Alaska Legislature: House Floor Session - June 12, 2026 10:30am

Will the House please come to order? Will members please indicate their presence by voting?

Will the clerk please tally the board? 36 Members present. With 36 members present, we have a quorum present to conduct business. Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I have no previous excused absences today. Leading the invocation today is our very own Representative Stutes. Will members please rise.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Heavenly Father, we thank you for this new day and the gift of life. Grant us the wisdom and the strength to fulfill our duties faithfully and guide our hearts to show kindness and seek justice in all we do. Keep us humble in service, united in purpose, and mindful of the common good. May our decisions reflect truth, charity, and concern for all that we serve.

Amen. Representative Underwood, would you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the United States of America I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Representative Story. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move and ask unanimous consent that the prayer be spread across the journal. Hearing no objection, the prayer will be spread across the journal. Will the clerk please certify the journal for the previous legislative days?

I certify as to the correctness of the journal for the 121st day of the 2nd regular session and the 1st through the 22nd legislative days of the 1st special session—. 2Nd special session. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the journal of the previous days be approved as certified by the chief clerk. Hearing no objection, the journal stands approved. Approved.

Are there guests for introduction this morning?

Seeing no guests for introduction, Madam Clerk, are there any messages from the governor? I have no messages from the governor this morning, Mr. Speaker. Are there any messages from the other body? I have no messages from the other body. Are there any communications?

There are no communications. Any reports of standing committees? The Finance Committee considered House Bill 381, Oil and Gas Property Tax Municipal Tax, recommends it be replaced with committee substitute for House Bill 381 Finance with a new title, attached two new fiscal notes. Signing the report: do pass, Representatives Moore, Allard, Tomaszewski, Stapp, Bynum. No recommendation: Hannon.

Amend: Jimmy, Galvin, Co-Chairs Schrag, Josephson, and Foster. The bill is on today's calendar, and I have no further reports of standing committees. Are there any reports of special committees? There are no reports of special committees. Are there any citations or resolutions for introduction?

There are no citations or resolutions for introduction. Are there any bills for introduction? There are no bills for introduction.

This brings us to consideration of the daily calendar.

Madam Clerk, please read the first item on today's calendar.

House Bill number 381 by the House Rules Committee by request of the Governor entitled an act relating to the taxation of certain natural gas pipeline pipelines property, relating to municipal taxation limitations, establishing an alternative volumetric tax on natural gas throughput, relating to the allocation of revenue from the alternative volumetric tax and providing for an effective date. The Finance Committee considered the bill, recommends it be replaced with Committee Substitute for House Bill 381 Finance with a new title, attached to new fiscal notes. Signing the report, do pass, Representative Representatives Moore, Allard, Tomaszewski, Stapp, Bynum. No recommendation. Hannon.

Amend: Jimmy, Galvin, and Co-Chairs Schraggi, Josephson, and Foster. There is one committee substitute.

Madam— Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee substitute for House Bill 381 with a new title be adopted in lieu of the original bill. Hearing no objection, the Finance Committee substitute has been adopted.

Madam Clerk, are there any amendments? Amendment number 1 by Representative Vance, beginning page 8, following line 15. Brief at ease.

Will the House please come back to order? Representative Vance, Amendment Number 1. Move Amendment Number 1. There's an objection. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Amendment number 1 simply requires oil and gas contractors to do human trafficking prevention awareness. When we look back at Alaska's history, we've been here before. We understand that this is the largest project of its kind in North America, and I believe most of us, if not all of us on the floor, support this and we want this. But I ask, has Alaska learned our lessons? When TAPS was coming online— permission to refer to my notes?

Permission granted. Thank you. State studies at that time were conducted in the pipeline era warned of substantial increases in crime and strains on law enforcement and the judicial system. Historical accounts from Fairbanks documented dramatic increases in prostitution and vice activity during peak construction years. The Fairbanks Police estimated that between 40 and 175 prostitutes were operating in the city during the height of the construction, which is an extraordinary number for a community of that size.

The lesson is that we— isn't that we shouldn't have built TAPS. The lesson is that responsible leaders anticipate challenges rather than waiting for them to become crisis. Today, we know what human trafficking is. We know that Alaska has the highest rates of rape and sexual assault in the nation. We've learned those lessons.

We know that workforce projects that bring in, uh, thousands of workers do have an impact on our communities, and we have a great, uh, we have a better plan. We have Alaska State Troopers that are in place, but at state law, we have not done what we can to do human trafficking prevention and awareness. And so that's why I have crafted this amendment. But I'm told that this amendment doesn't belong in a gas tax bill. I'm told that we don't need to talk about this at this time because it's not a crime bill.

But what doesn't belong, Mr. Speaker, is sex trafficking in Alaska.

This exploitation doesn't belong in our communities. I want responsible— I want responsible governance. We're number one in all the things that we shouldn't be.

We're going to be number one on a fantastic gas line, and I really hope that it succeeds.

I'm committed to continue to do what I can to help provide the education, the training, so that people can identify what human trafficking is before it starts, because a lot of people that are engaging when they go to certain— when they go to Spinard in Anchorage, they don't realize that those women are are being trafficked, that they have a pimp. They think that it's personal choice. And so that's why I'm passionate about this issue. And I did speak with the owner of Glenfarn about this issue, and he took it very seriously. It's my understanding that the contracts, the labor agreements, have a code of conduct that says this kind of thing is unacceptable.

I want to see those documents, Mr. Speaker, because I'm a lawmaker and I prefer these things to be be in law. But I do want to recognize that Glenfarn is taking this issue seriously and that they are— have committed to structuring their man camps to prevent activity that would be harmful to our communities.

But out of the spirit of agreement, And not wanting anything to stop this project from moving forward, I'm going to withdraw this amendment. Amendment number 1 has been offered and withdrawn. I just consulted with the chief clerks on the side, and we are awaiting amendment number 2 to be copied. I believe it'll be coming here shortly and also distributed. So the House will stand at ease for a moment or two until that takes place.

Will the House please come back to order? They're taking amendments on House Bill 381. Madam Clerk, amendment number 2 by Representative Freer, beginning page 4, following line 17. Representative Representative Freer. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move Amendment 2. There's an objection. Representative Freer. Thank you. Permission to read, Mr. Speaker?

Permission granted. So, Mr. Speaker, this amendment is very similar to the amendment from the representative, the co-chair behind me in House Finance. That was Amendment 4 in their packet. What it does is it puts the gas treatment plant and the LNG facility under the municipal property tax statute and authorizes those municipalities to negotiate directly with the project developer. It establishes a framework for a municipality to choose to implement an AVT if they do use the exemption to municipal property taxes this amendment gives them.

It preserves the temporary abatement period in this bill. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. Under this amendment, there will be no taxes applied to these projects essentially until Phase 2 begins. As both of these project components won't receive a final investment decision until Phase 2. This amendment aligns the developer's need for stable and clear project economics during Phase 1 with the borough's need for consultation and negotiation on the impact Phase 2 will have on these 2 communities at either end of the AK LNG project.

I don't need to say that both the North Slope Borough and the Kenai Peninsula Borough have long track records of working closely and supportively with industry. The North Slope Borough wants this project. But if this legislature imposes a tax arrangement for this project on the borough without their consent, it undermines decades of stable tax policy and frankly weakens the long-term political prospects of this bill. Everyone in this room knows me. I have consistently prioritized stability in our oil and gas tax system to encourage long-term industry investment that grows Alaska.

I would love to have that attitude about this project and the tax structure this bill creates, but without this amendment, I won't be able to do that. I suspect that some members of this body see this bill as a temporary concession that future legislatures can claw back after gas exports begin. Well, I think that's a poor way to write tax policy, Mr. Speaker. If this bill becomes law without this amendment and I have the opportunity to continue to serve District 40, I'll be first in line to vote to open this back up. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Majority Leader. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member from District 40, and you're right, she's been a strong ally of oil and gas tax stability, which I personally greatly appreciate when allies on that issue are hard to find. Mr. Speaker, this amendment is challenging to the project mostly because it affects the financing terms the rate of return calculations and refinancing risk when the authority would be returned to the municipalities that host the two most expensive pieces of the project. So the bill now, Mr. Speaker, provides extensive benefits to the municipalities that host the gas treatment plant and the LNG export facility.

Including the addition from House Finance. Want to commend their work that allows for a 93-7 split of the alternate volumetric tax, 93% of the AVT going to the host municipalities and 7% to the state. We all like to defer to local control whenever possible, but Mr. Speaker, this is one example where we only benefit when we act as one state with one tax structure. And for those reasons, I would just say this amendment would carry forward the instability this House Finance Committee version is trying to fix. And for those reasons, I would oppose the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not see additional discussion. Any comments in wrap-up? Representative Freer.

Mr. Speaker, thank you. I, you know, I'm one out of 60, and I have the opportunity and the wonderful privilege to represent House District 40, and this is where the resources will be extracted. Mr. Speaker, the North South Borough's property taxing ability has allowed us to fund our own search and rescue, our own water and sewer, our own utilities. We've been able to build our own schools, and that's with the ability to tax property. This is specifically for the gas treatment plant.

This is not the pipeline, and I just— I would be remiss if I didn't offer this amendment, and I have further— I have another amendment that addresses the AVT amount, and I'll speak to that in a minute. But I represent 19 communities in the North Slope and the Northwest Arctic. Two of them have access to natural gas, Utqiaġvik and Noaksut. The rest of the communities that I serve, they've gone cold. And when you are barging in diesel or or flying it in and it costs $17 a gallon, it's— we had a situation this year in Inuktitut Pass where they could only fly in 6 barrels a day, where the school had to close.

You have communities in Seluik and Shungnak that had to— they had to close their schools. Their water and sewer lines froze. And broke. We are going cold in rural Alaska. And I just feel like we don't want to be on the table.

We want to be at the table. We want the ability to negotiate. And that's my perspective. And I'm one of 60. I'm the only person in both bodies from the North Slope.

And I feel like I need to be able to represent my communities. And that's why I offered this amendment. And I urge support and, yeah, please press the green button. Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall Amendment No.

2 Pass the House? Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 12 Yeas, 27 nays. By a vote of 12 yeas to 27 nays, Amendment Number 2 has failed to pass the body.

Madam Clerk, Amendment Number 3 by Representative Freer, beginning page 19, line 25. Brief it ease. Brief it ease.

The House, please come back to order. Mr. Majority Leader. I move and ask unanimous consent that Representative Mears be excused from the call of the House until 6 PM. Hearing no objection, the member is excused on the date and the time provided by the Majority Leader.

Madam Clerk. Amendment number 3 by Representative Freer, beginning page 19, line 25. Representative Freer. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a— oh, sorry, I move Amendment 3.

There's an objection. Uh, thank you. So, uh, this is another smaller amendment, smaller in length at least. Mr. Speaker, what this does is this raises the ABT on the GTP alone for the gas treatment plant on the North Slope from $0.13 to $0.22 per 1,000 cubic feet of gas throughput. And that's essentially what it does, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Majority Leader. Yes, Mr. Speaker. So I maintain the objection because we have heard from the Department of Revenue and our legislative consultants that the current rate is, is competitive. The amount of ABT currently in the bill is considered the maximum extractable rate consistent with the project moving forward.

House Bill 381 out of House Finance, Mr. Speaker, goes even further. We increased it to 13 cents, uh, AVT for the two facilities, the gas treatment plant and the LNG export facility. Um, that most of that revenue flows nearly entirely to the host municipalities. Um, and we've also secured up to $80 million in direct impact aid to municipalities, meeting the real needs of the municipalities with the traffic and the population. As a result of this project.

So based on those reasons, I maintain my objection. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not see further debate. Representative Freer, and no wrap-up comments. Are you ready for the question?

The question being, shall Amendment Number 3 pass the House? Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 8 Yeas, 31 nays. With a vote of 8 yeas to 31 nays, Amendment No.

3 Has failed to pass the body.

Brief at ease.

Will House please come back to order? Madam Clerk, amendment number 4 by Representative Kopp, beginning page 4, line 18. Representative Kopp. Mr. Speaker, I move amendment number 4.

Hearing no objection to amendment number 4, amendment number 4 is adopted. Madam Clerk, are there additional amendments? I have no further amendments, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee substitute for House Bill 381 be considered in gross advance to third reading and placed on final passage. Hearing no objections, so ordered. Madam Clerk, please read the title for the third and final time. Committee substitute for House Bill 381, Finance, by the House Finance Committee, entitled An Act Relating to the Taxation of Certain Natural Gas Project Property and Related Facilities. Facilities relating to local contributions for public school funding, relating to municipal property taxes, relating to the Alaska Gas Line Development Corporation, relating to reporting requirements for natural gas pipeline projects, relating to approval of contracts by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, and inflation adjustment of the maximum price of natural gas, relating to an alternative volumetric tax on natural gas through throughput relating to agreements and a payment related to a natural gas project relating to municipal impact grants and providing for an effective date.

Representative Kopp. Mr. Speaker, it's a— it's great to be here at this moment with House Bill 381. We have debated this energy policy bill before, and we have talked about our state's energy crossroads and where we're at. Mr. Speaker, permission to refer to my notes, Please. Permission granted.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just to reiterate, we know our population centers are facing energy supply that is unstable, it is unreliable, insecure, and we know with each month it becomes more unaffordable. Mr. Speaker, without this project, we know we will end up importing liquefied natural gas for the foreseeable future. This will be from foreign sources we would depend on We would have foreign jobs bringing us this gas, foreign revenue instead of Alaska revenue, and foreign energy security instead of our own. For more than a decade now, we have known that adjusting the property tax of this project to make it be competitive would be necessary, and today we are doing that.

We knew it would take property tax reform so it could pencil out This bill additionally would require real tools for communities along the route to make it work for them. And what we have in front of us is a compromise, Mr. Speaker. It doesn't necessarily represent everyone's idea of perfect, but it does move this project forward. House Bill 381 has a tax structure that investors can take to the bank, set them up for success, and it's paired with protections that communities can count on. Mr. Speaker, with respect to our gas supply, this project we know is essential to securing a stable long-term gas supply for Alaska.

It ensures that our homes, businesses, and all of our critical infrastructure across the Rail Belt and interior Alaska have reliable access to affordable natural gas for decades to come. And without an in-state gas source, we know we're exposed to increasing volatility in the market and risk of supply disruptions that could threaten the economic stability of our state for another generation. The revenue summary, Mr. Speaker, is something that Alaskans are interested in. Let me touch on that briefly. The revenue from just the alternate volumetric tax begins at $39 million in 2031.

These are our projections from our Department of Revenue. Rises to $131 million in 2033, thereafter escalating at 2% per year. But Mr. Speaker, that's just from the alternate volumetric tax, the gas flowing through the line. All the other gas royalty, production tax, upstream property tax, corporate income tax, collectively the Department of Revenue projects in excess of $23 billion through 2033. $62, Or about $600 to $700 million every year.

How is that broken out, Mr. Speaker? The state of Alaska, on just the AVT calculation, gets about a little less than 10%. The North Slope Borough, 29%. The Denali Borough, 1%. The Mat-Su Borough, 2.1%.

The Kenai Borough, 48.9%. And the community allocation across the state, about 9.5%. 5%. Mr. Speaker, local governments get to tax this project directly. They are not dependent on the state collecting the revenue and then depending on the state appropriating it to them.

Under this bill, a borough or a city collects its own share and— of the project inside its boundaries. So governments aren't waiting on Juneau to get them an appropriation. The $80 million municipal The whole project impact fund is paid for by the developers. And before this tax framework kicks in, the tax abatement and the alternate volumetric tax kicks in, the project owners must capitalize $40 million of this fund to benefit our communities. And every impacted municipality gets assistance from anticipated costs, whether it be public safety, roads, transportation, schools, et cetera.

Those municipalities are the North Slope Borough, the Fairbanks North Star Borough, Denali Borough, the Municipality of Anchorage, the Matsu Borough, and the Kenai Peninsula Borough. There is a direct state equity option. Anytime the Alaska Gas Line Development Corporation is negotiating to participate in a revenue-generating project, it has to also negotiate an option for the State of Alaska to buy itself in. Rural and interior Alaska are not left behind on this project. A Fairbanks spur line is required, and the costs will be shared statewide.

So we're taking care of our brothers and sisters in Fairbanks. Rural Alaska maintains the hard-fought revenue share of gas currently in statute. Communities that are not on the pipeline are not forgotten. As amended, this bill enhances the Rural Energy Fund. Paid out of state royalty gas revenue keep funding energy infrastructure in off-pipeline communities.

So the power cost equalization, Mr. Speaker, keeps working. Every region of Alaska will get a share of this project one way or the other. And there's real protections for Alaska ratepayers. This bill now contains hard protections, predictable protections. What does it do?

When gas is purchased by our utilities, they cannot charge more than $16 per MMBTU. That's million British thermal units, a number that reflects the current contract being worked on by Enstar and Glenfarm. But this number just sets the ceiling, Mr. Speaker. Alaskans should understand that we expect to pay far less, far less than this as the project reaches its export phase. The bill now ensures that the RCA cannot approve gas sales contracts that force Alaska ratepayers to pay for cost overruns on the project.

We know that projects of this size frequently have cost overruns, and it's the goal of this bill that ratepayers do not bear the burden of the costs on their bills. Mr. Speaker, House Bill 381 brings a competitive, predictable tax structure, a temporary tax holiday that gets the project up and going. We know that as the project is being built we have a tax abatement holiday. In other words, when no revenue is happening, there's no tax happening. But when the throughput of the gas line reaches 500 million cubic feet a day on a 30-day rolling average, or 5 years after gas is moving, then the tax holiday stops and we start collecting revenue.

This window is simply a runway to give the project time to ramp up and it makes room for Alaska's gas needs and the project industrial demand to all occur. The tax is simple and it's transparent. After the holiday, the project pays a tax based on how much gas is flowing through it, not at guessed-on property assessment values, but on real throughput. The rate is currently 6 cents per 1,000 cubic feet in the pipeline and 13 cents on the gas treatment plant and carbon capture and 13 cents on the LNG export plant. Each component is weighted by the capital cost that was invested to instruct that portion of the project.

So the bigger the investment, the bigger the share. In this version, 93% of the alternate volumetric tax in the North Slope Borough on the gas treatment plant carbon capture facility, and 93% of the alternate volumetric tax in the Kenai Peninsula Borough on the LNG export plant goes to that community, as it should, with the 7% balance going back to the state. There is built-in accountability, Mr. Speaker. This plan, this alternate tax structure goes away if the project has not started by 2032. The whole volumetric tax framework simply does not exist anymore, and the standard property tax rate comes right back.

So we're not just handing out a tax treatment for a project that doesn't get built. And the tax framework only takes effect if the developer commits to 3 things: putting up the funding for the Municipal Impact Fund— that's between $40 and $80 million— signing a project labor agreement that covers all 3 major facilities, and building the Fairbanks Spur Line with construction starting within a year of getting the permits. So if there's no commitment on the developer's part, there's no tax abatement framework. Mr. Speaker, this means jobs for working Alaskans. The project labor agreement covers contractors for the gas treatment plant, the carbon capture facility, the LNG export facility, and the pipeline.

It's designed to deliver expedited construction with labor stability using qualified Alaska residents. In fact, just yesterday, Alaska Unions, the Building and Construction Trades Council of South Central Alaska, the Fairbanks Building and Construction Trades Council, and the Alaska Petroleum Joint Crafts Council signed an MOU with 8Star Alaska that prioritizes hiring Alaska workers for construction and related work on the AK LNG project. Any natural gas pipeline needs to be Alaska first, and this ensures that Alaskans are employed on the project with an estimated 7,000 construction jobs We know this project labor agreement will ensure that labor is adequately sourced, attracted, and retained in an extremely tight labor market. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System was built 100% with project labor agreements. The state revenue and long-term investment— touching on that briefly, this project revenue doesn't just disappear into the general fund.

Flows to the Rural Energy Fund and to the Municipal Impact Fund from the developer. There is transparency and oversight at the Alaska Gas Line Development Corporation. Our House Finance Committee did great work finding a balance of confidentiality and disclosure, and they should be commended. The point of these reforms is twofold. First, they make absolutely sure that the state's full faith and credit is never questioned quietly put on the line inside a non-disclosure agreement, and second, to make sure the Alaska Gas Line Development Corporation delivers the legislature the best information possible when it comes time to decide on equity stakes or other major decision.

New from the Finance Committee also was additional reporting from Alaska Gas Line Development Corporation on the progress of the project to be delivered twice a year to the legislature. Agreements that AGDC engages in cannot put state money at risk or hide significant fiscal liabilities or the state investment option. AGDC cannot issue large bonds without legislative approval, and they must follow the OPENS Meeting Act. The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is House Bill 381 finally moves the Alaska LNG Project forward. It gives the project a competitive Tax structure, we have known since 2014 that we needed to do.

When ExxonMobil, Conoco, and BP, the most wealthy corporations in the world, said, "We can't do this unless we can get a competitive tax rate in place." It secures an $80 million municipal impact fund paid by the developer. This project guarantees a Fairbanks spur line. It locks in a project labor agreement for qualified Alaska workers, and it keeps rural energy support flowing. The tax break only kicks in if the developer delivers on those commitments. Alaska gets a stable gas supply.

Alaska gets the protections. And Alaska keeps the control. I urge support of the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Freer.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I offered amendments that I don't believe were unreasonable. We originally got this bill on March 20th. And we prioritized it in House Resources. I appreciate all of the work that's been done by the body as well as in House Finance, and I'm comforted knowing that the work is not done.

I'm hopeful that the other body addresses some of my concerns, and I'm looking forward to voting on concurrence. Unfortunately, I'm not there today. I'm sure the bill has the votes to pass, and I believe in this project, but as I said before, I'm going to be voting No today. Representative McCabe. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good morning, um, or afternoon, whatever it is at this point.

Um, you know, I appreciate the Majority Leader's, uh, sort of in-depth discussion, but I want to be a little bit higher level with Alaskans and my constituents right now because they are sort of worried about are we getting enough or are we not getting enough. Is as we all are, and as we should be. Some of the things that we're not considering is, for instance, importing gas and the fact that it would have to come from a foreign country on a foreign ship. And as the Majority Leader said, with foreign workers and foreign profits, that's all due to the Jones Act, which has been a subject of mine, that something that needs to be changed, but we're trapped by it. So this is our solution.

This is a solution. It's an elegant solution. Solution that not only provides us money for our resource, as it should, but also provides jobs for our Alaskans, which is also a resource. And it provides so many other things, Mr. Speaker. Um, the gas going to Fairbanks, the get— the offtake agreements, um, those are very, very important.

And it also provides a pathway for our Indo-Pacific allies to use Alaska as the strategic resource that we know we should— we've known for decades that we should be, um, by exporting eventually gas to Asia, um, through the agreements that, that they have, uh, that the developer has, um, put forward or found customers for. So those are all important things, Mr. Speaker, that we are not really considering when we're just talking about money. Those are sort of nebulous things. And, uh, and I appreciate the fact that this is— I think they're the number 16 developer that has looked at this project, and they're finally the ones that, um, that are going to take it up. Uh, you know me, I've had many discussions about PFD, Talkeetna Trooper Post.

This will solve all of that. So I am very, um, excited to put my name— to put my yes vote to this. And I see you grinning because I did get the Talkeena Troopers posted. You forgot villages too. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Representative Schragg. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to rise briefly in support of the bill before us today. You know, it's been quite the process that we've had. I know many of us, probably all of us, I think, are in support of delivering the natural gas pipeline to Alaskans so that we can bring our resources to benefit Alaskans.

But it's been a difficult process. You know, this bill will not do everything that everyone wants. You know, I know that there are many that would like to see more revenue from this bill, greater transparency, on and on through all the provisions that we've addressed over the prior months. But I just want to say that I'm proud of this body's work in trying to come together around some compromises. And I will say that we've made some significant progress.

The bill that we have here before us today increases revenue to the state above what we had prior to this. It increases protection for local impacted communities, both in the ability for municipalities to collect that money directly, but also in the amount of money available for municipalities to deal with issues that may come from this gas line. And, you know, again, this bill is not going to be a perfect solution. I recognize that this is just a step in the process and that the other body will have their opportunity to make changes to this bill. Personally, I'd like to see more revenue generated from this project.

This is a political process. We have to come to some compromise. I think we've done that through this process. And just very simply and briefly, I just want to say I support the work that's been done. It's not going to be perfect.

We will have to see what work the other body does. But I'm very proud of us getting this bill to where we are today and giving this project a fighting chance so that Alaskans and hopefully the world can benefit from the gas reserves that we have here in our state. So I just want to say thank you to all those that have been involved in this process. I made many thanks in finance. I won't do that again today, but this bill really has taken a lot of work from a lot of people, and I'm proud of the fact that we've gotten it to where we are today.

And I'll be a yes vote, but also recognizing that further changes may come, and we'll have to evaluate those when they return from the other body. So thank you for the time, Mr. Speaker. Representative Stapp. Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll be super quick.

I just, um, I'm going to be a yes vote on this bill, and I'll say I think it's important you let others speak for your work. I appreciate all the members from the Finance Committee and all the work that went into this bill. Mr. Speaker, we were in Anchorage last week working on it, taking public testimony, taking invited testimony, hearing from folks. We spent all week here in Juneau working on it. There's lots of hours meeting with all the stakeholders revolving around this, trying to find an equitable compromise, and I expect a really awesome bipartisan vote today.

And I think this is a good way to do legislation when you go through a good process. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Fields. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are considering the third permutation of this bill.

The bill before us today builds on the strengths of very bipartisan legislation that came out of the Resources Committee committee. There was further good work in the Finance Committee. I think if our constituents had the opportunity to listen to the hours and hours of work that legislators did on this bill, they would be happy to see that the engagement was substantive, deliberate, and bipartisan. Some key elements of the bill that I think merit support on the floor today: a key element added in the House Finance Committee, protection for ratepayers, and permission to reference Commission granted. Protection for ratepayers in the scenario that we build a pipeline but don't achieve a high volume of exports.

This has been my primary concern throughout the process, and House Finance changes capping rates at $16 per MCF are critical for ratepayers and ensure that it is very unlikely that we would pay more for gas from a pipeline relative to gas from imports. And obviously, if the the price is the same, and it may be lower under a pipeline, it may not, but if the price is the same, we derive much greater economic benefits from a pipeline in terms of in-state employment and local revenue. The community impact fund articulated by the finance co-chair is very important because my municipality and others have explained in a great deal of detail some of the public services that are going to be associated with this project. I think it's a fair question to ask How do we address the Alaska disconnect where we have a tax structure in this state where increased economic activity doesn't necessarily generate more revenue? This bill is a positive step in the right direction.

It doesn't solve all our problems, but we, we can't fail to make progress because a single piece of legislation doesn't fix all our problems. I want to talk a little bit more about this bill's language to maximize Alaska Hire through a PLA requirement. Why does that matter? It matters for a very simple reason. Alaskans are the most experienced at building pipelines in Arctic conditions, and we've heard through the committee process really the greatest risk of cost overruns is on the labor side.

And hiring Alaska pipefitters and other skilled workers who have worked on the slope, worked in permafrost, are familiar with our conditions— using Alaska contractors, that is the number one way to deliver a project on time under budget, protect ratepayers, and get the job done. So when it comes to controlling costs, that PLA language is very positive, and I appreciate the Majority Leader referencing the agreement signed yesterday.

If you were concerned, despite the PLA language, that there still could be cost overruns, guess what? In the bill, we have further protection against that in statute. That has been a provision that was worked on both in the House Resources Committee and the Resources Committee of the other body. There have been literally dozens of hearings that have looked at it. That is substantively addressed in this bill.

Thank you to the Finance Committee for addressing that language. I want to talk about the AVT structure, Alternate Volumetric Taxation. I think one of the questions before us today is, are we better off with a property tax structure, this the status quo today, or are we better with an alternate volumetric taxation? In which revenue is distributed both to the state and to impacted communities. I would argue that an alternate volumetric taxation structure is fundamentally more pro-growth, fundamentally more fair to local governments, and fundamentally more fair to all residents of the state who benefit from state-funded public services.

It is important to debate the tax level within an AVT structure. I think there is more information we should learn about in terms of project economics and whether a 6-cent on the gas line tax rate is the best tax rate. But on the structural level, an AVT is a better tax structure to support project development, benefits for localities, benefits for residents in every corner of the state. So there has been extensive discussion about the structure of AVT and distribution of revenue, and I appreciate the Finance Committee largely preserving the AVT distribution structure that came out of House Resources. It is the most fair to every community in the corridor, recognizing realities around where people live and where people will be based for the workforce.

We cannot control global economics, and passage of this bill does not guarantee a pipeline will be built, and I think that's important to recognize. This bill absolutely increases the likelihood the project can progress. In closing, I want to reiterate, this development, this bill has really been a model of bipartisan diligent engagement by members of every party, every caucus, from every corner of the state, and I'm proud to vote yes. Representative Galvin. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask to be excused from voting in full interest of transparency. I may have a conflict of interest as my husband's company of employment may be providing a portion of the gas to be transported in the pipe that is subject in this bill. There's an objection. Representative Galvin, you'll be required to vote. Representative Sadler.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I expect a speech there too. You know, there's been a lot of words that have been said. I appreciate the majority leader's detailed explanation of the specifics of the bill, so I'm going to speak a little generally on this bill and what it means in terms of our, our arc of history. Um, real clear, I'm voting yes in this bill because I feel that it advances and, uh, and fulfills our constitutional obligation to develop our natural resources for the benefit of our people.

Um, you know, Alaska has long seen the benefits of development of petroleum resources from the North Slope. We've had jobs, state revenue, energy security for our country and our the state, the creation of the Permanent Fund and the population of that with billions of dollars, and economic vitality for the state and a sense of optimism for the future. The parallel for a natural gas pipeline project is clear. That will also, I hope, bring us jobs, state revenue, energy security for our state and our nation, additions to the Permanent Fund, and economic vitality and a sense of optimism for the future of Alaska. To be sure, this bill does not guarantee a natural gas pipeline will be built.

I think The public and Alaskans need to understand that, that this is not a guarantee, but this removes an important obstacle to that. It's long been clear that during all the fiscal analysis over the years that Alaska's property tax situation has been a major impediment to the economics of building an 800-mile steel pipeline to bring our tremendous amount of resources to market. We have a couple hundred trillion cubic feet of gas, but it means nothing if we can't get it to market. So this bill adjusts our property tax system to lower it at the front end to incentivize an investment decision. The final investment decision, or FID, or FID, that will lead to all the benefits in the future that I've said that the oil pipeline brought to us.

I believe we all hope that will be successful, and I know there's people in the gallery who are hoping that as well and have worked hard to make it happen. And I should also give props to the third floor and the Department of Revenue for their work to bring us legislation. Could have come sooner, but it got here when it got here, but they worked to advance it, and I appreciate that. And I think every member of this body, from the leadership to the members of the Resources Committee on which I serve and the Finance Committee, who have taken this legislation and made it better so that all members can put their stamp on it and I hope vote to support it. To members in the public who are concerned that this is a giveaway, that we could pull in hundreds of millions of dollars more in state revenue if we just retained our current property tax statute, that we're leaving money on the table, I shake my head and I say, stick to this a little bit because, you know, a high tax on no pipeline gets you no money.

A lower tax on a real pipeline gets you money as well as all the benefits that I've listed above in my speech before and that are clear to all of us. So, you know, I hope that people understand that, as someone said, this is a political process and we're doing the best we can to get something passed that will achieve benefits. Mr. Speaker, this vote has special significance for me. It's my last big vote and perhaps my last vote at all as a state legislator. I've worked on gas line issues throughout my career in public policy, both as a member of the executive branch and DNR and the governor, several governors who worked on gas line, and on every iteration of gas line legislation that's come before us since 2010.

The ASAP, the ENDA, the producer-led process, TransCanada, and all the votes and analysis that those brought. So, you know, maybe we can bring an end to that old joke that a natural gas pipeline is Alaska's future, and it always will be. I hope to never hear that joke again, Mr. Speaker. I'm gratified tremendously to see the structure that this legislature, legislature, and past legislators work so hard to put into place and is coming to fruition. Alaska's legislative work may grind slowly, but the arc of our progress is always towards, uh, towards the good in the future.

Uh, Mr. Speaker, I won't be in this seat if and when future legislators are able to take the votes to appropriate the revenue from this project or making the other tweaks like the decisions on how much we wish to invest in our equity options. But I'll be back in Eagle River watching along with all Alaskans. I hope in confidence that future legislators will have the satisfaction of appropriating that money, of bringing Alaska's resources to market for in-state and global markets, enjoying the stronger economic benefits this will bring, keeping our homes and businesses warm and well-lit, and taking satisfaction in knowing that Alaska's economic future will be strong. All that in one little vote today, Mr. Speaker. I urge every member to join me in voting yes for this tremendously important legislation.

Representative Tomaszewski. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I think today is a historic day for Alaska. It's a historic day for the people of Alaska.

Uh, you know, Mr. Speaker, my father worked on the oil pipeline. He worked on TAPS. He was a carpenter, and I lived through that process, and the state lived through that process, and it was a great project that helped many families. It gave the state of Alaska so much revenue. And Mr. Speaker, I am humbled and proud all at the same time to be part of this body that is putting one more— getting us one more step towards turning a natural gas pipeline from fantasy to reality.

And I think the people of Alaska need to understand that. Today's a great day. It's a great day for Alaska and for all of the people. And I rise in strong support of this legislation. And I, and I want to thank all the folks that worked on this.

There was so many put so much hard work into this process, and I'm really proud of each one of you. So thank you. Representative Hannon.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Learning about topics that are very technical and complex takes a lot of time and energy, and I appreciate that the bill that's before us today looks very different than a discussion 3 weeks ago we had on the floor about a similar bill. And many of my concerns, uh, over the about the bill in general that I've heard from constituents have been addressed to some degree. Ratepayer protections, project labor agreements, increased transparency, increased funding to make sure that we are positioned for impacts on communities. But I want to talk just for a second about carbon and issues surrounding carbon sequestration.

Which seem to be economically critical to the project, but are still an area that we don't have a lot of information about. How much are the 45Q tax credits, uh, going to benefit the developer and the producers? We don't know, and we're not going to know. Um, and I think I've heard from many of my constituents that are concerned about this project from the issue of carbon and 21st century carbon impacts and climate change impacts.

A tax bill is not really a policy place to try and address those, but it raises the concern to my constituents. I was a yes vote on this bill moving out of the Finance Committee because I view it as a vastly improved bill from 3 weeks ago. Um, but I have heard from far more of my constituents asking me to vote no because of climate change and carbon issues, and I want to make sure that I have pointed out that's why it will be a no vote today. I can easily say that I supported the bill moving from the Finance Committee, and I view many of the policies in there that I had concerns about being addressed But I don't think all of our issues are addressed in the bill. Perhaps if there is a future vote after the other body addresses it, I will be able to be a yes vote on another product along the way.

But today I'm going to be a no vote because my constituents by far have asked me to be a no vote on the floor today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Ruffridge. Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to rise in support of this bill today and wanted to talk about it a little bit from the Kenai perspective.

I think for many of us and many of the folks in the state, we've known for decades that something needed to happen. We talked about a gas pipeline again for decades, and we knew that our property tax structure was something that would need to be addressed if we were going move forward with that. But during those, uh, years and years of talking about it, we were actually exporting natural gas, and we were exporting it from the Kenai. The Kenai, both with Cook Inlet and with, uh, the Swanson River field, had an abundance of natural gas and had fueled Alaska for— and the rail belt for years. And we had, frankly, enough of it to export.

We exported it for a long time. We had so much of it that we had a fertilizer plant that was operational in the member from District 8 area that he represents. We also have a refinery on the Kenai, the refinery that makes the jet fuel that fuels one of the largest cargo airports in the world, as well as our Air Force base in Anchorage. I think it's important, Mr. Speaker, to understand that if we have a decline of natural gas, which we do out of Cook Inlet, we've heard from the producers in the Cook Inlet as well as the NSTAR and others, that this is something we need to stand up and pay attention to. Not only do we have an issue in our homes and power generation in the future if we don't address this and make something potentially work— and I appreciate the comments from other members who have said this is not a guarantee that something moves forward, but I appreciate the efforts of many in this body who have put put the, the work in necessary to understand that if we don't try something, if we don't say we're going— we're willing to make the effort, if someone and a developer somewhere is willing to make the effort with us to make gas affordable in Alaska, to build a project in Alaska again, uh, that we will see not only the cost of energy rise but the cost of a whole bunch of other things, including the cost of fuel, uh, out of our refinery, maybe even those things shutting down.

Mr. Speaker, we shut down the fertilizer plant in North Kenai a number of years ago. Along with that went jobs, along with that went families, along with that went a whole number of things, including growth of the communities that I represent. Mr. Speaker, I hope— that's what I'm bringing here today is some hope— that what we're doing here incentivizes this project to bring some of that life back to my district again. To bring some of those jobs back to the district again, to bring those families back to the district again. Mr. Speaker, we just closed 4 schools, uh, on the Kenai.

We've been losing and having, uh, the loss of families because we've had the loss of some of those good-paying jobs at the things that these, uh, pieces of infrastructure will hopefully be bringing back to our community. The potential for a large export facility, which is an expansion of the export facility that is there already, the potential for that fertilizer plant to come back online, the potential for us to keep our refinery going and keep our airport served with the fuel that they have there, I think are all really important reasons to ensure that we take this issue seriously and, and take the issue seriously enough to say that we might need to incentivize this project to happen going forward. And I really sincerely want to thank some of the members of this body on the committees that this bill went to. I think the co-chairs of the Resource Committee did an excellent job of, number one, just taking this bill from day one and taking a hard look at it and making some tweaks to it and getting us off on the right track. I want to thank the Finance Committee for the work that they did and ultimately coming to some consensus about how this goes forward.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the efforts that you've put in to make sure that this special session runs well. I have to say that I am— I don't like to be a pessimist. I think I probably fall very greatly into that category, and I did not think that we would be here today with, you know, some options of trying to move this thing forward without a significant amount of effort on behalf of all of us in a bipartisan way. I'm really grateful that I'm here saying today that I support it and for the work that all of you have put into it. I'm very grateful and the Keenai thanks you.

Representative Prox. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I guess I'd kind of like to put a little bit of a personal perspective on this. We, my family, I moved with my family, I guess, to Alaska in 1969. And there was optimism that the pipeline would be built, and there was all of a sudden pipe coming up, and then all kinds of problems happened.

But I went through, I watched the construction just through high school from the perspective of a restaurant that my family owned, and it was chaos. It was great. It was a lot of fun and really enjoyed that. And then I had the opportunity Oh, I see. There's always skepticism because there's been so many efforts to get this done, false starts.

I happened to be on the assembly when the Fairbanks North Star Borough, the North Slope Borough, and the City of Valdez got together with Bechtel to evaluate, is there a project available? And there was alignment. We had Bechtel put in most of the work, but They wanted to be the developer of the pipeline, and we had alignment between the developers and the boroughs, and we thought we had a project. We had a market opportunity, but we forgot to talk to the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. And when they heard about it, they said, well, you know, our job is to maximize petroleum extraction from the resources that we have.

And so they would not bless the optic, but they said in about 25 years, the Prudhoe Bay oilfield specifically was going to transition from an oilfield to a gas field, and then this project might become viable. And that was in 2000, and now we're a little over 25 years, but that has happened. We have a tremendous opportunity. Market conditions are correct, made a little more attractive, at least in the short term, by the events in the Middle East. And now this is becoming a reality, but people are still skeptical of it.

And we— I think now that— I think that's going to change. The people that I've talked to are going to say, woo, this might actually happen. And now there's still some risks. Lots of things, again, from the history of the pipeline, lots of things didn't go as expected. They were able to overcome that, and we did get a project.

And there's tremendous opportunity. We talked about the revenue we're going to get from it. There's also— extra revenue we haven't talked about, a little speculative, but this is going to make future development for oil and gas more attractive on the North Slope, so I expect even a lot better results than we have talked about. So, at any rate, now there's going to be some challenges. And now I just want to encourage everyone in Alaska to think about how can we respond, How can we help this go along?

For instance, there's the real concern of Alaska Hire. And we gotta figure out how can we help train that out. There's gonna be this problem, that problem. And we should now have the attitude going forward that let's make this work. I hired on with Alyeska, the operating company, about 9 months before construction was over and it came online.

And then they— I was in Valdez and they made a monument, I guess a tribute to the workers of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. And the inscription on the base of that statue is, "We didn't know it couldn't be done." And we really need to think about that going forward. Don't think about all the reasons it can't be done. Think about this. We don't know that it couldn't be done.

And we address the problems that hopefully make this project more successful and reduce work— I mean, reduce the risk of it. This is a tremendous opportunity. Opportunity for the state of Alaska. I think it's going to have a more positive impact than the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, and that obviously that transformed the state, but it's going to transform Alaska again. And I just really feel fortunate to be again involved in part of the decision-making.

And, and I think if we focus on solving problems as they come up instead of creating creating obstacles to making it move forward, we will have a successful project, and this is going to be decades of benefit from Alaska. So I'm really privileged to be able to support this project, and it can be done. So let's go out with that attitude, and we will have a great future for Alaska. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Representative Yelum. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. I appreciate the supportive statements that many of our colleagues here have had on the floor. And I just, you know, being in the Resources Committee, we've been working on this all last year.

The co-chairs, Finance Committee as well, put a ton of effort over the work there. Our body here over the last year, in particular this last session. So I just wanted to thank everybody for the hard work that they put in and just remind everybody that this is not only a wonderful opportunity for our state to be able to have just a variety of opportunities going into the future, but to just again remind everybody this is kind of a partnership that we're working on. And so we need to continue this support through the next few steps as we move into future conversations that we're having. And then just, you know, again, I really appreciate all the work that, you know, both of the co-chairs and the members of the Resources Committee that I got to participate with, and then the Finance Committee.

I know you guys put a ton of effort into this over the last little bit, and so just really appreciate the seriousness that our body put into, into doing good work here. And so, uh, thank you, everybody. Representative Josephson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, um, back in 2014, I was happy to support SB 138, and I took comfort, even though there were times we battled what we sometimes call the Big Three, I took comfort in the fact that they were going to be co-investors because I knew that a project that they were co-investors in would surely thrive. And of course, they, they ran into some issues and those have been addressed here. I think I do think this bill has come a long way. I think the main concern that I have is with the continuation of the AVT for apparently 34 years.

So as I understand it, at an $800 million property cut, that would be something over $20 billion, which is about what the— trying to recall the numbers. It's roughly what the state would recoup in royalty and severance tax. And I just don't know. We have an expert who said it would be typical to suspend the AVT and revert to the old system after 10 years. He said that many times, and I just don't know enough about that issue.

By the way, that issue in some respects is more important than the tax rate because 10 years is not terribly long, and, and according to the expert, that would provide the incentive you need for investment. Um, so that's what I'm racking my head over, is, is that part. And I'm also told that, that long-term contracts are now not the norm that they were in the LNG market some time ago. So I don't know. As I said earlier today, I'm 61, that the tax would be this new tax would be in effect till I'm age 95.

And I don't know that I'll make that, so it may not matter to me, but that just seems like an awfully long time. Now there's dialogue that, yes, but future legislatures could intervene and adjust that. That's very challenging to do. Um, that's a very challenging thing. I'm also aware that many of the impacts would be early days, not later days.

So for example, if we look at the pipeline, you just think about it logically. There were thousands and thousands of employees. They've all— many of them are deceased or they've— they're in retirement in Texas. Um, we now have Ali Esca running the pipeline, and the oversight is, I'm sure, considerable. I'm sure they would say considerable.

But the regulatory burden is much less.

So I'm aware that some of that would be absorbed by the community impact aid, which we've gotten into the bill. I just don't know whether I'm comfortable with the length of this AVT tax when, when again, the experts said it doesn't need to be that long. So I look forward to hearing— I see several more microphones for debate, but that's the part that I'm wrestling with. And I would note that the North Slopes, as I understand the amendment offered today, for example, would have sacrificed about apparently 60% of their normal revenue. So they were trying to participate and that was not acceptable.

It's just very hard for me to know if you're an investor from a pension fund, is it meaningful that the tax cut be not 60% but 90%? I have no idea. I have no training in that. So that's another issue that makes this challenging. I look forward to further debate.

Representative Allard. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to remind the public and all of us here in this room today, this body, that the resources of the great state of Alaska represent all of us, and it belongs to every single Alaskan, every man, woman, and child across our country, and frankly, um, world over. What's coming forward is a historic moment for all of us, and I'm proud to be a part of this body and cast a yes vote for this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Representative Schwanke. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I'm in support of this bill today, and I just, I want to point out that while a number of representatives on the House floor here today come from districts that pull in tens to hundreds of millions of dollars in property tax revenue annually, my district receives virtually no property tax revenue at all.

My district is the largest in the state. Eastern Interior, most of it is rural. We have no oil and gas infrastructure in our district. We have, um, very few organized municipalities in our district. We have a very large percentage of unorganized boroughs.

The reason that I am in support of the bill in front of us today is for a few reasons. The first is that it will provide long-term, sustainable, affordable energy for a significant number of Alaskans. Number two, it will provide absolutely necessary jobs for all Alaskans that want one. And number three, for the revenue that it will bring in for Alaska's resources. Along with that revenue will be the Affordable Energy Fund, which will go to help build infrastructure for energy projects, hopefully in my district.

Today we have a historic opportunity to get out of the way of a private development project. I think that this bill does that. I guess in closing, I would just say that I do hope that we pass this bill by a large margin. I really appreciate all of the work that has gone into this bill. While I wish we could have gotten it done during the regular session, that did not happen, but here we are today.

We need to pass this bill and we need to move on so that we can talk about some other very significant issues in our state, such as the incredibly high price of fuel, which does heat the majority of our homes in rural Alaska, as well as restoring the permanent fund dividend. Thank you. Representative Vance. I grew up in Homer with a familiar voice that became famous across the nation, and it was Tom Bodette. And he said, "I'll leave the light on for ya." People haven't said that in a long time because now the cost of leaving the light on is a lot higher.

It is our hope that this legislation will lower the cost of energy to Alaskans, that it will lower the cost of energy to our utility companies. So that people can leave the light on for their loved ones. It is our hope that it will open opportunities for new industry here in the state that can bring in that revenue, that can bring better jobs. We all have an understanding that this bill is not the panacea. It is but one step, and it's a step of faith.

Hoping that maybe we've turned the dials just right to get an agreement to be able to move this project forward. This, this— the Alaska LNG has been talked about my entire life, and I want to be the one to say yes, yes to opportunity. And the representative from Juneau said yes. There's a lot of concerns her community has. And I think everyone's been asking, what is the benefit to Alaska?

And the benefit, if you could summarize it into one thing, and that's reliable energy. We want affordable energy, and that is our hope that this will get us that. That won't happen until we have phase 2 with the export, till everything's running and the— and things are really moving down the tracks.

But before we have affordable energy, we need reliable energy, because it was just a couple years ago that we were concerned with the cold snap that we wouldn't have enough energy to heat homes from what we had in the Cook Inlet. And this body is yet to take action on energy to make sure that Alaskans can continue to keep their— heat their homes. And keep the lights on. So I look forward to the further policy discussions that we're going to have around energy, around this gas line project, public safety, the carbon 45Q. We need to know.

Alaskans are expecting us to know. But we need to keep our eye on the prize. The benefit to Alaskans, the blessing, is reliable energy And that we can, we can take this one step of faith on this policy that everyone has just, you know, leaned into and know that we're going to deliver for Alaskans so that maybe we can afford to keep the lights on. Representative Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Alaska is an oil and gas economy, and I'm proud to be part of that. This bill represents the understanding that we are in a historic moment in time. We see what's happening throughout the world in the Middle East conflict, and we see what's happening with our energy— available energy. And if something is going to get done, now is the time. To make a move and make something happen.

And Mr. Speaker, that's why I believe that we had such a good— one of the reasons that we had a good response in our body, and we've had such a great bipartisan showing for this bill. For decades, we worked on this project. We looked at study after study after study, And we know that Alaska has one of the greatest natural gas concentrations on Earth. And it's just been so difficult to ever get that to market. And we're presented with a federal administration that is favorable and a circumstance in the world that has been unmatched, Mr. Speaker.

And given the resources that we have, It just seems like such a great time to have this hope that this project will go forward. I want to give just a lot of appreciation for our members of the House Finance Committee from all— both caucuses. They have worked so diligently, Mr. Speaker. They have worked cooperatively. Cooperatively.

Cooperatively together. They have communicated with each other. They have worked out issues, um, and they have just really put their due diligence in. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the, the House Resources Committee as well and all the time that they spent on the previous bill. This, this House should be proud of, of what we're putting forward.

I would say that when sometimes we talk about this, the other body, and how, how they're getting things done and they're maybe seeming a little more organized, but our body has to always start with, oftentimes start with nothing at all. And so we start with, with nothing and build it out of whole cloth, and there's been tremendous work done here and it's done very well.

But Mr. Speaker, I also want to Note that our responsibility doesn't end with this vote. In many ways, it just begins, and we must ensure that the project is built responsibly, its benefits are broadly shared, and that the wealth it generates is stewarded wisely and for the generations to come and for our communities. And Mr. Speaker, I really want to say— give a shout out to our member from from Homer, because I think bringing forward something that there is— it's not all, not necessarily all positive, but we Alaskans, we're up for that challenge. We recognize that there's going to be things that we're going to have to deal with, and we're not going to shy away from those, Mr. Speaker. Um, but for too long we've talked about this project, we've talked about our immense natural gas resources, but we know it's the time right now that we have the We've had this studied.

We debated this. And now we have this opportunity to go forward. And really, the Alaska Gas Pipeline is possibly the most important economic development project that we'll have in the state's history, along with the oil— TAPS, the oil pipeline. It's going to create good jobs. It will attract investment.

It will generate revenue. It strengthens our infrastructure, and it really reaffirms our position as an energy giant and leader here for the generations to come, Mr. Speaker. And we don't want to see the opportunity go— to come and then go— that we have before us, because I truly believe we are in a very historic time, and we have a window of opportunity, and I don't know when that's going to get— when that will be happening again, the favorable conditions that we have. We know that Asia Japan needs gas. We know that they need energy.

We know that our bases in Japan and Korea should not be tied to foreign energy, that we can provide that energy in a much more secure way right here from Alaska. And so the world's not standing still. We shouldn't be standing still. And we, we see our competitors developing the resources. And market's moving, investment is moving.

And I think that this bill shows that we're ready to be part of that. And we know that now is the time and we're ready to, to seize the opportunities and accept that Alaska's future is not one of decline, retreat, or maintain or manage stagnation, Mr. Speaker, because this Alaska Gas Pipeline is really about jobs. It's about families. It's about opportunities for the future, Mr. Speaker.. And it could be, and I hope it to be, the next few— next chapter in our, our history.

I have children that I would like to see back in Alaska and have the opportunities there. But let's talk for a moment about climate change. That came up, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say, I want to say Alaska has demonstrated for decades, for decades, that we can develop our resources while maintaining some of the highest environmental standards in the world. And that's well known, Mr. Speaker.

We produce energy cleaner, safer, and more responsibly than most of our global competitors. And that's a, that's a something to be proud of. At one time, I can remember the ads that said clean burning natural gas, and it was like, let's change to natural gas. That's the new, the, the the fuel that can be a, that doesn't contribute to emissions in the same way. And Mr. Speaker, what changed about that?

I don't know. I mean, I don't know exactly, but I do know that natural gas is a good, it's been seen as a good alternative energy and something that we should be hoping and choosing to promote. As we can. So, Mr. Speaker, today I believe that this body chose jobs, we chose investment, we chose growth, we chose the opportunity to move this forward, um, and we choose prosperity. Um, and most importantly, we as a body and as a bipartisan group, um, chose to stand together, uh, to move forward a bill that allows for some, some to have opportunity and encouragement, Mr. Speaker, for our businesses and to know that this, this, this legislature has chosen to create instead of just to manage.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I will be a yes vote. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Bynum. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

House Bill 381 is likely one of the most important pieces of enabling legislation this body will consider in our generation. This bill is about more than taxes. It's about whether Alaska will finally unlock the vast natural gas resources that have sat locked up on the North Slope for decades and turn them into jobs, affordable energy, and long-term revenue for our state. This legislation and this project also provide an opportunity to address an important issue, and that's an environmental issue. So I'm going to talk a little bit about the environmental perspective.

Natural gas is one of the cleanest burning fossil fuels available at a commercial scale. By increasing access to natural gas, Alaska will reduce dependence on higher emission fuels that power generation— power generation and heating. Beyond our borders, Alaska and its natural gas will help displace fuel oil in the Asian markets and markets across the world, resulting in a significant reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions. Producing cleaner energy from Alaska's resources, specifically our natural gas, is a practical way to improve the environment and maintain economic growth and energy stability Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, HB 381 is about Alaska's future. It's about creating opportunity for our children and grandchildren.

It's about maximizing the benefit of our natural resources for the people of Alaska, as our Constitution directs. We've talked about commercializing Alaska's North Slope gas for nearly a half century. HB 381 gives us the opportunity to move from talking about it to actually doing it. I urge support for HB 381 and for the future it will bring for all of Alaska. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Representative Gray. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Permission to read. Permission granted. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, an important duty for me as a legislator is to make sure that the price of energy for my constituents constituents doesn't explode. And with the decrease in natural gas coming out of Cook Inlet, the question of where my community will get its gas in the future is an urgent one. I want to say some things very clearly though, Mr. Speaker. Asking questions about Glenfarn's proposal does not mean that the person asking questions is opposed to a gas line. Those of us seeking to protect the state and the ratepayer, i.e., our constituents, that doesn't mean that we're opposed to a gas line.

Folks who are annoyed, frustrated, even suspicious of what can feel like arbitrarily short timelines to pass this legislation are not opposed to gas lines. And folks who may vote today, vote no today, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are opposed to a gas line. I know that our Resources Committee did hard work. I know that our Finance Committee has done lots of hard work in the past few weeks, and I'm very grateful for the work they've done. There's also been a lot of important work done in the other body the chair of the other body's Resources Committee, how she chaired 44 90-minute hearings on gas lines and gas line related legislation.

And with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to quote from her newsletter from just a few days ago. She wrote, Alaskans need a source of energy to heat and light their homes. There's a large amount of gas on the North Slope. I would like to see that North Slope gas available to Alaskans. The question is how?

What will it cost? What are the details that we need to know? I believe you want me to ask the questions, get the in-depth information, not give away our gas assets for pennies on the dollar, and not leave you with even more expensive energy costs. She goes on, Mr. Speaker, to say I believe we can do both, come to reasonable terms on this project and allow it to go forward. I think, Mr. Speaker, for me, that question of, uh, what is the price of natural gas going to be for my constituents is just forefront in my head.

Later in the newsletter, she says that if Glenfarn only builds the gas pipelines, pipelines, so no treatment plants, no LNG export import plant, the cost of the gas would be about $17, which would be about the same as imported gas, $17 per MCF. This bill caps it at $16 per MCF with inflation adjustment. That is reassuring to me, but I do want to say, just so that folks, my constituents, understand that the price, uh, from Cook Inlet Gas right now is $11 for MCF. So Whatever we do, whether we're importing and it's coming out of the gas line, at least in the beginning, people are going to be paying more, and I think it's important that we're honest about that. Another thing that I really like about the bill before us is that it protects, uh, the ratepayer from cost overruns, and it's been spoken about, but I just want to reiterate it again, that if for some reason this project is much more expensive than, uh, the developers expect it to be, The regulatory commission may not approve contracts requiring utility customers to assume those costs.

So that's important to me. The cap on how much they can charge for MCF is important to me. That makes me like the bill. The co-chair of finance mentioned House Bill 138 from 12 years ago. That wasn't the first time we confronted this issue.

I would like to quote from some House committee meetings from 12 years before House Bill 138. So these would be some quotes from 2002. I will begin by quoting from April 19, 2002, Special Committee on Oil and Gas. This is Bill Allen, CEO of VECO, testifying, quote, no single issue is more important to Alaska's future than the legislation you have now before you. Without some economic incentives, private industry is not going to be willing to risk the billions of dollars necessary to construct the gas line at this time.

I am here today to urge you to act quickly to seize a unique opportunity. End quote. The co-chair of House Finance at the time, Eldon Mulder, in that same special committee stated, quote, in order to get into the marketplace The state needs to be aggressive or they will lose their opportunity. If this window of opportunity is lost, it might never happen. End quote.

Not everyone on the committee was as certain. I would like to quote Representative at the time Scott Ogan, expressed in the minutes that he's extremely frustrated. And he stated, quote, I'm supportive of this legislation because I think it's the right thing to do for Alaska, but it would give me a lot less heartburn to vote yes if the producers were more forthcoming with the information that we requested and have never gotten. End quote. I'm with Representative Scott Ogan.

I, I wish that we had more of the information that we requested. I wish that we weren't kind of flying blind and just assuming good intentions from industry. Um, but I do believe that the bill in front of us has important safeguards and is better than the previous bills that we have looked at. I will end by quoting from a House Resources Committee, April 2002. This is Joe Maraschak.

He's the vice president of ConocoPhillips, quote, let me state clearly, there is no circumstance where the property tax abatement would make the single difference in the project economics. Does it add value? Clearly. But in and of itself, it will not— it cannot make the project. What it does do is let the rest of the country know that the elected representatives of this state are willing to do what they can to develop a project.

End quote. Mr. Speaker, I believe we have a bill with safeguards in front of us. I believe it's a strong bill. I believe that when it goes to the other body, it will be made stronger. I am comfortable sending a message to the rest of the country and to the rest of our state that I'm willing to do what I can to develop this project, and I will be voting yes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Carrick. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So I am going to rise in support of the legislation today, and I first just want to thank the members of the House Finance Committee and the House Resources Committee in this body for the incredible amount of due diligence which has occurred over this past month and prior to that. To me, this legislation is, as the prior member just spoke to very eloquently, is ultimately not the flip switch on this project.

It's been described that way in so many conversations. It's been described that way by many supporting it in our communities, but I just want to be clear that in my mind, this legislation is not what determines whether or not this project has a green light and the developer moves forward. With developing. But what this bill means to me today, Mr. Speaker, and what passing this legislation ultimately is to me, is about ensuring those protections for our communities and still maximizing the opportunity that this pipeline could bring for this, for this entire state. A couple provisions in the bill I'm really strongly proud to support are the cost overrun language legislation that's included here, the description about project labor agreements and the work that's happened with the labor community across the state.

I'm especially encouraged by the addition of ironclad, I would call it, spurline language for Fairbanks. As we've talked about this project as a generational investment and a generational historic opportunity, we always have to remember that we are per our Constitution, meant to develop our resources for the maximum benefit of Alaskans. I believe that this legislation comes as close as we can, given all the political, the economic, and the social circumstances of our state and our various communities, to accomplishing that by providing the spur line and providing funding for the Affordable Energy Fund, which primarily will benefit renewables, taking away the political football, to some extent, of this body determining every year if and how much we might put towards sustainable and renewable energy, we are investing in the long-term health and well-being of Alaskan communities. And we're doing so in a way that is far more sustainable than our current structure. We're also, by putting that spurline language in and other language in this bill, making sure that it is our communities and it is Alaskans who this body has stated will benefit first and foremost.

Those protections in the bill are why I want to support the bill today. Additionally, I just want to, Mr. Speaker, acknowledge that many of the folks I've heard from— many of the folks I've heard from— still have concerns. I share those concerns. I want to echo some of the things people have told me, and I also share some of the frustration that's out there, Mr. Speaker. Many, many of people in my in our district and across the state have talked about how, what if all the money we'd put towards the Alaska Gas Line Development Corporation over all these years and all the time and money we've spent on this project had been put towards more renewable energy investment in our communities?

And Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that if we had done that, all the money had been spent towards those projects, we would have already accomplished many of the generational opportunities that this legislation now seeks to accomplish and that this body seeks to accomplish. I also, though, Mr. Speaker, come from a background in public health, and harm reduction is a major component of public health. Right now, most of my constituents burn fuel oil for their fuel. It is over $6 a gallon for fuel oil in Fairbanks. Right now, when my constituents can't afford that, they typically burn wood.

Fairbanks has some of the worst air inequality in the nation, in the world, because of those fuel sources. Natural gas is harm reduction. I believe in that. And while I do share the frustration and concern from many, I believe this is a step in the right direction towards more sustainable energy, available energy, and affordable energy for our communities. And ultimately, Mr. Speaker, when we had this debate back in May, I tried to contextualize where I was at with this by saying that I was concerned that we had real benefits before us, but the potential of repeating all too often made mistakes in this body was real.

And yet, Mr. Speaker, I think by doing the due diligence that this special session was called for, we have on some level done our due diligence to maximize the benefits and provide the greatest protections we can. So, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support today and I encourage I encourage members to do the same. Representative Holland. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have been enjoying the discussion and debate that we've had, and while I've also been debating how to vote at this point, I've also been debating whether or not to speak for a moment, and so I appreciate this brief opportunity.

I want to I'll begin just briefly noting that for House District 9 and the area that I've come to bring voice to in this body, this is a critical project, both because of the infrastructure that exists in the district, the Port of Whittier, the Alaska Railroad, will be critical components that will benefit from this project as well as be essential to its success. The jobs that it brings to the contractors and the companies that are based in terms of the residents that live in the District. This will be a critical project for years for them, and they will benefit greatly from advancing this project. So I have a tremendous call to support and give voice to the benefits of moving this project forward. That being said, the debates and the discussions that we have had through the committee process and I applaud all of the effort that's gone into that, has highlighted some of the challenges of this project.

I have brought up in past discussions the reminder of the bumper sticker from the late '70s when we were reminded that if we ever got the chance to build another pipeline, that we promised to ourselves that we wouldn't squander that opportunity. And I am challenged by the question of Why are we here today? Why weren't we here a year ago? It was a year ago that this process had come to its current structure and fruition. It was a year ago that we had tremendous confidence and optimism that we had everything we needed a year ago to move ahead.

And yet here we are a year later with a critical piece of legislation and I am challenged to understand, as we look at these big questions, how we have gotten here, perhaps a year late, doing something that was considered to be essential, but not done earlier. The challenge of the specific bill that we're looking at here is a property tax reduction. And I have been challenged by many of my constituents about why we are giving such a big reduction. And sometimes it's been important that I note that we are not giving any reduction on the royalties, we are not giving any reduction on corporate taxes. Many of the benefits and many of the revenue that our state will enjoy that will be essential for our services across the entire state are still preserved.

That this Bill provides a narrow set of incentives and benefits to the developer and yet at the same time, we recognize that the project will bring tremendous strain and challenge to our communities long before it brings the revenue that those communities will need. And I do acknowledge that there is a project impact fund and I am grateful that the version that we are looking at has to increase that fund. I do question whether or not it's going to be enough to fully address the problems, but it is a start. But the revenue from this will be transformative if it is able to proceed. The key point though that I want to finish up with is that I do believe that no matter what happens here, we really don't know what's going to happen next, is that I think we have become much clearer on two 2 things.

One is we now have a clearer understanding of the cost of energy and the exposure that we have in the future to where it comes from and how much it's going to cost. And I do think that this is important for us to look at as we plan the near-term future on our other projects, whether it is renewable projects, whether it's import projects, whether it is re— supporting Cook Inlet exploration that we have reset the bar, and I think that will be good for us regardless of where this goes. I think we have also reset the bar on the understanding of the revenue that we need in order to support our communities and to grow those communities. So I do hope that in the end that what we're doing today is transformative. If it ends up being the next piece that advances the gas pipeline.

That's great. I do support the pipeline and the advancement of that. But what I really support is that we as Alaska advance our economy, that we advance our energy security. And I think in the end, I will be supporting moving this bill forward. And I appreciate all the work and the discussion we've had today.

Thank you. Representative Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't have a very elegant speech planned, but I today rise in strong support of this bill. I'm just overrun with hope today.

I've said a little cheesy saying for quite a while, but I believe it in like the depths of my heart that Alaska is truly God's treasure chest. And the resources that are put into this land here are not for not. I truly believe that it's for Alaskans, but it's for the United States and it's for the world. I believe that Alaska is richly blessed so that we can be a blessing. I know my first special order that I ever gave on this floor was, are the decisions that we are going to make on this floor going to be a blessing or a burden to the future generations?

And I really, really believe that this will open up the doors of possibility to be a big blessing for generations to come. And my, my prayer for this body has been that there will be things that we can unify around, um, bipartisan-wise, that are blessings for Alaska for the generations to come. And I feel like this is just one example that we can unify for the betterment of Alaska, but not just Alaska, for the world. And I am just very excited. I, I hope that we can continue to do work like this.

Whoever is sitting in these seats in years to come, that we can rally around great legislation that will benefit all of Alaska and not just Alaska, but the generations going forward and the world. So I just want to thank everybody for all the time and the effort and the hours and the hours put into this. Regardless if we're in a special session, we didn't get it done then. We're doing it now. I'm very excited to cast my yes vote with all of you today.

Thank you. Representative McClellan. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support as well of the bill. I wanted to just be able to have an opportunity to briefly speak to my constituents in Anchorage.

The reason why I'm supporting the bill is because you need to keep your houses warm. That is the bottom line. That's the first thing I think of. And what I have gotten, the information I've gotten over the last 3 years about Cook Inlet, Port of Gas, and all of our other options, it's really scary. And when I talk to constituents who talk about that we're leaving, you know, we're giving it away, we're not getting enough revenue, I remind them that in Anchorage, it's pretty crucial that we actually have the gas to warm our homes.

It's very basic for me. I'm very pragmatic. I want to make sure that first of all, we can heat our homes. Then we need to make sure we can get the option that is the most affordable. And so through this process, I see what the options are.

They're not great. So right now, yeah, we're paying $10, $11, but we already have contracts and STAR has already told us they have contracts up to $16 already. $15, $16. It is all going up. So if it's all going up, do you want to rely on foreign imports to warm your homes, or do you want to do a major infrastructure in our state with our gas?

And even though the cost is going up that first phase, even without the pipeline, it's going up. This is not changing. It's not like we build the pipeline and everybody, you know, uh, talks about the 16. It's already there. There.

And Also, Enstar was very clear, it's short-term contracts, and they're in trouble with storage, and we're having problems getting enough gas out of the inlet. So for my constituents, I, I feel like I need to look at this bill and any other gas policy like royalty relief or anything. I just want to be sure we have abundant gas, and from what I can tell, this is the only opportunity we have to have abundant gas that's actually affordable. And so to the constituents of District 11, there is income coming into Anchorage to help with the impacts. There is income coming to the state.

But more importantly, we have the opportunity to not worry about whether you can heat your home or not. It's really, really important to me. And if you look at the alternative, like renewables, they always need a baseline. You—. We always need gas.

We always need the baseline because renewables go up and down. Some homes are equipped with renewables, some have opportunities to do that, some don't. It's been pretty clear from the utilities that they have to have gas as their baseline source. So I feel honored to represent District 11. I'm honored to be here to be able to vote on this bill.

It's truly historic, and I urge everyone to press a green button.

Further debate? And wrap up, Mr. Majority Leader. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Briefly, to the member from District 13, he's articulated a 10-year sunset ABT concern.

He did correctly state our consultants said that other jurisdictions often would sunset this after 10 years. He also said other jurisdictions do not sunset to a tax rate as high as ours. And also that our AVT that we have in this version before us today is necessary to be competitive. Additionally, a known reversion to a property taxation midlife creates an uncertainty that does affect the finance return, the financing terms, the rate of return calculations, and the refinancing risk. To the member from District 20, who was concerned about a future price increase from the current $11 for MBTU, about it possibly going up to $16, whether it be an import option or an in-state gas line, I would just say the gas line is not creating this price increase.

Running out of gas is. Whether it's import or in-state solution, the price is going up because we have an energy supply shortage. The member from District 11 said it very well. That's what this bill is addressing. In closing, Mr. Speaker, this vote is not about the state of Alaska taking on project risk.

That is on the developer and the investors. It is about whether Alaska is willing to create the conditions for private investment to solve one of our most pressing issues: securing affordable, long-term energy and securing new economic opportunity for Alaskans. Throughout our history, Alaskans have never moved forward by assuming failure. We have moved forward by creating opportunity and allowing innovation, investment, and determination to prove what is possible. Today we are not voting on a pipeline.

We are voting on whether Alaska deserves the opportunity. I respectfully ask for your yes vote. Are you ready for the question? Question being, shall Committee substitute for Hospital 381 Finance as amended pass the House? Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll? Does any member wish to change their vote? Change his or her vote?

Will the clerk please announce the vote? 34 Yeas, 5 nays. By a vote of 34 yeas to 5 nays, House Bill 381 has passed the House. Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the roll call vote on the passage of the bill be considered the roll call vote on the effective date clause. Hearing no objection, the effective date clause has It's been adopted.

I've waited well over an hour to say this, 2 hours perhaps, but would the clerk please read the next item on today's calendar? There are no further items on today's calendar, Mr. Speaker. This brings us to unfinished business. Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I have no excused absences at this time. For unfinished business, Representative Ballard. Maybe. I would like to know if I can roll up the calendar order for introductions. Introduction of guests?

Yes. With indulgence of the body, hearing no objection, Representative Ballard. Thank you. I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. So today behind me in the Taylor Gallery, if they could please stand, I have Jen and I have her daughter Emily.

They're from Eagle River. Jen has been married almost 18 years to Travis. And Jen loves the outdoors and she loves lo—. Uh, walking her dogs. Jen and Travis had moved up here, um, to open up a church in Anchorage about 5 years ago, and they moved to Eagle River, uh, my district, my community.

And I'm so happy to have them here. Um, they also wanted me to make sure that we reiterate that Emily is a beautiful daughter and that they look forward to a long, uh, stay here in Alaska and hopefully With what we just passed on the floor, their grandbabies can be here too. So thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can you please stand and give them a warm welcome?

Are there further guests for introduction while we're here on the agenda? Not hearing or seeing anyone to be introduced. Rolling back down the calendar without objection to unfinished business. Not seeing any additional business.

Are there any committee announcements? I think I know the response to that. Are there any other announcements?

This brings us finally to special orders. Representative Schwaggy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For those of you that watched House Finance this last week, I gave a number of thank-yous. Topic? Thank-yous. Thank-yous.

I gave a number of thank-yous at the House Finance table to all those that are involved in the process, but I did leave out a really big group of people, and that is all of our spouses, and especially the spouses of those who— to members on the Finance Committee. There has been a lot of time and energy put into this bill. There's been a lot of sacrifice all around, and I just wanted to take a quick moment to to thank the members for their work, but in particular their spouses for all the behind-the-scenes work that they're doing back at home in many cases to keep our families healthy and happy and doing well. So I just, to all the spouses and family members, thank you for all your support in getting us here today. Thank you.

Representative Josephson. Permission to speak on important work left undone. Representative Josephson. Mr. Speaker, um, this is probably my last chance, uh, to, to comment on certainly the topic, which is undone work. And I have one of you in mind who could champion, uh, a bill.

Um, I three times in 2018, 2020, and 2022 through House Bills 38, House Bill 30, and then ironically again House Bill 30, moved a bill to the other chamber that would say that if single childless people— so they haven't met their husband or their wife, haven't married, don't have any children— die at work, they die at work, that they should get some sort of benefit. And I want to mention 2 young ladies, Molly Parks and Marie Giesbrecht of Petersburg, who were 17 and 18 years old. Uh, one had just returned from her freshman year of college, one I think was going out to college. They were working for the Petersburg Parks and Rec Department, and they were in a vehicle with someone driving this Parks and Rec truck. The vehicle suffered a serious accident and both young ladies died.

And I spoke to their— at least one of their parents, and I was well aware of this issue because of all the legislation I'd pushed. A young lady had died in Midtown Anchorage when she was electrocuted about 10 years ago, um, on a project worksite working as an apprentice. But the concern— and I, I so want to take this last opportunity to hammer this home When you're 18 years old or 20 years old, you're probably not going to buy life insurance because who thinks about that? Now, the way workers' comp works is it's designed to heal the injured person. Well, what if you're deceased?

Well, what does it do? It pays $10,000 for funeral expenses. Okay. And workers' comp is designed to maintain the family. Family, children and a spouse, who were used to your salary effectively.

Well, what if you're single and childless? You don't have any family to maintain. Well, you might ask, well, why don't they sue for negligence? Just like if— well, of course I'm working, but if you were downtown and God forbid you were struck by a vehicle, you could sue the driver. Basic personal injury concept.

They can't sue, ladies and gentlemen. They can't sue because they were in a working relationship, in a working environment. Now, if someone else had been in the truck, say a visitor who happened to be in this truck in Petersburg, they could potentially sue for negligence and recoup multiple millions of dollars. And I know that the chair of judiciary is looking at those caps, and I applaud that. What we tried to do, and I'm almost done, but what we tried to do in these bills that I two, at least twice, I guess three times sent to the other body, is to say, let's do what 12 other states do and let's require workers' comp system to provide at least some remuneration to the estate.

Because remember, they don't have families dependent on them, but to the estate. And the numbers we chose were based on what other states were doing. They were in the range of $100,000 or $120,000. Pennies on the dollar compared to what you would recoup if you were not injured on the job because you were just a private citizen. I guess where I'm going with this is if you talk to parents who've lost these promising teenagers, they, they have nowhere to turn, and they want more They want some sort of remedy.

So I ask you, and I think I nominate the chair of the Judiciary Department to look into this issue further.

It is, if asked to tell you one item that was disappointment in my 14 years I couldn't crack, this would be it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Story. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Permission to speak on a much lighter topic, but also a competitive, intense topic: baseball.

By a narrow margin.

Please. This past Saturday, I'm proud to say that Juneau Douglas High School, Yadda Akhlaei Crimson Bears baseball team won the Division I state championship. This championship season really reflected their dedication to teamwork, their motivation to do hard work, just building up their skill level and working well together. And permission to refer to my notes. Permission granted.

The Crimson Bears defeated Colony and West Valley before facing Service High School in the championship game, where they secured an exciting 5-4 finish. A lot of good athletes on the field from around the state to get there. 9 Seniors helped lead the way to bring in the state title to Juneau. Additionally, I wanted to give a shout out to Tyler Frisbee, Kukesh Kamenhoff, as they were named Good Sport selections. And Riley Flick, Hunter Cart, and Chris Anderson earned all tournament honors.

Of course, we all, every one of us who has sporting events in our community, want to thank the parents, the coaches, the teachers, the mentors of these young people who we invest in, and we're so proud for our athletes and all of our youth. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Representative Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today on the topic of hello.

Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have always said hello in that fashion off of the great late Robin Williams and Mrs. Out fire. But the reason why I'm bringing that up today is, um, as introductions over my two terms in the state legislature, I've managed to introduce both my parents, uh, which I always thought was a deep honor, multiple people from the district, uh, although there is a couple people which I have not been able to, and I wanted to quickly shout out now my current chief of staff, Donna Fox Page, who I would not have been here if it was not for her, and her guidance and, uh, has my political career started as a staffer to the senior, uh, Senator to Alaska, Senator Murkowski. I can attest that staffers do way more than what we give them credit for, so please be nice and give them a quick hello and a shout out.

Uh, and then also wanted to, uh, talk about, uh, my former staffer who declined to come back this year, uh, Bogdan Gomutnov, uh, and his wife Shelby, who just had a baby. A healthy baby, and we're glad to see them thriving in Anchorage. I also wanted to do a quick shout out because I know she's also probably listening to my former Chief of Staff Kim Skipper, a very deep and knowledgeable person in this building enjoying retirement like many of us should be doing right now. So I will keep it pretty short, but I appreciate everyone in the past 2 years. It's been a great experience.

Experience. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Representative Hannon. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On the topic of spring kings. Representative Hannon. You know this, I know this.

King salmon return home in the spring. Some of you have been with us, the Juneau delegation, when we've hosted you to tour the Douglas Island Pink and Chum Hatchery. And I'm here to tell you that the kings are in. It is one of the lowest barrier fisheries that you can participate in in Alaska. You could drive out to North Douglas and stand on some rocks.

I'm going to suggest you don't smoke a cigar while you're doing it because they're rocks of varying heights and varying sliminess. And fish from the shore. You could drive to the Douglas Island hatchery, fish from their dock, or you could find a friend who has some kind of watercraft. And this time of year, you'll see people fishing for kings out of canoes, out of bicycles on the water, off of jet skis. You don't need one of those big boats.

But if over the next week you're sticking around instead of dashing home for the weekend, or you're waiting for a concurrence vote, or you're back in the next few days, it is a good time to go out and and do Juneau's version of combat fishing. It doesn't look anything like fishing for reds on the Russian. It's much lower combat, much easier drive to get to. Uh, you can get your fish, take it in and have it processed, get it smoked to take home. If you're the member from District 34, he can make sure and let you know where to deliver that fish to to get it processed.

But I'd encourage you all over the next week week if you're around Juneau to wet a line, catch a fish.

Representative Gray. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On the topic of trivia, the topic of trivia, and before I start, Mr. Speaker, I just want to accept the challenge from the member from House District 13. So when I gave my speech about the bill today, I thought I was going to have more time. I thought we were going to be here for 12 hours, and so I had this crazy chicken scratch all over my desk, and I didn't have all the information I wanted from my staff.

I apologize. And anyway, my staffer Kyle Johansen, he did all that deep dive, so I want to thank him. He—. If you think, well, maybe it's because he was in the building in 2002, he was. So he knew what was happening back then.

But the information I didn't get was what was the makeup of the body and what happened to that bill. So that bill was brought to the floor. At that time, the majority was 26 Republicans. There were 14 in the minority. Unfortunately, they couldn't get to 21 and they had to send that bill back to rules.

For 4 days, Bill Allen did everything, and I mean everything, to get 21 votes. And he failed. The challenge is yours. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On the topic of omissions—.

The topic of omissions—. Yeah, Mr. Speaker, members may remember that on the last day of regular session, I got up and gave an emotional speech about my departure, or my intent not to run for reelection, and went through a long recitation of my accomplishments I was so proud to accomplish. But in doing so, I neglected to thank those of my staff who actually made those things possible. Mr. Speaker, as a fellow former staffer Mustang now elected, you understand that none of us get anything done without the hard work of our staff. In fact, when I was a staffer, everything my boss has accomplished was due to my hard work.

I'm sure Khan will smile if he hears that. But I wanted to acknowledge and thank staffers I've had over the years. Most recently and most importantly, Melody Wilderdink, who's not here and would be embarrassed as hell if I called her out, and Dolores Neal, my intern turned front desk person. Kim Skipper, a longtime Staffer, who, uh, wish he had gotten elected one time, but she also did fantastic things for me and helped me get a lot of bills through. Lynn Smith, Paula Spreeder, Eric Stones, Sheila Peterson, Ross, and many others, front desk and interns.

I, I, my memory just does not kick in. Thank you to all of them. We all know it's a teamwork sport and nothing happens without the hard work of staff, so I apologize to all them for their missions and thank them again heartily for their work in helping my legislative career be satisfying and I hope successful. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Representative Sack.

Well, Representative Johnson, the moment I say that you're the last speaker means that you probably won't be, but let's give it a shot. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I couldn't stay seated when we talked about baseball and softball because Palmer has had just a tremendous— we've had some tremendous things going on in Palmer, so I just wanted to give a shout out to the Palmer High baseball team, which is the Rail Belt Champions. The Palmer High softball team is the division— just won the Division II state championship. And our Lady Moose softball team is the Northern Lights Conference Champions.

So shout out to the Go Moose.

Under the topic of Go Moose, Madam Real Chair. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Disappointment. The topic of disappointment. Oh, Mr.

Speaker, I didn't want to disappoint you and not give you one more last microphone up.

Yes, duly noted, duly noted. Trust me. Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the House stand in adjournment until Wednesday, June 29th, 2023.

June 17th at 10:30 AM. There being no objection, House will stand adjourned until Wednesday, June 17th at— did you say 10? 10:30. 10:30 AM. We're adjourned.