Video Clips

Quoted moments from Alaska public meetings, hearings, and press conferences.

Clips from Alaska Gasline Development CorporationClear

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 · Jun 27, 2026

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 · Jun 27, 2026

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 · Jun 27, 2026

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

Dan Stickel

“we've heard from some impacted taxpayers that the top end of the range may be an aggressive assumption. And so we continue to present this as a range.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

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

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

Matt 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

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

Adam Prestidge

“this is a mechanism that is only exercisable at the state's option. In terms of Glenfarn's ability to seek recourse or any kind of compensation, we don't have that mechanism. We can't ask the state to exercise this option. If Glenfarn decides to abandon the project, we do so with no recourse.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

Frank Richards

“The document that we are discussing today is a draft document that AGDC staff created specifically to provide information to AGDC's board while we were working on the definitive agreement. It contains a summary description of the, the documents that we were negotiating with Glenfarm at the time, specifically naming them, but it also includes information around the selection of Glenfarm as the lead developer as compared to other parties. And so there is commercially sensitive information in there about other parties that we would find, again, would breach our confidentiality agreements with those other parties.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

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

Matt 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

Matt Kissinger

“This is the difference between us getting to a point where we can't achieve FID and Glenfarn leaving the project, and the state having an option to push Glenfarn out if they don't meet certain milestones. This was an option, the latter, where we can push them out. This is an option that AGDC wanted. This is a state option that we requested and negotiated for our benefit And if I may, on April 23rd of last year, so 2025, this question was brought up in front of Legislative Budget and Audit.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

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

Bert Stedman

“My understanding from reading some of the articles that one of the news media person got it from somebody outside the building. Unconnected to the legislature. So where that came from, I don't know, but it's circulated.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

Bert Stedman

“I think the buyback is one of them. There's mechanics if you take a literal interpretation of that document, it may not be as accurate as looking at it in the entirety.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

Dan Stickel

“The— with the alternative volumetric tax that reduces that breakeven price into the global market down to— from $9.05 down to $8.62 per 1,000 cubic feet.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

Bert Stedman

“Well, noise it's not.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

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

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

Bert Stedman

“One recommendation that you may want to consider due to the volume of individuals that have that document is to possibly redact some of the information in it and release it to the public. I don't see how you're going to pull it back.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

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

Bert Stedman

“As far as it being a hypothetical potential of not going forward with the project, I don't believe it's that hypothetical because we've had numerous gas line projects that have not succeeded. This is just the latest one over the last 30 years. And there's a lot of FERC permits issued that never come to fruition.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

Adam Prestidge

“First, in response, Senator Hoffman, you asked about Glenfarm's willingness to continue to pursue the project, and we're absolutely willing to continue to pursue the project, and we will. It doesn't— it creates a little bit of a hesitation around how— around business principles and how, you know, how we will be able to trust certain confidential— confidentiality protections.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

Bert Stedman

“on Phase 1, the mid-range of the low and the high went from $13 to almost $17 billion, is $15 billion. Then you could add the 15% contingency, that puts you at $17 billion. So you can use $17 or a common number is 20%, that'd be $18 billion.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

Dan Stickel

“We are assuming a 10% pretax rate of return for the developer, that that's what's being targeted. I underline pretax there because when we add the pass-through entity tax on top of it, that changes the dynamics for the developer.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

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

Bert Stedman

“I would recommend you redact that information out of them if you were to release it. It seems like the bulk of that document is not commercially sensitive from what I could see. There's a few things in there that's best left private.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

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

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

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

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

Bert Stedman

“I'm sure we'll be looking as we go forward in this process to ensure that there's, um, that it's clearly delineated that there could be no monetary value put on that, um, concession, whatever concessions we make here with property tax. So it won't be left up to an arbitrator in, in arguments.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

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

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

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

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

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

Dan Stickel

“One additional bullet point that should have been on this slide for the version that passed out of the Senate floor is the implementation of a new pass-through entity tax that would apply to certain oil and gas companies in the state.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

Matt 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

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

Dan Stickel

“broadly speaking, the various, you know, the various versions of the bill have kind of targeted that 50 cents or so reduction to that break-even cost of supply plus or minus 5 or 10 cents.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

Justin Ruffridge

“if you have an entity who is consistently investing large-scale infrastructure dollars those large investments are always able to, or are usually able to offset any sort of revenue gain from the investment itself. Potentially if they continue to invest infrastructure dollars, you could perpetuate this sort of depre— or I guess lower value of tax paid in perpetuity.— is that an accurate assumption again? Representative Ruffridge, through the chair, yes. So a company that continues to make investments would— the capital investments would have a depreciation schedule and those would reduce the taxes owed.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

Dan Stickel

“in the cash flow summaries, there is a shift of revenue from the federal government and the upstream and midstream into the state government component of about $2.2 billion over life of project.”

Alaska Legislature: MSC2-20260626-1410

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

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

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

← Newer Older →