislature: Joint Conference on HB381, 6/27/26, 10am ·
0:38
Dan Stickel“the state starts out receiving about 9% of the AVT revenue. That will drop to 5% with the first doubling of the tax rate.”
Alaska Legislature: Joint Conference on HB381, 6/27/26, 10am ·
0:05
Dan Stickel“But then increase to 52% of the total AVT with the second doubling of the tax rate.”
Alaska Legislature: Joint Conference on HB381, 6/27/26, 10am ·
0:21
Dan Stickel“the Senate version of the bill removes some of the complexity in the calculation that was in the prior version of the bill.”
Alaska Legislature: Joint Conference on HB381, 6/27/26, 10am ·
0:27
Adam Prestidge“The deadline of 2037 is well within— well beyond the project completion deadline, even if we put a couple years of contingency on that. And so a 2037 deadline doesn't have that same risk profile to the FID investors. And so for that reason, we suggest deleting the 2032 deadline.”
Alaska Legislature: Joint Conference on HB381, 6/27/26, 10am ·
0:58
Bryce Edgmon“I feel like I think if FID isn't, for Phase 1, arrived at by 2028, there's justification for this issue to come back before the legislature to have a longer runway to engage in this discussion. I would submit to you or anyone else that we should not have gotten this bill on March 20th. We should have gotten this a lot earlier so we could, to pour over this in a way that complies with all the sort of what-if scenarios that are out there and also to be maybe a better partner to you as a developer overall to get our work done in a longer frame of time. So I guess at this point I'm not convinced that removing that 2028 FID deadline— and remember, it's just for Phase 1, it's not for Phase 2. You know, I don't know that it serves our best interests”
Alaska Legislature: Joint Conference on HB381, 6/27/26, 10am ·
0:43
Frank Richards“it was important from AGDC's perspective to allow the opportunity for the state with a callback position, but it didn't obligate the state to pay it. It would be something that we, if it was exercised, we would come back to the legislature to ask if they wanted to go forward with the opportunity to pay this. Or we have the opportunity then to be able to look to the open market to bring in another developer to be able to take on that expense and take on those responsibilities that Glenfarm is now doing.”
Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410
0:12
Bert Stedman“they can draw erroneous conclusions from just reading that in isolation. And we've tried to ferret some of that out in our questions.”
Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410
0:22
Dan Stickel“Representative Ruffridge to the Chair, correct, yes. So the assumption is that there is significant capital expenditure for the Phase 2 and then kind of a steady-state operations beyond that. If the developer were to do a significant expansion, yes, that would reduce their corporate income tax liability.”
Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410
0:40
Justin Ruffridge“I really would like to know how much the construction cost, because it seems to me to be a large assumption, weighs into what we're going to see here later, particularly on breakeven prices and other areas of, I think, importance to us as we're making decisions. If the construction cost is higher than what this model has assumed, what main areas does that affect in these following slides?”
Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410
1:22
Dan Stickel“once full export operations begin in 2033, you'd start to see more revenue, just shy of $200 million a year total, but you'd start to see more revenue from the oil and gas production in the upstream, and then once you get out into the later years of the project and you start to see the significant potential revenues from the midstream developer that the corporate income tax impact could be over $600 million per year from this provision.”
Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410
0:57
Dan Stickel“The material impact between S and S as amended from a modeling standpoint is the inclusion of the pass-through entity tax.”
Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410
0:49
Matthew Kissinger“Representative Fields asked about these clawback mechanisms at that meeting, and what I said was, I said there, I said, and just to address this clearly, This is my words. And just to address this clearly, because I've heard many questions that dance around this, the clawback would be a paid clawback. And there's real important reason for that.”
Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410
0:51
Adam Prestidge“we do have the view that if there were ever a cash consideration or a cash repurchase, we would not ask for the monetary value of any tax arrangement to be reflected in any repurchase. So Glenfarm's position is that you would not claim credit for any value added through tax abatement or other relief from the legislature? Representative Sharkey, essentially yes.”
Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410
0:30
Matthew Kissinger“If you're moving towards milestones and you're going to penalize your developer and they miss a milestone and you can just take everything away from them and they can lose everything, they will put nothing into it. And this is a $44 billion project that we're building. We need to put the very best work going into it. And that's why we're— there were these paid clawbacks with respect to our ability to push the developer out.”
Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410
0:22
Matthew Kissinger“Senator Steadman, through the chair, if you would be willing to provide us with a copy of that document, then we can consider redacting it and reviewing it. But as of now, we've only been able to look at that document. We don't have, uh, we don't have our own copy of that.”
Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410
0:42
Dan Stickel“The biggest one of these was the— that directly impacts the Department of Revenue was the implementation of the pass-through entity tax for oil and gas companies. This is a significant policy decision that's before the committee and the legislature.”
Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410
0:41
Dan Stickel“for that midstream operator, we're estimating $29 million in 2036. That's the first year of expected revenues. That increases to $65 million in 2041 and then up to $358 million in 2051. And what that shift from the 2041 to the 2051 represents is the exhaustion of those carryforward net operating losses.”
Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410
0:42
Adam Prestidge“one of our core principles has to do things right by the state, and so to prioritize low-cost domestic gas as low as possible, to do the project as quickly as possible, and more above all, to make sure our contracts and our arrangements with the state are fair to all parties involved. One of those things that we think is fair is the state's clawback option. That's something that AGDC proposed to us in our negotiations.”
Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410
0:24
Dan Stickel“We note the significant policy difference between the two versions of the bill is that pass-through entity tax that is in the version that came out of the Senate floor. That does create— that does add a level of uncertainty uncertainty and is a significant policy decision for the committee to consider.”
Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410
0:33
Justin Ruffridge“I think, Mr. Stickel, you're being generous when you say marginal. If the futures market is $8— and we're assuming a $1.50 upstream gas price and we're probably looking at the plus 20% line or the plus 40% line at— in real terms, none of the items I'm looking at on that screen seem to be even in the definition of marginal. It seems like they don't work.”
Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410
0:54
Justin Ruffridge“If this assumption, let's say on slide 21, from 20— looks like '46 and moving onward, is that there is the assumed, I would say, increase in potential revenue from a corporate income tax, that is only if the entity in question here does not take some of those dollars and let's say they reinvest those things in an export facility expansion, maybe an additional gas line, other sort of areas, all of those potential revenue dollars would have— could disappear. Is that an accurate assumption?”
Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410
0:33
Dan Stickel“Under the AKLNG project, this would also apply to incremental revenue from the project. So we assume that about two-thirds of the upstream oil and gas production associated with AKLNG would be subject to corporate income tax. Um, this pass-through entity tax would apply to that remaining one-third of production. We assume that the midstream operator is not subject to corporate income tax. And so this pass-through entity tax would also apply to the midstream operator under our modeling.”
Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410
0:49
Bert Stedman“when you look at the, at least from what I can gather on the economics of the gas line, with their interest cost and their depreciation, there's gonna be no net income, taxable net income for 2 decades. Literally, 2 decades. So I don't know how that, I guess, will wind up into a tax conversation later on the next couple of days, but you don't pay taxes unless you have a net income.”
Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410
0:19
Calvin Schrage“One question that I would have, which has not been addressed as of yet, is who is able to claim value for any tax abatement that's provided by the legislature. I think I've not heard that issue addressed yet and would appreciate hearing from you on that.”
Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410
1:05
Dan Stickel“The pass-through entity tax that came out of the Senate floor applies beginning in 2028 tax year and applies only to oil and gas companies. So a company that's not directly involved in the oil and gas exploration, production, or pipeline transportation would continue to be exempt from state corporate income taxes. There would be a zero tax rate on taxable income up to $1 million per year. Then the top, there would be a series of marginal bracketed tax rates with the top bracket being 9.4% of taxable income over $5 million per year. We note that this would apply to all companies, all pass-through entity companies doing business in the state regardless of whether the AK LNG project moves forward or not and would have material state revenue impacts as well as material investment economic impacts for the impacted taxpayers regardless of what happens with the AK LNG project.”
Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410
0:49
Dan Stickel“a lot of these assumptions were developed before Glenfarn came onto the scene. We have not received a lot of detailed information and details details on project plan from them, given confidentiality. And so we have carried forward many of these assumptions. There was a significant amount of work that was done in 2018 and 2019.”
Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410
0:36
Dan Stickel“slide 33 is the version that came off of the Senate floor, which is the same— for modeling purposes, it's the same as the Senate Finance version, except that it adds that pass-through entity tax, and so that's where you see that orange orange bar, which is the corporate income tax, which was a fairly modest contribution on slide 32, becomes very significant on slide 33 as we expand that corporate income tax to apply to pass-through entities.”
Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410
0:43
Dan Stickel“The act of agreeing on a new set of baseline assumptions, ideally that would be a months-long process where we would collaborate, we would review all of the latest information in detail, spend some time with it. We would collaborate with stakeholders, partners and agencies, developer, AGDC, industry, and kind of synthesize all of that information. And come up with a new set of baseline assumptions.”
Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410
0:53
Dan Stickel“the upstream and midstream would pay additional corporate income tax with the pass-through entity analysis. A portion of that would be an offset on federal tax because state taxes become a deduction against the federal tax. And then that would shift over life of project a little over— around $6 billion of cumulative revenue would shift from the companies and federal government to the state government.”
Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410
0:42
Dan Stickel“Representative Ruffridge, through the chair, so that would be a great question to ask the developer, but based on the baseline assumptions that we have and the— what is in the futures market, it does look like a challenging project even with the tax relief.”
Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410
0:46
Dan Stickel“the depreciation offsets— when we're doing an analysis of potential midstream corporate income tax, the depreciation offsets a lot of that income for the first several years, which is why I think 2036 was the first year that we would project a positive corporate income tax from the developer under the project. They also earn— to the extent that they have losses during construction, they could earn a net operating loss that could be carried forward. That net operating loss can offset up to 80% of a tax liability. And so once we get to the 2036 timeframe, we assume that the developer would still have those net operating losses until sometime in the 2040s.”
Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410