By ROBERT SEITZ
July 16, 2026 – It is time to quit fooling around trying to fix a problem no one asked to be fixed and work on the one that was actually asked for. Now is not the time to try to scratch a few more dollars out of Corporations and LLC’s. Now is the time to pass the property tax relief bill that was actually asked for (the one the Governor submitted). If the bill is passed, clean enough to be attractive to investors, then investors will show up. The project will get underway and contracts will be written and work will begin and cash will flow.
Yes we will have to import workers. There is no bill that the legislature can pass that will get enough workers here before the AkLNG project would begin. They left that behind by not actively encouraging new oil and mineral extraction projects while letting the oil flow through TAPS taper off. If the legislature follows the suggestion of Senators Giessel and Wielechowski to wait until January, they should all be ruled incompetent and released from their positions.
There won’t be solid contracts for the LNG until the construction actually gets started and completion looks much more certain. There have been extended negotiations with Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, so that is a good start. Now it is time to start construction. Glenfarne asked for property tax relief to make the project more attractive for investors, but if we can’t make it more attractive and we keep delaying, nobody will be interested. Then all we have to look forward to is a worse economy and nobody to tax.
I don’t see any way that our potential customers for LNG will start building enough solar farms to displaced as much LNG as the interested countries would need for their energy needs. So let’s pass the “clean” bill, with no other things added to it. Do it now before the special session ends and all can become heroes.
Business coalition says revised HB 381 drifts further from gasline mission as Legislature nears adjournment
It is important to get the project going while there are still some Alaskans left who have some experience with big projects to help out with getting things organized for the project. We still have enough Arctic Engineers around to help solve the frozen ground problems. And there are some project managers around who have experience with large projects in Alaska, who know how to deal with personnel issues, logistical problems and transportation issues all common to Alaskan projects but on a big scale.
If the legislators don’t get a proper bill passed there will be no future in the north.
Robert Seitz is a professional electrical engineer and longtime Alaskan.
5 thoughts on “Robert Seitz: Quick meddling and pass the gasline tax bill, cleanly”
I am confused as to what the expression “quick meddling” means? Should it be quit meddling? It’s been up for hours and nobody sees a possible snafu? Trump has expressed numerous times he does like the uneducated. Thank you for your attention…..
So all AKLNG needs to put it over the top is a little tax relief? Must be a real barn burner!
It’s not as tax relief bill. It establishes a rational tax on gas Pass the simple bill that came out of the House, but no! These are evil people in the Alaska State Senate – #1 Cathy Giessel – self proclaimed “prostitute police” and hater of children (on many levels) hater of the PFD and champion for welfare in place of any cash economy for all in rural Alaska! Winner of today’s all around mean and ugly approach for her Cruella Deville approach to life and governance. Abhorrent!
#2 Bill Wielchowski – self proclaimed “supporter of a gas line” and Governor proclaimed bullshitter and spreader of verbal bullshit like he really believed it. He doesn’t. And we see BS Bill, hater of opportunity and free will, always workmanlike in his ability to lie without regard to anyone or anything (including reality) and his lack of remorse for killing our grandkids future. Pathetic! #3 is Bert (are you kidding me right now in that 3pc w/pocket look from 1890) Stedman. Killing the gas line where Cathy and Bill left off and making certain this Governor doesn’t get one single legislative victory in 8 years. Snaky and small minded, Bert Stedman, has turned from good solid conservative man that worked for the people he served into a backroom powerbroker and poster child for term limits. #4-11, the rest of the Democrats upholding their written party laws platform and clear “mission critical” of opposing resource development and specifically all oil and gas everything hydrocarbon and/or their use. Yep. The entire industry that built AK as we know it (or knew it) and the universal base product to nearly everything humans use in life.
The success of this Alaska State Senate Majority Coalition of Communists at killing this project is mind-boggling. Even scarier, the message they’ve sent through the worldwide investment community has crushed all hope for our family’s future in our own state. Shameful!
Quick meddling? It’s time to quit using AI, voice-to-text, whatever.
SUMMARY ANALYSIS
HB 381 Version E and the Suspension of Borough Property Tax Powers
Purpose
This summary condenses the analysis of HB 381 Version E into a shorter document for use with the broader white paper. The focus is narrow: where the Legislature claims authority to remove or suspend borough property tax power, what Version E actually does, and why the constitutional questions remain unresolved.
Bottom Line
The Legislature can argue that borough property tax authority is delegated by state law and therefore can be defined, limited, or amended by general law. That is the legal hook. But that authority is not unlimited. The Alaska Constitution also says the taxing power shall never be surrendered and shall not be suspended or contracted away except as provided in Article IX. Therefore, HB 381 Version E must be judged by substance, not label.
If Version E is a true general-law exemption supported by a clear public purpose and a record proving maximum benefit to Alaskans, the State will defend it as lawful. If it functions as a project-specific suspension of borough taxing authority to secure a private financing arrangement, while withholding material financial information from the public, it remains constitutionally vulnerable.
1. The Claimed Legal Hook
The Legislature will likely rely on two points. First, boroughs and municipalities possess only the taxing authority delegated and defined by state law. Second, Article IX allows tax exemptions to be granted by general law. On that theory, the Legislature may amend AS 29.45 and AS 43.56 to remove certain project property from ordinary municipal and state property taxation and replace it with another tax system.
That is the State’s best argument, but it is not the end of the inquiry. Article IX also contains a hard limit: the taxing power may not be surrendered, suspended, or contracted away. Article IX also requires public purpose. Article X favors maximum local self-government and liberal construction of local powers. Article VIII requires maximum use and maximum benefit of state resources consistent with the public interest. Those provisions require a real public record, not only legislative findings.
2. What Version E Actually Does
Version E keeps the central tax trade: ordinary property tax treatment is replaced by temporary tax abatement and then an Alternative Volumetric Tax (AVT). Version E states that project property subject to tax abatement or the AVT is exempt from municipal taxation under AS 29.45. It also excludes such property from certain municipal tax cap and school-funding value calculations. Source: CCS2 HB381 Ver.E.pdf, lines 208-237 and 243-256.
Version E also amends AS 43.56 so property subject to the HB 381 abatement or volumetric tax is exempt from state oil and gas property tax and municipal oil and gas property tax. The replacement system begins with a temporary tax abatement and then imposes AVT on project throughput. Source: CCS2 HB381 Ver.E.pdf, lines 257-286.
The bill contains legislative findings that the tax treatment is necessary to advance a major natural gas project, maximize benefit by ensuring direct and affordable gas access, and protect affected communities. It also states the Act is not intended to serve as precedent for other property or taxpayers. Source: CCS2 HB381 Ver.E.pdf, lines 33-53.
3. The Main Constitutional Concern
The problem is not that the Legislature lacks any authority to legislate municipal taxation. The problem is whether this particular structure crosses the line from a general-law tax exemption into a practical suspension of local taxing power for one project.
A constitutionally safer bill would preserve future taxing power, clearly state that no tax authority is surrendered or contracted away, restore ordinary taxation if enforceable milestones are not met, and disclose enough public financial information to prove the exchange benefits Alaskans. Version E moves some safeguards onto paper, but it does not fully cure the concern.
4. Why the Municipal Concern Remains
Borough property tax power is not just an accounting detail. It funds local services, schools, emergency response, roads, and long-term borough planning. When HB 381 removes project property from ordinary municipal assessment, the State must show what boroughs lose, what they receive instead, and why that exchange is in the public interest.
The bill counts only a portion of AVT revenue toward the required local contribution formula and excludes abated/AVT property from full and true value calculations. This means the school-funding effect must be modeled and publicly explained. Source: CCS2 HB381 Ver.E.pdf, lines 208-237.
5. The Transparency Problem
Version E improves some legislative access to information, but also expands the ability to keep information confidential. The Summary of Changes says investment information may be provided to the Commissioner of Revenue and, upon request, the Legislature, but the information is not a public record and AGDC may redact financially or commercially sensitive information. The same summary extends reasonable redactions, estimated ranges, summaries, or status indicators to dashboard and biannual report information. Source: CCS2 HB381 Summary of Changes 7.16.26.pdf, lines 197-214.
This may help legislators receive some information, but it does not fully answer Article VIII maximum-benefit concerns. The people may still be unable to see the project economics needed to judge whether Alaska is receiving fair value for tax relief, resource access, public corporation assets, rights-of-way, and other public advantages.
6. Milestones and Cost Protections
Version E defines FID for Phase One as more than a press release: the developer must have firm debt and financing commitments, binding EPC agreements, offtake agreements sufficient to underwrite construction and operation, a cost estimate, and a final resource report. Source: CCS2 HB381 Ver.E.pdf, lines 494-510.
The bill also contains deadlines: no Phase One FID by January 1, 2028; no completed Phase One pipeline by December 31, 2034; or no commercial operation of at least one major component by January 1, 2037 means abatement/AVT status does not apply. But the Commissioner may extend dates for extraordinary circumstances, including judicial delays or lack of judicial decisions. Source: CCS2 HB381 Redline Q to E.pdf, lines 647-660.
Version E also keeps a $16/MMBtu ceiling for certain public utility gas supply contracts and says the RCA may not approve contracts that recover construction cost overruns from utility customers or increase rates if throughput decreases. Source: CCS2 HB381 Redline Q to E.pdf, lines 325-351. These are meaningful provisions, but $16 is a ceiling, not a guarantee of truly affordable gas.
7. The Conference Committee Memo Is Procedural, Not Constitutional
The July 15 Legislative Legal memo says Version E is within the limited powers of free conference under Uniform Rule 42. It does not say Version E satisfies Article VIII, Article IX, Article X, or all constitutional public-interest requirements. Source: CCS2 HB381 Legal Memo – Conference Committee Powers.pdf, lines 15-23.
That distinction is critical. A bill can be procedurally within conference committee powers while still leaving unresolved questions about public purpose, local taxation, dedicated funds, transparency, and maximum benefit.
8. Recommended Demands Before Final Passage
A written constitutional finding that no taxing power is surrendered, suspended, or contracted away.
A borough-by-borough comparison of current-law property tax revenue versus AVT revenue and mitigation payments.
A school-funding impact model showing effects on required local contribution and full-and-true-value calculations.
Disclosure to legislators of the full AGDC-Glenfarne agreement, including clawback, abandonment, reimbursement, ownership, and default provisions.
A public summary of project economics sufficient to prove Article VIII maximum benefit, including cost, financing, tax loss, in-state gas price, and municipal impacts.
A Department of Revenue model of expansion risk if other resource infrastructure later demands AVT-style treatment.
Strict restoration of ordinary state and municipal property taxation if project milestones are not met, with narrow limits on administrative extensions.
Clear subject-to-appropriation language for project-related funds to avoid dedicated-fund concerns.
Conclusion
HB 381 Version E appears to be a political compromise designed to preserve project financeability, give legislators oversight language, provide limited mitigation, and move the gasline package to a final vote. But it is not a complete constitutional cure.
The Legislature may define borough taxing authority by general law, but it may not use that power to surrender, suspend, or contract away the taxing power for a private project without a clear public-purpose record. The central question remains: Has the State proved, on the public record, that replacing borough property tax authority with abatement and AVT provides maximum benefit to the people of Alaska? Until that question is answered, Version E remains constitutionally vulnerable.
Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. – 2 Corinthians 3:17
Summary Analysis – HB 381 Version E