Alaska Legislature: Senate Resources — May 1, 2026 3:30pm

I call Senate Resources Committee meeting to order. Today is Friday, May 1st, 2026. And the time is 4:01 PM. We did delay the beginning of this committee meeting to make room for another committee that was meeting before us. Please turn off your cell phones.

Members present today: Senator Kawasaki, Senator Dunbar, Senator Myers, Vice Chair Senator Wielechowski, and myself. I am Senator Giesel. Senator Clayman will probably be along a few minutes later, and we don't know if Senator Rauscher he may be gone. We have a quorum to conduct business. Thank you to Heather and Chloe who are helping us out.

Today we are having our 22nd hearing in the last less than 2 months on Senate Bill 280. We are going to hear some public testimony today, but we're going to start out hearing from the Department of Natural Resources. Online we have Acting Deputy Commissioner Derek Nottingham, Anthony Stroupoulos, he is the Pipeline Coordinator, Division of Oil and Gas, and Weston Nash, Commercial Analyst, Division of Oil and Gas. So these are folks from the Department of Natural Resources that we had submitted some questions to. So, um, I will start out inviting, uh, the Deputy Commissioner to open up with your comments.

I do have— we do have a letter in response to some questions from Commissioner Krother, and we have a fiscal note. So, Acting Deputy Commissioner, I'll let you begin however you wish to. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] For the record, this is Derek Nottingham, Acting Deputy Commissioner. Thank you, Madam Chair. The letter submitted is in response to questions from April 24th, the Senate Resources Committee hearing, in which questions were asked about gravel.

This clarifies some of those questions in that second paragraph if you are reviewing the letter. Basically, says that the amended Regulation 11 AAC 7109.0B would be applied to determine a cost of $0 for material sale— for a material sales contract for applicants that are a state agency or public corporation, and if it is in the public interest and serves a public purpose. Any such sales would be subject to a 14-day public notice under the current process. The second paragraph there clarifies the response regarding this dismantling, removal, and restoration, DRIR, in the context of AK LNG. There is a provision in this manual for dismantlement and removal of— and restoration for state lands for the pipeline project.

And associated facilities under Statute 38-35-100. And that's part of a broader process known as the fit, willing, and able determination. So in that provision, I think the question was asked if the commissioner could waive DNR— DR&R responsibilities. There is no provision in the statute for that requirement to be waived by the commissioner.

And I can answer questions related to this. Also, the state pipeline coordinator, Tony Stroupoulos, is online to answer any questions related to BRABL and the kind of the actions related to the statute that we referred to earlier. Very good. Committee members, questions? Senator Dunbar?

Thank you, Madam Chair. So with regards to the gravel, the sales contract allows for $0 for free gravel to a state agency or public corporation. So is the assertion of DNR, or perhaps it's Department of Law, that 8 Star remains a public corporation? You know, it's a joint venture between AGDC and Glenfarm, which is a private company, but is the assertion that 8 Star is a public corporation?

Senator Dunbar, through the chair, I'm not sure if Frank Richards is online or not, but that may be a question that's better answered by, uh, Mr. Frank? He is not online.

I guess the follow-up question to that then for you is, who is taking legal possession of the gravel? Is it 8 Star, which is the joint company from AGDC and Glenfarn, or is it AGDC itself? And if it's AGDC itself, does that mean that AGDC and thus the state maintains an ownership interest in the gravel. So we could put down all this gravel, but technically the state still owns it.

Yes, Senator Dunbar, um, I wanted to refer to Tony Strupulis because he administered the right-of-way and the right-of-way who is, uh, owned by, um, And so he may have a better comment on that than I will. All right, Mr. Stroupoulos.

For the record, this is Tony Stroupoulos, State Pipeline Coordinator with the Division of Oil and Gas, Department of Natural Resources.

Through the chair, Senator Dunbar, to answer your question, In order for AGDC or the project to take advantage of the free gravel, it would have to be applied for by AGDC. And so that, to answer your question, yes, that would remain an ownership interest of the state. That's interesting. Senator Dunbar? Yeah, so I think that's an interesting point.

Unless AGDC is authorized, and perhaps they are, to essentially gift Glenfarn products without any, um, any kind of compensation, then what you're saying is the state DNR is giving this resource, this, this commodity to AGDC. AGDC is going to— someone else is going to potentially lay it down, but the state still owns it, and thus the state could come and get it back. I don't think we ever would, but it's an interesting concept that all the gravel used in this project would still be owned by the state.

Was there a question? Well, I guess, is that your legal interpretation of what DNR is doing?

Well, Senator Dunbar, through the Chair, first off, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not giving a legal opinion on this, but that would be my understanding of how it would work. Okay. Ah, that's interesting. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Sure. So there are requirements to get the FERC authorization. Those requirements required some quantification of issues like the gravel sources— the gravel resources that would be needed. The project has indicated that they will need almost 20 million cubic yards of gravel. For the pipeline right-of-way, access roads, rail spurs, work camp pads, pipeline storage yards.

That's a lot of gravel. I'm wondering what DNR, Division of Oil and Gas, or Mining, Land and Water— I don't know which one— has quantified the value of 20 million cubic yards of gravel to be?

Is that a question for Mr. Nash, a commercial analyst? Who would you suggest, Mr. Nottingham?

Senator Giesel, I can take a stab at that, and then if Tony would— Tony, the state pipeline coordinator, would like to supplement me on this. The regulation as it's— as we see it change, changed from a regulation that said that the commissioner will periodically establish base prices for material that represent the administrative cost to the state of conducting the sale. The base price may vary by area to account for local conditions on administrative cost. The department will use these base prices for material sales at less than their appraised value to a government agency. So what they— what the regulation is doing is taking the cost of the gravel down to zero from that administrative base cost, which I understood to be about 50 cents per ton.

50 Cents per cubic yard.

So you're saying 50 cents per cubic yard administrative cost, not what you would charge a mining project, for example, or an oil and gas project for the gravel. Is— am I getting that right?

Energy Solutions as a state agency or public corporation That's, that's correct. All right, thank you. Uh, Senator Dunbar. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Just some quick Googling here.

There's actually a— it's from 2022, so probably is a little bit outdated, but there is a cost per cubic yard of sand, gravel, and rock information sheet from DNR that's actually posted publicly, and it's different in different parts of the state. But on the Parks Highway or in the Matsu Borough, I don't see one specifically for Fairbanks, but in those places it's It's $3 per cubic yard is what is listed there. And so I guess, is that more typical if an average person were to come by? Is it more typically $3, or is it more than that? Someone along the Parks Highway.

Yeah, Senator Dunbar, through the Chair, um, the, uh, those Prices are prices for non-state agencies, non-public corporations. Sure. Senator Dunbar, follow-up? Well, just say that, that, that, I mean, that for, so for an ordinary person to buy this much gravel or ordinary corporation, it would be $60 million. So it's not nothing.

Yes, sure. And if Glenfarn were applying for the gravel itself, It would be that amount. Other questions? Senator Wielechowski. Thank you.

I, I note in the letter that we received from the commissioner that there are gravel material sales with Alyeska Pipeline Services Company for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. What is the charge to Alyeska Pipeline Services Company for gravel material sales?

Senator Wielekowski, through the chair, I'll defer to Tony Stroupoulos, the state pipeline coordinator, on that. Mr. Stroupoulos.

Senator Wielekowski, through the chair, our material sale contracts to Alyeska are typically at $3 a yard. That's the price for interior Alaska and North Slope area, and That's typically where they use the gravel.

Follow-up, Senator Wilkowski. So if AGDC controls 25% of 8 Star and Glenfarn controls the other 75%, is AGDC using it solely for their own use, or are they sharing it with— I assume they are sharing it with Glenfarn, in which case, why wouldn't you charge Glenfarn for one quarter of it and AGDC for the other? Give it for the administrative costs or for free to AGDC? [SPEAKING RUSSIAN] Sorry, Senator Wolekowski, through the chair, that's a great question. I think at this point we don't have an application in hand to make any kind of determination on that.

So without seeing more in the details of who exactly is applying for it and the ownership of, of, uh, ADBC Glenfarm, uh, it would be very hard for me to answer that particular question right now. I believe that was Mr. Nottingham who was speaking. Further follow-up, Senator Wilkowski? Further questions? Um, so this is— but this is what you would charge, for example, to a mining project.

How about Does ADA also receive gravel for the Ambler Road project, also at zero cost?

Uh, Senator Giesel, through the chair, apologize, this is Derek Nottingham again. I am not aware that ADA does receive free gravel for the Ambler Road. We can follow up on that particular question, but the statute or the regulation has just been passed in the past month and a half or so.

Gotcha. And that did have a 14-day public notice?

Senator Diesel, through the chair, That's correct. There's a 14-day public notice for any material sales enacted under this particular regulation. The regulatory process did have its own public notice, if you will, for public comment.

All right. Thank you. Is it— I'm going to move on now to DRNR. Dismantlement, removal, and restoration. Is that a typical requirement for a gas pipeline project?

Are you aware of whether this is typical for a gas line? [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Derek Nottingham again. Yes, the DR&R requirements are typical for any oil or gas pipeline underneath the statute 3835 under those— under that particular statute under the covenants that are required in there. And as I mentioned before, there's a process under 3835-100 that's known as the fit, willing, and able determination that assesses whether a pipeline operator owner is capable of, you know, safe and effective operations, but also the ability to come back in, abandon the pipeline, and restore the state land afterwards. Thank you for that, Mr. Nuttingham.

So, um, do you require a financial assurance of some kind bonding, something like that?

Senator Giesel, through the Chair, there is a financial requirement that is required for most cases of 3835.

And what is that? I mean, is it— will they have to put up a bond? To, to a certain quantity? How will you assess what that amount is? I mean, I know this is done for mining projects, uh, and that bonding that they have to put up, of course, is reevaluated every— is it 3 years?

And adjusted in terms of the amount of value of that bond.

You know, Diesel, through the chair, it varies from this, you know, for different pipelines, different applications, different owners. Sometimes it can be a parent company kind of guarantee. Sometimes it is bonding. I'll defer to Weston Nash, who's our commercial analyst on the line, and he can give quite a bit of detail on how these things are determined within the ANR. That would be great, Mr. Nunningham.

Welcome, Mr. Nash. If you could introduce yourself for the record and give us your thoughts on that question. Sure, thank you, Chair Giesel. This is Weston Nash, uh, portion of the Department of Natural Resources. Um, yeah, so the— we do have a process in, uh, Division of Oil and Gas, um, where the financial assurance is individually negotiated with each party, because with every development is different.

So we do, we will review the project, we will review the parties to the project, and based on their financial— based on the financial capability that we deem that they have, kind of determine a level of assurance that we need. And as Acting Director— Acting Deputy Commissioner was saying, we— there is no required type. So we have the option to take a parent guarantee of some sort, a bond, a cash account settlement. It can—. We do all of those things currently with different parties.

So there's no specified one way or another. Very good, thank you. What is in place right now for TAPS?

I will make an educated estimate that I do believe as part of the pipeline tariff they are allowed to collect an amount. And that is there to build up a fund, that's the collected amount from the parties that ship oil through TAPS. I will also note though that that was built before we put this financial assurance policy in place. So there is not a specific agreement that DNR has outside of the lease requirements, which do require still restoration. Of the lease area.

Thank you for that. If you could double-check that, I just— and perhaps respond in writing, that would be helpful. Are there other questions for the Department of Natural Resources? Senator Wielekowski. Thank you.

Looking at the fiscal note, it is for the total DNR fiscal note is $355,000 per year, and it looks like it's for for the prevailing value determination. Am I reading that correctly?

Mr. Nottingham? Senator Wilkowski, through the chair, this is Derek Nottingham again. That is correct. It is for Section 20 in SB 280, the CS, that's under evaluation right now. Follow-up, Senator Wilkowski.

I'm just curious, how many, how many people do you have employed to administer the royalty section for the production tax system that we currently— the oil production tax system that we currently have in place? Senator Wilkowski, through the chair, um, I, I— DOR handles the production tax system. I, I assume that you are referring to the the royalty revenues. Yes, is that correct? Yeah, that— I misspoke.

Yeah, you're correct, that's royalty section.

Uh, the exact number escapes me. We do have royalty accountants. I believe there are on the order of maybe 5 royalty accountants working in the Division of Oil and Gas, and I believe there are on the order of 6 loyalty auditors working in the Division of Oil and Gas. So it's, it's somewhere in the neighborhood of a dozen. Senator Wielekowski.

And that's just for oil and gas, and this will include a whole new— well, there'll be royalties for gas, which will be billions of dollars. And do you anticipate that— you don't anticipate you'll need any new employees for those billions of dollars in gas royalties?

Senator Wilkowski, through the chair, the fiscal note does include two new positions to administer this provision in the bill.

We anticipate that the staff that we have, the auditors that we have, is very experienced and can handle quite a bit of additional load if necessary when— if it comes to, you know, gas royalties. The way that the leases and the RSAs are administered is very similar in a lot of respects to to oil, and therefore it's not a new task necessarily that we'd be taking on. So not a whole lot of additional people.

Follow-up, Senator Wielekowski? All right. Further questions?

All right. Seeing none, thank you for joining us. Acting Deputy Commissioner Nottingham, could you please respond in writing related to the gravel? And our questions about the legal possession of the gravel, the value of it. Again, I'm, I'm operating off a FERC document that indicated 20 million cubic yards needed.

If you could give us a quantity of what that would be valued at if it were a private company. You said $3 a cubic yard. That would be helpful. Senator Myers, you had a question? Yeah, Madam Chair, it's my understanding that Mr. Richards or somebody from AGDC recently joined.

You must have a text from them or something. Yeah, yes, I do see they just now joined, and I think we did—. I think we did have a question for—. Would you like to ask a question to Mr. Richards? Senator Richards?

Yeah, Mr. Richards, we've been discussing the gravel and the legal relationship there with DNR to AGDC, and I was wondering if you could expand on that for a little bit for us.

Yes, Senator Myers, through the Chair, again, for the record, Frank Richards with the Wisconsin Gas Line Development Corporation. The regulations that DNR was talking about allowing state corporations to receive to receive the materials from DNR Lands for no cost just went into effect. And as Deputy Commissioner identified, there hasn't yet to be an application for that. The concept for— with AGDC and our role as potential equity partner in the subprojects to the Alaska ONG Project would be that if there's an opportunity to provide gravel to the project for its needs, that it would potentially then be— or we would negotiate that we would like to receive an equity portion for those in-kind materials. So, as you know, the reserve, that's 25% of the option to buy in.

Equity portion of the projects, and we're looking for ways to be able to utilize, uh, state Alaska resources to help in deferring any cash outlay, such as using the gravel, and it's worth, uh, at whatever the market value is that's published by the Department of Natural Resources.

Did you have a follow-up, Senator Myers? Well, I did. Um, you know, we met with some folks from the project, from— with AGDC and Glenfarm, and they indicated that they were not amenable to free equity in the project. Of course, one of the mayors is interested in equity with the tax offset. And so, Mr. Richards, I— it's interesting, it's kind of a conflicting answer.

Madam Chair, again, I'm sorry I wasn't part of the conversations that you may have had with colleagues this week, but it's not necessarily— I would say it wouldn't be free. The project is anticipating to pay for gravel from state material sites. So rather than an outlay of cash for the gravel, it could be a contributed value from the 3 AGDC that could be then negotiated as an equity position for the state of Alaska. Senator Dunbar, question? Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair.

Um, this is really interesting. Thank you, Mr. Richards. So we have just done some back-of-the-envelope calculations here, and what DNR said is about $3 per cubic yard. That's $60 million. $60 Million of equity would be outstanding.

Um, but I guess my two questions are, what— I guess, why would Glenfarn agree to that versus just buying it if it's worth $60 million? And second, you say we get $60 million of equity in the project, but what does that mean exactly? So there's 8 Star, but you've told us that you're going to organize a number of smaller LLCs under 8 Star associated with each project. So would it be a portion of the $60 million that's used on the pipe and then a portion that's used on the LNG portion or a portion that's used on the, the gas portion? What exactly are you getting equity in?

Thank you, Senator Dunbar, through the chair. Uh, when I refer to the, the 20 million cubic yards, that's approximately the amount of gravel necessary for construction of the pipeline, and it may include a small portion of gravel for the gas treatment plant. The, the negotiation that we will enter into with Glenfarm will be for the use of the gravel in the individual sub-projects. So for instance, if it's 18 million yards that is necessary for the pipeline project, then we would look to negotiate an equity stake for the contribution of 18 million cubic yards for pipeline construction in the pipeline subproject. And for example, again, if 2 million yards were necessary for the gas treatment plant, it would be a similar negotiation for that contribution into the gas treatment plant subproject.

Very good. Well, I said— well, I'll just say that I think it's even more complicated than that. I mean, according to DNR, there are different listed prices for different regions. For whatever reason, gear avo on the Kenai is worth more than it is on the Parks Highway. And so I hope that is taken into account and the state can get a larger equity stake in, in that project.

But it sounds like a very complicated negotiation, but if it results in equity to the state, then seems like a good value proposition. Thank you, Madam Chair. You're welcome, Senator Dunbar. And it also the gravel will have to be coming from multiple places along the corridor and locations, which could be state or federal land. So, interesting.

Any further questions for DNR or Mr. Richards being online? Senator Wilkowski. For Mr. Richards, just to clarify. So you have an agreement with Glenfarm that every contribution of gravel or other state resources, there will be equity, state given— provided to the state for those contributions?

Through the chair, Senator Lilikowski, we do not yet have a negotiated agreement. We are engaged in that negotiation.

Follow-up, Senator Lilikowski. Can, can you provide assurances to the committee that if the state provides the resources to Glenfarm. For every dollar that is provided, there'll be a, a proportionate share of equity stake for that contribution.

Through the chair, Senator Wilkowski, that's exactly the goal of the negotiation, to be able to utilize the resources provided by the state of Alaska for equity for the state of Alaska in those subprojects.

Thank you, Mr. Richards. It actually was Mr. Kissinger who was meeting with us the other day, and he's been meeting with individual people around the building, and the question of equity was asked, and he indicated free equity, air quotes, free, was not of interest. Cash was needed for the project. So I just throw that out there, and understanding that you're not here with the team. Senator Wielechowski?

Just—. You say you're negotiating it. Can you provide us written comments about what exactly— assurances that we will be getting an equity stake for for the contributions that we make. Could you please just put that in writing and send it so we can put it in the record and have it?

Through the Chair, Senator Wolkowski, yes, I would be happy to write a letter to the committee identifying the goal. Thank you. Thank you. I see no further questions. So first of all, I want to thank the Department of Natural Resources for being available.

Thank you, Acting Deputy Commissioner Nottingham, Mr. Stroupoulos, and Mr. Nash for being with us today. Thank you, Mr. Richards, for answering the questions. And now I am going to, as was public notice, open public testimony. I will remind folks who might be here in the public who should testify that they do need to sign in. There's a sign-in sheet outside the door.

I do have some folks signed up online. I'm going to start with Brian Kazloff. Uh, he is the lead regulatory analyst of the Alaska Public Interest Research Group. Mr. Uh, Kazloff and, uh, everyone who's online, um, I am limiting public testimony to 2 minutes, which is quite typical.

Um, I also encourage everyone that your testimony can be submitted in writing. It will be entered in the record and posted on BASIS, publicly. You can send that public comment to [email protected].

Senate Resources, no dots or dashes or anything between that, just the two words run together at akleg.gov.

So starting out now with Mr. Kasloff. Kasloff? Welcome very much to the meeting. Please identify yourself for the record and give us your testimony. Chair Giesel, Vice Chair Werlikowski, and members of the committee.

My name is Brian Cassoff. I'm calling from Fairbanks and speaking today on behalf of the Alaska Public Interest Research Group. APIRG is a statewide nonpartisan nonprofit that advocates for the public interest in Alaska. APIRG strongly endorses many of the provisions of the committee substitute for SB 280. Including those regarding community impact fees, the rise in AVT, closing tax loopholes, and ensuring greater transparency and oversight, all are critical to protect Alaskans' interests.

We also strongly endorse the price caps on gas sold to in-state utilities. Project developers have made presentations that assume 500 million cubic feet a day of in-state demand from the pipeline during phase 1 of the project. It's been pointed out by numerous parties that this is 2.5 times current demand, 190 million cubic feet a day or 70 billion cubic feet a year. But the baseline for current demand that might be served by an in-state pipeline through 2031 is actually no more than 95 million cubic feet a day. That's because for the years 2029 to '31, utilities already have agreements for 35 billion cubic feet of Cook Inlet gas priced below $10 per thousand cubic feet.

This means that for a pipeline to provide even 300 million cubic feet a day, in-state demand would need to more than double. And at that rate, gas requiring estimates— pipeline gas would cost a minimum of $20 per thousand cubic feet, higher than estimates for imported LNG. To reach Glenfarn's target of 500 million a day, in-state demand through 2031 would have to triple. These numbers simply do not add up, making price guarantees in the CS necessary to protect Alaskans. We have submitted written versions of these comments detailing the figures I shared.

Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Kazov, for your testimony. Um, next up, uh, next up we're going to hear from Henry Braun. He is representing himself and he is calling in from Healy. After Mr. Braun, we will hear from Mike Coons from Wasilla.

Mr. Braun, welcome. If you'd identify yourself for the records and give us your testimony.

Hi, I'm Henry Braun. I'm a constituent in Healy, Alaska, um, in Denali Borough, where the pipeline would be running through. And I just want to say as a voter that I don't see enough details to be able to know that this is not a giveaway. I think the attitude that people have seems a bit backwards, like that we have to beg these companies for— to come build things here. It's exactly the opposite.

We have the gas that they need to make their money. So this revised proposal seems like an improvement, but as somebody who's living there, somebody who would be affected by this, I still see the state of Alaska taking on a lot of risks, giving away a lot of value to this company, and it's not clear that it even pencils out without all these giveaways. I just want to say that if it doesn't work without a bunch of giveaways, it doesn't work. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Braun, for your testimony.

With that, we are going next to Mike Coons. He will be followed by Jamie Benson. Mr. Coons, uh, please, uh, introduce yourself for the record and give us your testimony.

Yes, ma'am. My name is Mike Coons, and I'm speaking for myself. I support SB 280 as written. SB 275 is basically getting the exact opposite to SB 280, and then that 275 taxes so much that the LNG project could be in jeopardy if passed. 280 Is far more reasonable and supports basically all phases of the pipeline, which increases the likelihood of completion.

280 Removes the front-end tax burden and aligns the taxes with production. That de-risks the project for investors and creates a more predictable revenue stream that is objective based on volume and rather than tying to property taxes assessments that are inherently subjective and would be repeatedly contested. This tax structure also benefits consumers in Alaska by phasing in taxation. 280 Creates a phased tax structure consistent with international LNG investment norms, construction through, through First Gas ramp-up period, then full operations. Once property taxes start, It will not be more than what the borough or municipality charges the citizens.

Hopefully the Natsuo Borough will be doing away with property taxes and others will follow our lead. That would be a huge cost savings to the LNG line. The benefit of the LNG pipeline isn't just revenue to government coffers, but more importantly, it includes affordable and abundant energy for Alaskans. That attracts new industry and creates new jobs. Frankly, I would just as soon no taxation.

The more we tax, the higher the cost to the consumers. If our legislature can do just the function of the government as per the Constitution, the cost of gasoline would plummet and the need for gas tax on oil and gas, having gasoline diesel taxes at the pump would be negated. Thank you. Thank you for your test— oh, Senator Wilkowski has a question for you. Thank you, Mr. Coons.

What— appreciate you talking about affordable gas prices. Gas is currently around $10 to $13 per thousand cubic feet. What do you think would be an affordable gas price under this gas line that you would be willing to pay?

Mr. Coons, please. He dropped off the line. Oh, he dropped off the line. He is not there.

I also would suggest to the public, we are hearing public testimony on Senate Bill 280, the resources version. Just for public information, you might want to update. Next person up is Jamie Benson. He's the president of the Alaska Trucking Association, and he will— she. Okay, thank you.

I'm sorry. And she will be followed by Doug Woodby. Jamie, welcome. Hi, thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Diesel and members of the Senate Resources Committee.

For the record, my name is Jamie Benson and I am the president of the Alaska Trucking Association. The Alaska Trucking Association represents 135 member companies across the state with an umbrella workforce of roughly 10,000 trucking-related employees. These workers are not only part of Alaska's freight and supply chain backbone, they're also Alaska voters, parents, and community members with a direct stake in the state's economic future. Um, we, we support SB 280 because it addresses a structural barrier that's currently preventing Alaska from developing its own natural gas resources. The bill is not about subsidies or state spending.

It's about correcting an competitive property tax structures that a major resource project can be financeable and move forward. With that correction— without that correction, Alaska LNG does not get built and the state realizes no economic or workforce benefit from its own gas. As an association, we strongly support projects that grow the state of Alaska. We were one of the major voices behind Meet the Match. You know, it expands the private sector and creates a real opportunity for Alaskans to work, to stay here, to vote here at home.

Resource development projects like Alaska LNG directly translate into workforce development and creating sustained demand for drivers, equipment operators, mechanics, logistics professionals, and safety personnel across our industry. Affordable, reliable energy is foundational to every one of our members that haul up and down the roads and every business that they serve. When the energy costs rise, freight costs rise, which ultimately impacts every Alaska household. And SB 280 helps ensure Alaska's resources are developed in a way that supports long-term economic stability rather than a continued outmigration. Again, our focus is straightforward.

We want to see the project move forward from the perspective of Alaska's trucking workforce and the thousands of employees— or Alaska voters it represents. This is a necessary step forward toward economic growth, workforce retention, and keeping Alaska competitive. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Benson. Senator Dunbar has a question.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Benson. So we have heard that partially as a result of this project, we are going to need to do repairs and safety upgrades along the Dalton Highway. Prior— in a prior bill, Governor Dunleavy proposed a 15-cent surcharge on existing producers of oil and gas to subsidize repairs or to pay for a portion of the repairs along the Dalton Highway. And I was wondering if the Trucking Association had taken any position on that surcharge or any other means of financing repairs to Dalton Highway?

Through the chair, Senator Dunbar, I would say that we do not have a formal position on that specifically, but we have actively advocated for extra funding for specifically the Dalton Highway, but all major roadways that our trucks travel on. But not specifically, we do not have a specific position on that. Very good, thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Benson. I don't see any other questions.

Thank you for your testimony, and please feel free to put it in writing and send it in. Next up is Wood— excuse me, Doug Woodby, here in the room in Juneau. So, Mr. Woodby, welcome. I know you've done this before, you know the drill.

Thank you, Chair Giesel, members of the committee. I'll try to keep it Under 2 minutes. My name is Doug Woodby. I live here in Juneau and I represent 350 Juneau. Kudos to the committee members and their staff who are working diligently to create some legislation that will maximize the benefits to Alaskans.

This is a welcome change from the tilt towards the fossil fuel industry that we're used to. The information that's been presented to the committee in the past several weeks strongly suggests that the AKLNG project is economically marginal. It is now apparent that cheap gas from Phase 1 is not possible without Phase 2, but the success of Phase 2 depends on an— on offering LNG at a competitive price, which may be difficult given the 2 Canadian LNG projects that will be shipping gas before it would ship out of Nakiski. And the future demand for LNG may not be as rosy as the Wood Mackenzie studies, uh, supposed. An alternative view comes from Ember, a respected energy think tank in the UK, that is forecasting a glut in supply in the early 2030s.

And despite Gaffney Cline's advice that time is of the essence due to the Iran war, there is, according to Bloomberg News, a loss of faith in the future of LNG among Asian countries. And a growing move to look to renewables in response to the drastic shortages of LNG and oil caused by the blockade in the Strait of Hormuz. This is to say that the arrows for this project may be pointing in the direction of not penciling out. Perhaps we'll have a special session called to deal with this when hopefully we may have more financial information for you to base your decisions on. And that's all I have.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Mr. Woodby. Any questions for Mr. Woodby? And might I add, I hope you all have a nice weekend. I realize this is— you guys have had a long week.

Thank you very much, Mr. Woodby, for your testimony. There is no one else signed up right now to testify, so for today I'm closing public testimony. We will be opening it, of course, down the road as we get committee substitute forms of this piece of legislation. With that, it takes us to the end of our agenda for today, and our next meeting will be on Monday, also at 3:30, and I'm looking to see who we're going to hear from that day. I know I have it in a piece of paper here somewhere.

I'll take a wild guess that it's going to be Gaffney Gaffney Klein and the Department of Revenue. Gaffney Klein did notify the committee that when they presented to us on Tuesday that there were some calculations that were incorrect in his evaluation of the finances. He will be correcting that on Monday, and the Department of Revenue will also be speaking to us. So with that, this Uh, ends our agenda for today. Let the record reflect that we are adjourning at 4:49 PM.