Legislature(2025 - 2026)BUTROVICH 205
03/05/2025 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission | |
| Presentation(s): Global Lng Market | |
| Presentation(s): Alaska Statehood Defense Overview | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 5, 2025
3:30 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Cathy Giessel, Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Vice Chair
Senator Matt Claman
Senator Forrest Dunbar
Senator Scott Kawasaki
Senator Shelley Hughes
Senator Robert Myers
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING:
Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
Jessie Chmielowski - Anchorage, Alaska
- ADVANCED
PRESENTATION(S): GLOBAL LIQUID NATURAL GAS (LNG) MARKET
- HEARD
PRESENTATION(S): ALASKA STATEHOOD DEFENSE OVERVIEW
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
NICK FULFORD, Senior Director
LNG and Energy Transition
Gaffney, Cline and Associates
Houston, Texas
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave the presentation Global LNG Market:
Implications for Alaska.
TREG TAYLOR, Attorney General
Department of Law (DOL)
POSITION STATEMENT: Anchorage, Alaska. Co-presented Alaska
Statehood Defense Overview.
CORI MILLS, Deputy Attorney General
Civil Division
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented Alaska Statehood Defense
Overview.
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Acting Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented Alaska Statehood Defense
Overview.
JOHN BOYLE, Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented Alaska Statehood Defense
Overview.
CHRIS ORMAN, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law (DOL)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented Alaska Statehood Defense
Overview.
DOUGLAS VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented Alaska Statehood Defense
Overview.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:30:52 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL called the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Present at the call to order were
Senators Myers, Kawasaki, Hughes, Wielechowski and Chair
Giessel. Senators Dunbar and Claman joined during the course of
the meeting.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S): ALASKA OIL and GAS CONSERVATION
COMMISSION
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S): ALASKA OIL and GAS CONSERVATION
COMMISSION
3:31:47 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced the confirmation hearing of the Alaska
Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) appointee Jessie L.
Chmielowski, continued from March 3, 2025.
3:32:03 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL opened public testimony on the confirmation of
Jessie L. Chmielowski to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission (AOGCC); finding none, she closed public testimony.
3:32:24 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL solicited the will of the committee.
3:32:33 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI stated that in accordance with AS
39.05.080, the Senate Resources Standing Committee reviewed the
following and recommends the appointment be forwarded to a joint
session for consideration:
Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC)
Jessie L. Chmielowski - Anchorage, Alaska
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI reminded members that signing the report(s)
regarding appointments to boards and commissions in no way
reflects individual members' approval or disapproval of the
appointees; the nominations are merely forwarded to the full
legislature for confirmation or rejection.
3:32:57 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL found no objection and the appointment was
forwarded to a joint session for consideration.
^PRESENTATION(S): GLOBAL LNG MARKET
PRESENTATION(S): GLOBAL LNG MARKET
3:33:10 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced the presentation, Global Liquid Natural
Gas (LNG) Market: Implications for Alaska
3:33:34 PM
NICK FULFORD, Senior Director, LNG and Energy Transition,
Gaffney, Cline and Associates, Houston, Texas, moved to slide 1
and prefaced his presentation by offering his observations,
having worked on LNG projects since the mid-1980's. He said it
was essential to take a long-term view and perspective and that
many of these projects take a long time to arrive at a
commercially sustainable structure. He said the real financial
benefit of such projects shows up around a generation down the
road. He acknowledged they're not quick wins, but when in place,
they can transform an economy.
3:34:55 PM
MR. FULFORD moved to and narrated slide 2:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Agenda
Topics to be covered
• Evolution of the LNG Industry
• Supply and Demand
• LNG project evolution
• LNG Economics
• Enabling legislation
• Selected LNG Case Studies
3:36:36 PM
MR. FULFORD moved to slide 4 and said the LNG market currently
stands at 400 million tons annually, equating to 20 trillion
cubic feet of feedstock. He noted the historical significance of
the Nikiski, Alaska project in 1969, which initially produced
half a million tons per annum, similar to the current LNG demand
for South Central Alaska. He highlighted the emergence of the
U.S. as a major LNG exporter, noting its rapid rise to becoming
the largest exporter. He said the three major current exporters
were now Australia, Qatar, and the U.S., with Qatar's low-cost
gas and potential U.S. supply from various regions shaping
future exports:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Historical Growth in LNG trade
1970's 2000's
PIONEER PHASE OF THE LNG INDUSTRY
2000 2015
INCREASE IN LNG FACILITIES WORLDWIDE DRIVEN BY LNG
MARKET DEMAND
2016 2020
IMPACT OF UNCONVENTIONAL SHALE AND COAL GAS BOOM
2020 to Date
RUSSIAN/UKRAINE CRISIS AND GROWTH IN LOWCARBON LNG
[Slide 4 includes a combined bar graph and timeline
illustrating the trade volume of LNG in billion cubic
meters from 1970 through 2023, also indicating
geopolitical source entities and the timing of their
significance to the market.]
3:39:01 PM
MR. FULFORD moved to slide 5, Global Trade Routes, a global
satellite photo dated Monday, March 3, 2025 with ships indicated
in red and green. He explained that the green ships were loaded
[with LNG and the red ones carried ballast.] He noted only five
vessels in the eastern Pacific, three of which were from Peru
and two had either transited the Panama Canal or were waiting to
transit on their way from the US Gulf Coast. He emphasized the
strategic value of LNG trade from Alaska to the Pacific, noting
that it avoided many of the risks and costs associated with
other routes. He observed that the Suez Canal was not considered
safe for the LNG industry, leading to increased traffic through
the southern part of Africa and back to Asia. He concluded that
the Pacific region could be strategically valuable for future
LNG buyers due to its potential to bypass the risks and costs of
other routes.
3:40:43 PM
MR. FULFORD moved through transition slide 6 explaining that he
would discuss supply and demand, beginning by considering the
past five years in the [LNG] industry.
3:40:58 PM
MR. FULFORD moved to slide 7 and discussed the significant
disruptions to European gas demand due to COVID-19 and
geopolitical issues like the Russia-Ukraine conflict, leading to
unprecedented price volatility in the LNG market. He said the
LNG industry demonstrated robustness and flexibility, with the
US supplying LNG to Europe and substitutions being made
elsewhere to maintain gas market stability:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Market Turbulence
2022-23
Demand slump and oversupply in 2018-2020
Rapid reversal into undersupply and unprecedented
prices
LNG market proved to be resilient and flexible
Security of supply and supply diversity now key
elements in procurement strategy
[Slide 7 includes a graph illustrating the price of
LNG in US$/MMBtu from December 2, 2021 through
November 8, 2024, according to: [East Asia (EAX) + 1
Month and Brent Oil + 1 Month.]
3:43:03 PM
MR. FULFORD moved to and narrated slide 8:
[Original punctuation provided.]
LNG Demand
Uncertainty
• Forecasts range from a doubling in demand to a 75
percent reduction by 2050
• Lower demand forecasts based on rapid
decarbonization, electrification, and switch to
renewables/hydrogen
• Market signals suggest growth in LNG continues to be
the core assumption
• Many IECs are basing their future growth plans on
major LNG focus
[Slide 8 includes a graph illustrating ten potential
scenarios for LNG Demand Outlook from 2025 through
2050.]
MR. FULFORD added that the forecasts were based on the
expectation that primary energy needs will double by 2050. He
said gas and LNG were expected to maintain demand as coal and
oil were replaced by renewables. He noted that Asian countries,
such as Vietnam, were expected to significantly increase their
LNG use as a fuel source.
3:45:22 PM
MR. FULFORD moved to and narrated slide 9:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Supply Outlook
Significant new capacity under construction in US Gulf
Coast
However, regulatory delays and legal challenges appear
to be growing.
Qatar is undergoing major expansion later this decade ?
V
[Slide 9 includes a bar graph illustrating the
Capacity Addition on Start Date in Mtpa of the
following LNG producing regions: Asia Pacific, Europe,
North America, South America, Middle East and Africa,
from 2010 through 2030. The graph points out that the
majority of new capacity is anticipated to come from
the US and Qatar.]
3:46:40 PM
MR. FULFORD moved to and narrated slide 10, emphasizing that
there was a fair amount of uncertainty in LNG supply
projections, particularly focusing on projects in various stages
of development. He noted concern about potential oversupply of
natural gas by 2030 due to increasing legal and regulatory
challenges in the US Gulf Coast. However, he suggested that
delays in project starts might result in a more balanced
outlook:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Demand/Supply
• Competition for 2035 supply will come largely from
announced US Gulf Coast projects
• Reaching FID is a key milestone
• Alaska could benefit from existing permits
[Slide 10 includes a bar graph showing the potential
LNG supply at various stages of development by
producing regions superimposed on a graph illustrating
the potential LNG demand for 2025 through 2050.]
3:48:15 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked for clarification of the bar graph on Slide
10.
3:48:40 PM
MR. FULFORD affirmed that the blue sections represented existing
facilities, the red and brown sections were facilities under
construction in Asia and the Middle East and the yellow were
under construction in the Americas. He emphasized that the
yellow represented the US Gulf Coast and the brown represented
Qatar.
3:49:06 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked whether the bar sections above the yellow
section indicated announced and hoped-for development and the
orange line represented the demand.
3:49:18 PM
MR. FULFORD affirmed that the orange line represented a
conservative line of demand. He said it was the median between
net zero demands and a more positive projection followed by most
of the international energy companies. He suggested that a more
pragmatic perspective might be to put less emphasis on the four
scenarios involving decarbonization and a little more emphasis
on the [International Electrotechnical Commission] IEC work, in
which case the yellow [orange] demand line would be higher.
3:50:10 PM
SENATOR MYERS noted that the presentation focused on world
supply and demand [for LNG]. He asked whether the Pacific and
Atlantic markets were close enough to co-mingle or if they
functioned as two separate markets.
3:50:30 PM
MR. FULFORD said one advantage of the LNG market was its
adaptability to weather-related gas demand. He said it was
possible to redistribute gas by reloading it onto ships, a
common practice in Europe, particularly in Spain. He noted that
logistically and to avoid canal fees, it was preferable to keep
vessels in the Atlantic or Pacific, but that the industry
operated globally, with a dynamic balance managed between the
two oceans to meet demand effectively.
3:51:36 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked whether the orange band on slide 10
included the anticipated energy demand for AI.
3:51:58 PM
MR. FULFORD affirmed that gas-fired generation for data centers
in support of AI will be a factor [in future LNG demand],
however that was not included in the data for the presentation.
3:52:35 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how Alaska LNG compares cost wise
with the major projects around the world in Qatar and the US
Gulf Coast.
3:52:47 PM
MR. FULFORD said later slides would address the comparisons. He
said the Alaska LNG project was perceived as costly due to its
high initial capital costs, which include liquefaction,
pipeline, and processing plant expenses. He emphasized that
operating costs would be lower than those of the US Gulf Coast
LNG, particularly in shipping. He said the main vulnerability of
Alaska LNG was the risk of capital cost inflation, which could
increase the delivered gas cost. He said the competitive balance
between Alaska and the US Gulf Coast could improve if production
costs rise in the southern states. In summary, while Alaska LNG
has high upfront costs, its running costs are competitive, and
potential capital cost increases are a concern.
3:55:03 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted [Alaska Gasline Development
Corporation] AGDC entered an agreement with Glenfarne. He asked
Mr. Fulford his opinion of Glenfarne's capacity for a project
the magnitude of the Alaska LNG project.
3:55:17 PM
MR. FULFORD said he attended the Glenfarne lunch and learn and
had read about the company but he did not have specific
information on the project or negotiations with AGDC. Despite
the lack of details, he said active discussion and movement
towards the project were positive.
3:56:25 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that President Trump referred to the
Alaska LNG pipeline in his speech to the joint session of
Congress March 4, 2025. He asked what Mr. Fulford anticipated at
the federal level and how [administration activity] was
impacting discussions in Japan, Korea and Taiwan. He asked
whether Mr. Fulford anticipated imminent changes or quick
developments.
3:56:56 PM
MR. FULFORD acknowledged the potential integration of the Alaska
LNG project into broader U.S. trade discussions with Asian
partners, reflecting on historical LNG project treaties that
involved extensive collaboration between countries. He noted
that while modern LNG supply chains were more flexible and able
to adapt to disruptions, the strategic nature of gas supply was
likely to benefit from high-level government dialogue. He
suggested that federal initiatives could align well with
operational efforts by AGDC and Glenfarne, potentially
benefiting the project.
3:59:23 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked whether the yellow portions of the bar
graph, representing LNG projects in the Americas [on slide 10],
included the Alaska LNG project.
3:59:31 PM
MR. FULFORD said they did not.
3:59:40 PM
MR. FULFORD moved to slide 11, LNG Project Evolution. He
emphasized alignment among stakeholders in the evolution of an
LNG project. He said a project framework that ensured
cooperation among gas producers, investors, and buyers was
necessary and said there were three common structures typically
used in the LNG industry to facilitate stakeholder alignment.
4:00:33 PM
MR. FULFORD moved to slide 12 and introduced the integrated LNG
project model, emphasizing its structure where gas producers
invest equally in liquefaction and pipeline infrastructure:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Project Commercial
Structure Choices
(Integrated Model)
• Equity participation from wellhead to vessel loading
• Creates strong alignment between parties
• Transfer pricing largely driven by fiscal
arrangements
• Examples in Qatar, Sakhalin, Northwest Shelf, Darwin
and Tangguh
• Model followed by AK LNG in 2014/15 timeframe
(assuming state exercised TAG and RIK)
[Slide 12 includes a diagram illustrating the elements
of the integrated LNG project model.
4:01:43 PM
MR. FULFORD moved to slide 13 and introduced the merchant model,
suitable for situations where gas producers were interested in
generating revenue from gas production but lacked the financial
capacity or risk appetite to handle the downstream LNG process:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Project Commercial
Structure Choices
(merchant model)
• Equity participation can differ along the LNG value
chain
• Often used where upstream partners do not all
participate in midstream and downstream
• Transfer price into LNG facility typically heavily
negotiated
• Examples in Trinidad (1-3), Angola, Nigeria,
Equatorial Guinea and Malaysia
• Potential use for AK LNG
[Slide 13 includes a diagram illustrating the elements
of the market LNG project model.
4:02:47 PM
MR. FULFORD moved to slide 14 and introduced the tolling model.
He explained that tolling model investors would receive steady
income over many years based on good credit and strong balance
sheets, which would enable them to generate a modest return
without commodity risk and completely insulated from LNG price
fluctuations:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Project Commercial
Structure Choices
(tolling model)
• Fee for service model
• LNG plant returns can be isolated from commodity
price fluctuations
• Akin to a toll road, airport, or other
infrastructure based on long term revenue from
service contracts
• Examples include many of the US Gulf Coast projects,
Trinidad 4, Damietta and Bontang.
• Potential use for AK LNG
[Slide 14 includes a diagram illustrating the elements
of the tolling LNG project model.
4:03:32 PM
MR. FULFORD said there were pros and cons to each of the models
presented and the key to success was choosing a model that
fostered alignment among investors, as misalignment can lead to
significant delays in project execution.
4:04:01 PM
MR. FULFORD moved to slide 15 and said the LNG industry has
undergone significant changes, particularly in the supply chain
from production to delivery. Recent projects have adopted a new
approach in which LNG is sold to a trading affiliate, benefiting
lenders due to the creditworthiness of the trading entity. He
said this model can be highly profitable if managed skillfully
but risky if not. He suggested this strategy was potentially
applicable to future projects like Alaska LNG:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Contracting model
evolution
• The LNG trading profit center has become significant
for many players
• Using an LNG marketing affiliate to purchase offtake
(fob) moves economic rent to LNG marketing, but
provides credit for financing
• Equity marketing has become a popular model where
large LNG buyers or portfolio players are also
project investors.
Pre-2000 model (destination clauses)
LNG Long term Gas Utilities
Project take or pay > and power
contracts generators
Portfolio based model (equity marketing no destination
restrictions)
LNG
LNG LNG trading portfolio of Gas Utilities
Project affiliate > suppliers and power
and generators
LNG trading affiliate customers
provides credit and
supports finance
4:06:32 PM
MR. FULFORD moved to slide 16 and discussed the challenges of
estimating costs for a project in its early stages. He said
precision for the cost estimate was expected to improve as the
project progressed through the pre-FEED and [front end
engineering and design] FEED process:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Evolution of Cost Estimates
• Cost estimates for AK LNG are currently in the Class
5 range
• FEED would bring cost uncertainty into a range of -
20 percent to +25 percent Following bid negotiations
with EPC contractors cost uncertainty will improve
• Given scale of project, limited scope for cost
guarantees from EPC contractor
[Slide 16 includes a graphic representation of the
Evolution od Cost Estimates for the AK LNG project.]
4:07:10 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR arrived.
4:07:34 PM
MR. FULFORD moved to slide 17 and said 12 major LNG projects
faced cost overruns, particularly in Australia, while the Gulf
Coast has generally fared better. He said modular liquefaction
trains were a recent development that was improving cost and
time to first gas. He noted that despite cost overruns, LNG
projects often perform better than expected, with operations
enhancing efficiency and generating more value over time. He
said this inherent upside wasn't fully captured in initial
economic calculations:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Comparison of cost
performance
(select LNG mega projects that achieved
start up between 2007 and 2020)
• In general, costs have been higher than budgeted
• Actual capacity is higher than performance guarantee
• De-bottlenecking can add another 10-15 percent
[Slide 17 includes a bar graph comparing the start-up
costs for 12 LNG projects since 2007.]
4:09:09 PM
MR. FULFORD moved to slide 18 and explained that schedule
overruns affect costs as well. He acknowledged that while some
of the mega-projects illustrated did reasonably well from a from
a schedule point of view, from a private investor perspective,
losing early cash flow was proportionally more damaging to the
economics than elsewhere:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Comparison of schedule
(FID to Start Up)
(select LNG mega projects that achieved start up
between 2007 and 2020)
• Construction schedule has typically slipped
• Delayed startup and cashflow have a disproportionate
impact on NPV
• Use of prefabricated modules appears to have
mitigated this risk
• Some Gulf Coast projects have achieved acc
[Slide 17 includes a bar graph comparing schedule
over-runs for 12 LNG projects since 2007.]
4:09:38 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked for a definition of "de-bottlenecking".
4:09:46 PM
MR. FULFORD answered that de-bottlenecking involved additional
capital investment that could increase LNG output by 15-20
percent.
4:10:50 PM
MR. FULFORD moved to and narrated slide 20. He noted that the
free cash flow from LNG sales in 15-20 years could reach $2-3
billion over the long term if the state of Alaska owned a 25%
equity. He also emphasized the growing importance of LNG
trading, a sector where both Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips were
expanding:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Sources of Economic Return
1
Upstream Gas production
• Smallest element of LNG value chain
• A facilitator for LNG
• Important for host country
• Alaska: 25% Royalty and Tax on upstream circa. $250m
annually
2
Investment in Infrastructure
• Very large capital investment drives large cashflow
• Returns at risk
• Longer term cashflows are attractive.
• Alaska: 25% participation in project circa. $2-$3 bn
free cashflow, once plant fully amortized. Upside
potential.
3
LNG Trading
• LNG trading profits are very material
• ExxonMobil:. "By 2030, we anticipate the cash flow
out of the LNG business will be around about $8
billion per year."
• ConocoPhillips is looking to sign more LNG offtake
deals and to secure additional regasification
capacities, as it continues to expand its LNG
portfolio.
• Alaska: Participation in global LNG trades not
available.
4:12:36 PM
MR. FULFORD moved to slide 21 and discussed the economic and
cost differences of delivering natural gas from Alaska and the
Gulf Coast using Wood Mackenzie's 2022 modeling. He said the
analysis indicated potential price advantages for Alaska:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Delivered Cost Scenarios
(note: for illustrative purposes only)
• Alaska LNG has very high pre-productive capital
needs ? In addition to liquefaction circa. $22bn of
additional investment
• GTP
• Pipeline
• However, project has potential benefit of low cost
feedstock and low freight charges
• If forecast Henry Hub increases materialise, and
capital cost controls are achieved Alaska could
become very competitive
[Slide 21 includes a table comparing Alaska and US
Gulf Coast LNG costs according to Wood MacKenzie (WM)
data and modeling.]
4:14:47 PM
MR. FULFORD moved to slide 22, Delivered Cost Scenarios,
continued. He explained that the [proposed Alaska] LNG project
would use associated gas as feedstock, offering potential tax
revenue benefits for the state. The tax credit from 45Q
translates into a significant discount on the landing cost of
gas in Asia. Additionally, federal loan guarantees could
substantially reduce the project's debt costs for the $45
billion project. He suggested these were significant upsides for
consideration.
4:16:25 PM
MR. FULFORD moved to slide 25. He focused on the importance of
fiscal stability for LNG investors, highlighting that
governments often grant assurances to limit future fiscal
changes that could impact projects. He offered the example of
LNG Canada, which was granted fiscal stability guarantees from
both the BC and federal governments. He observed that the Alaska
LNG project's magnitude was significant, comparable to the
Alaska GDP and said tailor-made legislation, potentially
including provisions for state equity or carries, might be
necessary. He reiterated that government involvement was often a
feature of large LNG projects:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Features of Enabling Legislation
Noted LNG Canada
1
Fiscal Stability Clause
• LNG requires upfront major capital investment
• Subsequent tax changes are a major risk for
investors
• Long term nature of fiscal stability guarantees can
be complex
• Constitutional implications
2
Scale usually requires tailormade legislation
• Can include upstream fiscal changes.
• Features can include:
? Special income tax provisions
? Mechanisms to provide "minimum return" for
investors
? Accelerated depreciation
? Tax holidays
3
Host country provisions
• May include sliding scale of upside/downside risk
sharing.
• Can involve a "carry" for host government, supported
by major investors
• Sometimes features in government to government trade
deals or treaties
4:18:29 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI opined that Alaska's current tax structure
was deficient in that it did not adequately address upstream
cost and deduction issues. He asked for any recommendations Mr.
Fulford could offer.
4:19:01 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL said the committee would request Mr. Fulford's
return to complete his presentation.
4:19:21 PM
At ease.
^PRESENTATION(S): ALASKA STATEHOOD DEFENSE OVERVIEW
PRESENTATION(S): ALASKA STATEHOOD DEFENSE OVERVIEW
4:19:50 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL reconvened the meeting and announced the
presentation, Alaska Statehood Defense Overview.
4:20:01 PM
TREG TAYLOR, Attorney General, Department of Law (DOL),
Anchorage, Alaska introduced himself and Deputy Attorney General
Cori Mills. He moved to slide 2 and briefly defined statehood
defense as the commitment to uphold federal promises made to
Alaska at statehood, ensuring that Alaska can manage its lands,
waters, and natural resources as it sees fit. He said the
Department of Law (DOL), Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), collaborate
weekly to address statehood defense issues.:
[Original punctuation provided.]
What is Statehood Defense?
Defending the rights and privileges promised to the
citizens of the state of Alaska upon the state's
admission into the Union, especially concerning the
use, conservation, and management of the state's
lands, waters, and natural resources.
4:21:37 PM
CORI MILLS, Deputy Attorney General, Civil Division, Department
of Law, Juneau, Alaska, began the presentation, Alaska Statehood
Defense Overview. She moved to and narrated slide 3, Multi-Year
Statehood Defense Appropriation, a bar graph illustrating the
legislature's appropriations for statehood defense for fiscal
years 2021, 2023 and 2024. She said the funding was used for
various efforts, including federal litigation and offered to
provide a report to the committee. She noted the number of
active cases increased from 30-40 to over 80 and explained that
the legislature provided a temporary increment to the base
budget for natural resource work. She said current projections
indicated sufficient funds to cover fiscal year 2026.
4:22:57 PM
MR. TAYLOR moved to slide 4 and said this was Senator Sullivan's
famous list. He emphasized the need for caution despite a more
aligned current administration. He warned against potential
reversals in the future and stressed the importance of
finalizing litigation, particularly with the U.S. Supreme Court,
to ensure stability and certainty for the state's interests:
[Original punctuation provided.]
67 Executive Orders & Actions Targeting Alaska
01.20.2021 - President Biden is inaugurated and takes
office.
01.20.2021 - EO 13990 on Day 1, reviewing the Willow
Project EIS.
01.20.2021 - EO 13990 on Day 1, reviewing Bering Sea-
Western Interior EIS.
01.20.2021 - EO 13990 on Day 1, reviewing
hunting/trapping in National Preserves rule.
01.20.2021 - EO 13990 on Day 1, reviewing Roadless
Rule exemption for Alaska.
01.20.2021 - EO 13990 on Day 1, moratorium on
congressionally-mandated ANWR leasing.
01.20.2021 - EO 13990 on Day 1, reinstating Northern
Bering Sea Climate Resilience Area.
02.01.2021 - U.S. Forest Service halts activities in
Alaska Roadless Rule areas.
02.2021 - BLM conducts bad-faith permitting for KIC AK
Native lands, blocking access.
04.16.2021 - DOI delays PLOs for AK Native Veteran
allotments, tribes, resources.
04.16.2021 - DOI Secretary Order 3398, revoking DOI's
previous NPR-A order.
05.24.2021 - Alaska delegation meeting at the White
House. 06.01.2021 - DOI initiates new EIS process for
1002 Area, suspends ANWR leases.
06.07.2021 - BLM expands Mendenhall Glacier Recreation
Area by 4,500 acres.
11.19.2021 - USDA intends to roll back Roadless Rule
exemption for Alaska.
12.9.2021 - Alaska delegation meeting at the White
House.
12.31.2021 - USFS fails to hold mandated Tongass
timber sale.
2021 - BLM intends to review Central Yukon Resource
Plan EIS.
01.10.2022 - BLM selects "No Action Alternative" for
2020 NPR-A IAP/EIS.
01.20.2022 - USDA & DOI publish federal subsistence
policy notice.
02.2022 - Administration delays final supplemental EIS
for Willow Project.
02.22.2022 - DOI files to reopen Ambler Road ROD.
03.09.2022 - BLM intends to establish recreational
fees on Alaska public lands.
04.04.2022 - NOAA intends to designate critical
habitat area for Beringia seals.
04.21.2022 - DOI further delays, complicates AK Native
Veteran allotments.
04.26.2022 - BLM reverts the NPR-A to the 2013
Integrated Activity Plan.
05.12.2022 - DOI cancels planned oil & gas lease sale
in Cook Inlet.
05.25.2022 - EPA proposes 404(c) pre-emptive veto of
Pebble Mine site.
12.01.2022 - EPA recommends 404(c) preemptive veto of
Pebble. 12.01.2022 - DOI delays release of draft SEIS
for ANWR 1002 Area drilling.
12.06.2022 - DOI claims authority over state lands
relevant to Ambler Road Project.
12.21.2022 - Alaska delegation meeting at the White
House.
2023 - USFS/BLM fails to implement ANILCA-compliant
cabin policy, limiting permits.
01.06.2023 - DOI proposes hunting restrictions on
Alaska's National Preserves.
01.10.2023 - BLM publishes PLO with 20-year extension
of Chugach Forest withdrawal.
01.24.2023 - BLM draft plans include access fees
prohibited under ANILCA.
01.31.2023 - EPA publishes pre-emptive veto of Pebble
Mine area.
03.03.2023 - Alaska delegation meeting at the White
House.
03.13.2023 - DOI proposes additional restrictions on
13 million acres of NPR-A.
03.13.2023 - White House intends to block all oil &
gas leasing in the Arctic Ocean.
03.14.2023 - DOI withdraws land exchange for life-
saving King Cove Road.
04.04.2023 - EPA enables unachievable deadline for
PM2.5 air standard for Fairbanks.
09.08.2023 - DOI proposes restricting development on
millions of acres in NPR-A.
12.05.2023 - USFWS's new guiding proposal
discriminates against long-term local guides.
12.15.2023 - DOI five-year oil & gas leasing proposal
excludes Alaska.
12.15.2023 - BLM draft ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawal EIS
delays required conveyences.
02.28.2024 - USFS intends to develop new Tongass
management plan.
04.19.2024 - DOI finalizes NPR-A restrictions, defying
federal law.
04.19.2024 - DOI FEIS denies re-approval of Ambler
Access Project, defying federal law.
04.19.2024 - BLM Central Yukon Resource Plan restricts
development defying federal law.
06.28.2024 - DOI issues ROD blocking the Ambler Road
Project.
06.28.2024 - DOI revokes 2021 PLOs, leaving 28 million
acres of land in highly restricted status.
07.03.2024 - NPS implements rule prohibiting certain
hunting methods in Alaska Preserves.
08.27.24 - DOI issues ROD revoking 2021 PLOs,
finalizing restrictions on 28 million acres.
4:23:48 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked about the implications of new [federal]
executive orders and actions for statehood defense. He suggested
recent orders could compel states to enact federal policies,
citing Maine's response to potential funding cuts. He questioned
whether statehood defense funds would be utilized to protect
[state] sovereignty when state actions are commandeered by
federal government.
4:25:05 PM
MR. TAYLOR noted that accepting federal funds often came with
specific stipulations that the federal government can change
over time. He said the core issues for statehood defense
involved the state's self-sufficiency and resource management,
particularly in areas like the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G). Despite a [federal]
administration more aligned with [Alaska's] interests, Mr.
Taylor said he anticipated an increase in litigation due to
executive actions. He said Alaska would intervene in lawsuits to
protect its interests, some of which may be settled, while
others will be pursued to final decisions.
4:27:17 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked whether the concept of statehood defense
was being defined as state resource and land defense rather than
a broader conception of state sovereignty.
4:28:03 PM
MR. TAYLOR affirmed that [state resource and land defense] was
the meat and potatoes of statehood defense. He advocated for
avoiding politicized issues and using state defense funds only
in areas of broad agreement amongst the legislature and the
[Alaska] population.
4:28:27 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR noted the Pebble Mine was listed as a project for
statehood defense. He asserted a lack of broad consensus
[amongst Alaskans] in support of the Pebble Mine.
4:28:37 PM
MR. TAYLOR clarified that the [statehood defense] objection was
not to the Pebble Mine itself but to the [federal Environmental
Protection Agency] (EPA's) preemptive veto of the project. He
argued that the EPA's action undermined Alaska's authority to
manage and permit projects on state land. He said the goal was
to get a court ruling ensuring that the EPA cannot use such
preemptive powers to override state control, thereby protecting
state sovereignty over land-use decisions rather than defending
the specific mine.
4:29:20 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI pointed out that while the list included
items related to the Pebble Mine and Willow projects, it omitted
Trump administration actions affecting Alaska, such as the
halting of $750 million in federal energy funds, wind farm
permits, and state EV charging station funding. He noted these
projects received broad bipartisan and statewide support. He
mentioned a lawsuit by 22 attorneys general alleging the Trump
administration defied a court order to release the funds. The
speaker asked why the state didn't join that lawsuit or take
similar legal action to restore hundreds of millions in blocked
energy and infrastructure funding for Alaska.
4:31:11 PM
MR. TAYLOR explained that the list of 67 federal actions
affecting Alaska was shown for context. He said the state's
statehood defense efforts focused on protecting Alaska's right
to manage its own resources, not on obtaining federal funds. He
noted that while the state sometimes aligned with the federal
government, it may also align with other entities, and therefore
cases about federal funding would not qualify for statehood
defense funds.
4:32:09 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether any [state] funds would be
used [to pursue litigation]. He noted Alaska's extremely high
energy costs and questioned why the state had not joined the
lawsuit that 22 other attorneys general had filed to challenge
the halted federal energy funds.
4:32:26 PM
MR. TAYLOR said [the attorney general's office] regularly
received requests to join lawsuits and must carefully decide
which cases to participate in based on strategy, policy, and the
best use of state resources. He clarified that he [as attorney
general] was not a policymaker, but an advisor to elected
officials who made those decisions. He said the state [attorney
general] evaluates whether a federal action is unlawful or
harmful to Alaska before recommending involvement. He noted that
Alaska sometimes chooses not to join certain lawsuits, such as
some against the Biden administration, when other states are
already representing Alaska's interests effectively.
4:33:50 PM
MS. MILLS moved to slide 5 and introduced Acting Commissioner
Christina Carpenter from the Department of Environmental
Conservation:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Department of Environmental Conservation
ACTING COMMISSIONER CHRISTINA CARPENTER
MS. MILLS explained that the multi-year appropriation for
environmental conservation had doubled from about 40 to 80
actions, with funding limited to resource protection and
management and excluding subsistence cases. She noted that
subsistence issues were handled through other means.
4:34:48 PM
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Acting Commissioner, Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), Anchorage, Alaska, introduced
herself and moved to slide 6. She explained that (DEC) currently
managed several federal "primacy" programs, meaning the federal
government delegated authority to Alaska to implement certain
environmental laws within the state. Established in 1971, DEC
first gained primacy for the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) in
1978, and subsequently added programs under the Clean Air Act,
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and Section 402
of the Clean Water Act through the Alaska Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (APDES). She emphasized that primacy allowed
Alaskans to regulate Alaskans, ensuring compliance with federal
standards while applying local expertise and flexibility better
suited to Alaska's unique conditions:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Implementing
Primacy
Programs
DEC can find flexibility in federal laws to make these
programs work better for Alaska and Alaskans.
• Federal Programs Currently Implemented by DEC:
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Solid Waste
• Safe Drinking Water Act
• Clean Air Act
• Clean Water Act section 402, Alaska Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (APDES) Program
• Federal Insecticide Rodenticide and Fungicide Act
4:36:58 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN arrived.
4:37:21 PM
MS. CARPENTER moved to slide 7 and focused on current and future
uses of statehood defense funds, beginning with the Waters of
the United States (WOTUS). She said since the 2013 Sackett
decision, there was little change in how the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers applied WOTUS regulations, leading to inconsistent,
case-by-case decisions and unclear guidance for industry. To
address this, DEC was collaborating with resource agencies and
contractors to create clear, Alaska-specific guidance to help
the regulated community identify jurisdictional wetlands,
anticipate permitting timelines, and plan mitigation options
more effectively:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Commenting
on Federal
Proposals
DEC experts evaluate federal proposals and push back
where the federal agencies seek to expand federal
authority or impose standards that don't make sense
for our state.
WOTUS: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the Army Corps continue to resist issuing clear Waters
of the United States (WOTUS) rules that include
wetlands only when they are indistinguishable from
jurisdictional waters. The federal agencies have
refused to clearly define the bounds of their
authority. This has direct impact on Alaska's vast
wetlands on the North Slope.
Fairbanks PM2.5 Non-Attainment Area: The EPA proposes
to approve a stakeholder-driven plan for correcting
air quality concerns; DEC will engage to address
concerns raised in any anticipated legal challenge to
this important approval.
4:39:53 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI noted Fairbanks had long dealt with air quality
issues. He said a recent state implementation plan, approved by
the administration and EPA, mandated that realtors must have an
Energy Rating performed on houses before sale. Realtors said
they would find compliance difficult, especially with only two
energy raters in the area. He said the new rule takes effect at
the end of December [2025], raising concerns about meeting the
requirements. He questioned whether the Attorney General will
defend the plan if challenged, particularly by affected
realtors.
4:41:23 PM
MS. CARPENTER thanked the Interior delegation for meeting with
the Air Quality Division Director, Jason Olds, and staying
informed on air quality issues. She said DEC supported the EPA's
planned approval of the non-discretionary section of Alaska's
State Implementation Plan (SIP). She explained that if the SIP
is approved, the state will be able to modify the plan later
through a formal demonstration process following any court
proceedings.
MS. CARPENTER added that the EPA planned to reopen the public
comment period on the energy audit requirement in response to
feedback, and DEC will notify interested parties when that
happens. Meanwhile, DEC was working with Housing Finance
Corporation (HFC) to expand the list of qualified energy
auditors and pursuing grants to offset potential financial
impacts on home buyers and sellers. She said DEC intended to use
all available administrative options to prevent the department
from becoming a bottleneck in Fairbanks home sales.
4:43:32 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI noted that some of the current discussion
stemmed from concerns raised by the Department of Transportation
(DOT) about potential loss of transportation funding due to
Alaska's noncompliance with EPA air quality regulations in the
Fairbanks watershed and Fairbanks Municipal Transit area. He
questioned why the Attorney General was not challenging this
issue instead of allowing it to proceed.
4:44:16 PM
MS. Mills clarified that the [decision not to challenge the loss
of transportation funds] had been handled [by the attorney
general's office] in consultation with the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) and that while the process was
not yet complete, policy officials had decided on the current
approach. She added that the attorney general could be brought
in if needed, but for now, the policy direction was guiding the
response to the issue.
4:44:56 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked for the timeline for the [SIP] approval.
4:45:07 PM
MS. CARPENTER said the EPA had published its plan for approval,
with the initial public comment period closing on February 7.
She noted that the EPA intended to reopen the comment period,
though there was no updated timeline available. She offered to
provide the committee with written follow-up.
4:45:49 PM
MS. CARPENTER moved to slide 8 and highlighted two key successes
achieved through statehood defense funds. First, she explained
that in 2021, DEC issued 548 notices of intent to sue the
federal government for failing to clean up contaminated sites
transferred to Alaska native corporations under ANCSA (1971).
Although the lawsuits were dismissed or stayed, they prompted
Congress to appropriate $40 million for cleanup efforts. She
said DEC also received $7 million to work with federal agencies
to create a public database tracking cleanup progress, improving
accountability and transparency:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Holding
Federal
Agencies
Accountable
DEC works to ensure the federal government corrects
its own failures.
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)
Contaminated Sites: DEC is pushing the Department of
Interior to clean up contamination they left on
properties the federal government transferred to
Alaska Native Corporations under ANCSA.
EPA Woodstove Certification Program: LAW and DEC were
successful in a lawsuit against the EPA to ensure an
effective update to critical EPA-certified woodstove
program. DEC discovered that the EPA certification
program is fundamentally flawed and pushed the EPA to
do its job to ensure the new stoves are actually
cleaner. Without cleaner devices, the DEC plan to
reach attainment and achieve clean air is severely
harmed.
4:48:15 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked whether a home in Fairbanks could use a
woodstove for heat.
4:48:26 PM
MS. CARPENTER affirmed that they could.
4:48:29 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked what would be required of a homeowner to
[use a woodstove for home heating].
4:48:34 PM
MS. CARPENTER said homeowners would have to use an approved
[wood-burning system]. She said there was a [DEC] approved list
of manufacturers.
4:48:57 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked for clarification. She understood that DEC
hadn't completed the process of identifying clean-burning
woodstoves and certifying them.
4:49:10 PM
Ms. Carpenter explained that the EPA had not created regulations
ensuring that EPA-approved stoves were truly clean-burning or
met testing standards. As a result, the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) sued the EPA, successfully
compelling the agency to update its regulations so that DEC
could verify that stoves sold in the Fairbanks area meet clean-
burning requirements.
4:49:47 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked whether there was a challenge from EPA
saying they would not create [reasonable and effective
standards]. He asked whether the state of Alaska spent
[statehood defense] money against the Biden administration.
4:50:24 PM
MS. MILLS recalled litigation because EPA issued inconsistent or
impractical standards that couldn't be met. She was unsure of
the details and offered to look up the case and report back to
the committee.
4:51:13 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI referred to the travesty wells [on lands
conveyed to Alaska native corporations by the Department of the
Interior (DOI) following Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA)] which needed to be cleaned out. He asked whether there
was push-back from the administration regarding addressing [the
wells].
4:51:42 PM
MS. MILLS explained that DEC had been in discussions about the
litigation because EPA hadn't provided funding or clear lists of
contaminated sites, and previous administrations hadn't made
much progress despite Senator Murkowski's efforts. Filing the
lawsuit prompted some additional federal funding for cleanup,
though she said it was still not enough to fully address the
problem.
4:52:59 PM
MS. Mills moved to slide 10 and explained that the Pebble Mine
case challenged EPA's 404(c) veto, which blocked development
over a 300-square-mile areafar larger than the proposed mine
site. The state argued the veto was an improper use of EPA
authority. In addition, if the veto is upheld, Alaska claims the
federal government should compensate the state for restricting
its mineral rights. The compensation case was on hold pending
resolution of whether the veto itself was lawful:
[Original punctuation provided.]
EPA's 404(c)
Determination
EPA's determination:
• Prohibits all "future proposals to construct and
operate a mine to develop the Pebble deposit" that
result in any "one" of the stream or wetland losses
serving as a basis for the permit denial
• Restricts development in a specified 309 square-
mile area of primarily state-owned land
o Alaska v. EPA et al., case no. 3:-cv-00084 (D.
Alaska)(matter consolidated with related cases
o State seeks declaration that 404(c)
determination was unlawful, violates Clean
Water Act and Administrative Procedures Act by
failing to engage in reasonable decision
making, and failing to consider relevant
factors
o In related claim before U.S. Federal Court of
Claims, State alleges taking without just
compensation (inverse condemnation) and breach
of contract entitling Alaska to damages if US
District Court does not set aside veto
4:54:25 PM
MS. Mills introduced Commissioner Boyle.
4:54:36 PM
JOHN BOYLE, Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
Anchorage, Alaska said DNR's statehood defense work had two main
focuses and discussed the first of the two, Navigability and
state land ownership. He explained that under the Statehood Act
and federal law, Alaska should hold title to the submerged lands
under all navigable rivers and lakes, yet the federal government
has only recognized a small fraction (about nine percent of
rivers and sixteen percent of lakes). He said this lack of
recognition affected state management, Native corporation land
selections, access, and economic development. He highlighted the
work of DNR's Public Access Assertion and Defense (PAD) team
which collected evidence allowing the pursuit of litigation to
confirm state ownership where federal acknowledgment was
lacking.
5:00:30 PM
COMMISSIONER BOYLE discussed the second focus of DNR's statehood
defense efforts, federal land and resource management disputes
and federal actions that limited state resource development. He
said the Biden administration changed the National Petroleum
Reserve in Alaska (NPRA) management plan, which restricted
development and infrastructure access. He said boundary disputes
in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) affected the
potential for state leasing, and federal withdrawals and leasing
restrictions on the Outer Continental Shelf and Cook Inlet, made
energy development more difficult.
5:02:40 PM
MS. MILLS moved to slide 13 and said Ron Opsahl was available
online to answer questions about navigability:
[Original punctuation provided.]
State
Submerged
Lands
• North Fork of Fortymile River
• Alaska v. United States (U.S. Dist. Alaska)
• Middle Fork of Koyukuk River, Dietrich River, and
Bettles River
• Alaska v. United States (U.S. Dist. Alaska)
• Mulchatna River, Chilikadrotna River, Twin Lakes,
and Turquoise Lake
• Alaska v. United States (U.S. Dist. Alaska)
• Mendenhall Lake and River
• Alaska v. United States (U.S. Dist. Alaska)
5:02:48 PM
MS. MILLS moved to slide 15 and said Mary Gramling was available
for questions about oil and gas development:
[Original punctuation provided.]
National Petroleum
Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A)
Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge (ANWR) Coastal
Plain
Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS)
• NPR-A
• Defending Willow Project Approvals
• Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v.
Bureau of Land Management (9th Circuit)
• Challenging 2024 NPR-A Regulations
• Alaska v. Bureau of Land Management (U.S. Dist.
Alaska)
• Defending 2020 NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan
(IAP) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
• National Audubon Society, et al. v. Haaland
(U.S. Dist. Alaska)
• ANWR
• Supporting 1002 Area Leasing and Challenging
Cancellations, Reduced Revenues, and Deficient
Processes
• Alaska v. U.S. (U.S. Court of Federal Claims)
• Alaska v. U.S. Dep't of Interior (U.S. Dist.
Alaska)
• Setting the Proper ANWR Boundary and Asserting
the State's Ownership
• Alaska v. U.S. Dep't of Interior (U.S. Dist.
Alaska)
• OCS
• Challenging Continental Shelf Withdrawals
• Louisiana v. Biden (U.S. Dist. W.D. La.)
• Defending 2022 Cook Inlet OCS Lease Sale
• Cook Inletkeeper, et al. v. U.S., Dep't of
Interior (U.S. Dist. Alaska)
5:04:12 PM
CHRISTOPHER ORMAN, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law
(DOL), Juneau, Alaska, moved to and narrated slide 17:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Tribal
Territorial
Jurisdiction
Alaska v. Newland
3-23-CV-00007-SLG (District Court)
Nos. 24-5280, 24-5285, 24-5461 (Appeal)
Alaska v. Department of the Interior, et al.
1:25-cv-00330-PLF (District Court)
Lands-into-Trust
• The Federal Government changed its position on
whether the Secretary has authority to take
lands-into-trust and create new Indian country in
Alaska.
• The State seeks final resolution from the courts.
• The State received a partially favorable decision
from the district court, and all parties
appealed. The appeal is pending.
Tribal Territorial Jurisdiction over Native Allotments
• For over 30 years, Interior's position was Alaska
tribes did not have territorial jurisdiction over
Alaska Native Allotments.
• In 2021, a district court in D.C. held that
interpretation was "correct."
• In 2024, Interior changed its position, and its
Solicitor concluded the district court was in
error.
• The State seeks final resolution from the courts.
• The State filed its complaint and is waiting for
the other parties to respond.
5:06:18 PM
MR. ORMAN explained that the native allotments case was closely
related to the lands-into-trust litigation. While that earlier
case was still before Judge Gleason, the Department of the
Interior issued a new "M opinion" declaring that Alaska tribes
have territorial jurisdiction over Native allotmentsa major
policy reversal after decades of the opposite understanding. He
said the shift became central to the case involving the Native
Village of Eklutna, which was pursuing a casino on the Ondola
allotment. The D.C. Circuit Court had ruled in 2021 that the
allotment was not "Indian land" under the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act, making it ineligible for gaming. However, the
current administration later reversed course, telling Eklutna
that gaming was allowed. He said the state's lawsuit seeks
clarification on this conflict, focusing on separation of powers
questionsspecifically, how much authority the executive branch
has to reinterpret or override existing court decisions through
new administrative opinions.
5:09:10 PM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G), Juneau, Alaska, emphasized that while lawsuits
against the federal government are sometimes necessary, his
department prefers to engage proactively to ensure federal
understanding of Alaska's laws, history, and scientific data on
fish and game resources. He noted that substantial resources
were invested in scientific research to support decision-making
and legal actions, which he SAID were pursued only when federal
actions conflicted with state policy or science.
5:10:04 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG moved to and narrated slide 19:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Right to Manage
• Protect Alaska's right to manage our state's fish
and game resources and their uses
• Ensure the best available information is being
used in federal permitting processes
• Challenge unnecessary and unjustified listings of
species and their critical habitats under the
Endangered Species Act
5:10:27 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG moved to slide 20 and explained that
Alaska became a state largely to secure control over its fish
and game resources. The Alaska Statehood Compact and the Alaska
Constitution, with its sustained-yield mandate, established
strong state authority, and President Eisenhower formally
transferred fish and game management to Alaska in 1959. He said
ANILCA later reaffirmed that the state retains primary
management, allowing the federal government to step in only when
rural subsistence needs weren't being met, and only to close or
restrict hunts or fisheriesnot to take over full management.
However, he noted that over time, the limited federal role
expanded into much broader federal management with the federal
government increasingly replacing the state's authority on
federal lands:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Right to Manage
• Fight for statehood was largely driven by federal
fish and game mismanagement
• Alaska's statehood compact gave us control over
fish and game
• On December 29, 1959, President Eisenhower
formally recognized the transfer of authority
over fish and game to Alaska (Executive Order
10857)
• These rights were re-affirmed with the passage of
ANILCA
BOTTOMLINE
The State is the primary manager of fish and game on
all lands throughout Alaska
5:11:37 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG moved to slide 21 and said, under
federal management, many Anchorage residents, Alaska's largest
Native community, are barred from subsistence hunting on federal
lands, despite longstanding cultural traditions. He said the
state believes subsistence priorities should be protected and
that people displaced from rural areas for economic or cultural
reasons should still be allowed to hunt. He raised concerns
about federal actions that limit access, such as de facto
wilderness designations and challenges to 17(b) easements, which
were originally meant to guarantee Alaskans continued access to
federal lands:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Right to Manage
Why is this important?
Alaskans must have the ability to access fish and game
resources without being unnecessarily restricted by
federal agencies.
5:12:51 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG moved to slide 22, Best Available
Science, ADF&G collects and utilizes sound science to inform
federal decision processes.
5:13:00 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG moved to slide 23 and explained that
when Alaska received an Endangered Species Act (ESA) petition
for Chinook salmon, the state did not immediately sue but
instead gathered scientific data and submitted a detailed report
to the federal government showing that a listing was not
scientifically justified. ADF&G also placed two state scientists
on the status review team to correct the record. He said
statehood defense funds provided part of the funding for ADF&G
to follow this same science-based approach for other species,
such as the Pacific walrus, where their data helped prevent a
federal ESA listing. The state also provided key research on
numerous other species under review and in many cases, these
efforts successfully prevented unwarranted listings:
[Original punctuation provided.]
State Science Initiatives
Inform Endangered Species Act decisions
• Gulf of Alaska Chinook listing
• Pacific walrus listing
• Other listings: small mammals, birds, insects, and
plants
• Recovery planning: wood bison, ice seals, humpback
whales
• North Pacific right whale critical habitat
5:14:53 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG moved to slide 24:
[Original punctuation provided.]
State Science Initiatives (cont.)
Inform Marine Mammals Protection Act decisions
• Polar bear Incidental Take Regulations (AOGA) and
Stock Assessment
• Harbor porpoise management
• Fur Seal Conservation Plan
5:15:01 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG moved to slide 25 and said the state
reviewed about 14 species, including Southeast Alaska wolves,
bull kelp, butterflies, bumblebees, Pacific walrus, seals,
puffins, murrelets, yellow cedar, and certain sharks. He
explained that for many of the species, federal listings would
have triggered critical habitat designations and major
restrictions. He said that by providing accurate scientific data
and collaborating early with federal agencies, ADF&G prevented
unnecessary listings and habitat designations for species that
were either not actually present in Alaska or more abundant than
previously believed:
[Original punctuation provided.]
State Science Initiatives (cont.)
In the last decade, avoided unnecessary ESA listings
for:
Wolves in Southeast Tufted puffin
Alaska Kittlitz's murrelet
Bull kelp Yellow cedar
Suckley's bumblebee Short-fin Mako
Pacific walrus shark
Lake Iliamna seals
5:15:39 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG moved to slide 26 and explained that
the state actively participated in federal regulatory processes,
especially with the Federal Subsistence Board, even though it
did not have a vote. The state provided data to prevent
unnecessary hunting closures, such as recent decisions on deer
in Southeast Alaska and caribou in Northwest Alaska and pursued
appeals before resorting to litigation. He said the state also
intervened in federal wildlife regulations when those rules
could unnecessarily restrict development. He said that for polar
bears on the North Slope, the federal government shifted from
data-based incidental take rules to broad modeling that assumed
polar bear dens could occur almost anywhere. He said ADF&G
direct observations showed most areas lacked enough snow for
dens, and they were working to correct the model so oil and gas
activity wouldn't be unduly limited. He said the state was also
working with federal agencies to secure more reasonable
incidental take rules for Cook Inlet beluga whales:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Informed Participation
Participate in the federal subsistence program
Federal Subsistence Board
Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils
Marine Mammals subsistence management
Participate in lawsuits to defend federal findings we
support
Intervention in the Polar Bear Incidental Take
Regulations suit
Cook Inlet Incidental Take Regulations suit
5:17:44 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG moved to slide 26 and explained that
the state was challenging several federal decisions. Despite an
estimated 37 million ringed seals worldwide, the National
Marine Fisheries Service listed them as threatened based on
projections 70100 years into the future due to potential
climate-change impacts and designated critical habitat. He said
the state lost its initial challenge to the listing before Judge
Gleason and was appealing. The state was told they could not
submit a delisting petition until the end of the century,
meaning the species would remain listed regardless of population
growth. He reported that the state won a major case overturning
a critical habitat designation for ringed and bearded seals that
covered an enormous area, larger than Texas, based on where
seals exist now and might exist a century from now. The court
found the designation overly broad and ordered the agency to
revisit the designation:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Challenging Decisions
Unnecessary and unjustified listings of species and
their critical habitats under the Endangered Species
Act
• GOA Chinook salmon build a strong administrative
record
• Ringed seal de-listing
• Ringed and Bearded seal critical habitat
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA) Program
• Assert and defend State authority to manage fish and
wildlife on all lands in Alaska and maintain public
access and use of federal public lands
• Actively engaged on issues to address federal
overreach
• Working with Federal agencies to ensure adherence
to ANLICA and state management
• Formally commenting on behalf of the State on
land use plans and proposed federal rules
5:18:56 PM
COMMISSIONER VINCENT-LANG moved to slide 27 and summarized
several ongoing state litigation efforts:
Arctic ringed seals: The state is challenging both the denial of
its petition to delist the species and the federal critical
habitat designations for ringed and bearded seals.
Metlakatla fishery jurisdiction: Metlakatla historically had
exclusive fishing rights only within a defined zone around the
island. Some tribal members once held state-issued permits to
fish outside that zone but later sold many of them. Metlakatla
is now suing, claiming broader tribal fishing rights beyond the
exclusive zone. The state is opposing this, arguing it would
undermine state fishery management and affect other fishermen in
state waters.
Cook Inlet salmon management: The state is challenging expanded
federal management in the EEZ area of Cook Inlet, opposing
efforts that could extend federal control into the tributaries:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Current Litigation
Challenge Finding Regarding State's Petition to Delist
Arctic Ringed Seal
Alaska v. National Marine Fisheries Service (9th
Circuit)
Challenge to Critical Habitat Designations for Arctic
Ringed Seal and Bearded Seal
Alaska v. National Marine Fisheries Service (9th
Circuit)
Metlakatla Fishing Jurisdiction
Metlakatla Indian Community v. State
Chinook Salmon & Southern Killer Whales
Wild Fish Conservancy v. Rumsey, et. al.
Upper Cook Inlet Salmon Management
United Cook Inlet Drift Association v. NMFS
5:20:29 PM
MS. MILLS moved to slide 29, SEAK Chinook Fishery Biological
Opinion, AARON PETERSON ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, and said
these slides referred to law suits already mentioned in the
presentation. She invited the committee to ask questions.
5:20:52 PM
MS. MILLS moved to and narrated slide 30:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Wild Fish
Conservancy
v. Rumsey, et. al.
No. 2:20-cv-00417
Appeal Nos. 23-35322, 23- 35323, 23-35324, 23- 35354
• In early 2020 the Wild Fish Conservancy sued the
United States, arguing that the Southeast Alaska
Chinook Biological Opinion related to Southern
Resident Killer Whales was flawed and that take of
their food (chinook salmon) was unlawful
• Alaska intervened to defend the Biological Opinion
• The court found violations of Endangered Species Act
and National Environmental Policy Act, granted the
plaintiff summary judgment, and vacated the
Biological Opinion
• Alaska petitioned the Ninth Circuit for a stay
pending appeal, which was granted, effectively
keeping the fishery open while the matter was on
appeal
• The Ninth Circuit ultimately agreed with Alaska and
reversed the District Court's remedy order
5:21:15 PM
MS. MILLS moved to slide 31, Marine Mammal Litigation, RON
OPSAHL ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL.
5:21:18 PM
MS. MILLS moved to an narrated slide 32:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Marine
Mammal
Litigation
• Challenge to negative 90-day finding regarding
State's petition to delist Arctic ringed seal
• Alaska v. National Marine Fisheries Service (9th
Circuit)
• Challenge to critical habitat designations for
Arctic ringed seal and bearded seal
• Alaska v. National Marine Fisheries Service (9th
Circuit)
5:21:29 PM
MS. MILLS moved to slide 33, Off-Reservation Fishing Rights,
CHRISTOPHER ORMAN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL.
5:21:30 PM
MS. MILLS moved to and narrated slide 34, concluding the Alaska
Statehood Defense presentation:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Metlakatla
Indian
Community v.
State of Alaska
No. 5:20-cv-00008-SLG
• In early 2020, the Metlakatla Indian Community filed
a complaint asserting that due to the 1891 Act
creating the Annette Islands Reserve, their members
hold an implied off-reservation fishing right in
fishing districts 1 and 2. They further asserted the
State of Alaska's limited entry permit program, in
place since the 1970s, violates their fishermen's
off-reservation fishing right.
• The State initially won a motion to dismiss before
the trial court.
• On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded;
instructing the trial court to determine whether the
Metlakatlans "traditionally fished" throughout
fishing districts 1 and 2.
• If the Metlakatla Indian Community is successful,
their commercial fishermen will have an economic
advantage over all other commercial fishermen in
fishing districts 1 and 2.
• The parties recently exchanged expert reports.
Trial, if needed, is scheduled for August 2025.
5:22:20 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Giessel adjourned the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 5:22 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| GaffneyCline Global LNG Market Implictions for AK.pdf |
SRES 3/5/2025 3:30:00 PM |
|
| 3.5.25 Statehood Defense Presentation.pdf |
SRES 3/5/2025 3:30:00 PM |