April 15, 2026 hrh

“I believe this is a defining question for many of us, who, I think, recognize that our state has moved past looking for the fiscal cliff and is now out beyond it,” said Rep. Ky Holland, an independent from Anchorage. “It’s now time for us to decide, are we willing to take some difficult votes and take some difficult action?”

This week, I voted in support of HB 194—the oil and gas S-Corp tax bill, as amended by the Senate.

The bill ultimately failed, and I was in the minority on that vote. But I want to explain why I supported it—and where I think we go from here.

For those following the coverage, here are a couple of the reports on the vote:

• Alaska Public Media – Alaska House rejects Senate effort to impose corporate taxes on Hilcorp
  Alaska Public Media | By Eric Stone
• ADN – House rejects measure to apply corporate income tax to Hilcorp, other private oil outfits by Alex DeMarban
• ADN – Opinion: I voted no on the corporate income tax bill. Here’s why that matters for Alaska. by Representative Carolyn Hall

What HB 194 Was—and Wasn’t

HB 194 aimed to close a long-debated gap in Alaska’s tax structure related to S-Corporations (LLC and Partnerships) in the oil and gas sector. In simple terms, it would have required profitable oil and gas companies organized as pass-through corporations to pay the same corporate income taxes as any Alaskan C-Corporation.

This issue has been discussed for years. The policy itself is not new or untested—it has been reviewed repeatedly through prior Alaska bills and proposals. Its also now a policy in various forms in 35 other states.

At the same time, the concerns raised by my colleagues were valid:

• Rep. Hall highlighted that the path forward proposed by HB 194 was incomplete and needed a broader, more durable policy design.
• Rep. Galvin and others pointed out that fairness suggests applying this more broadly beyond a narrow group of companies.

I agree with both.

Why This Is About Fairness—Not Targeting

Let me be clear about something important.

This is not about targeting any one company.

Companies like Hilcorp are already making significant contributions to Alaska. They pay substantial production and property taxes. They produce royalty oil that generates revenue for the state. And they have been strong supporters of communities through philanthropic efforts. And, I recognize that many of their valued employees live in my district.

Those contributions matter—and they should be recognized.

At the same time, any company operating at this scale in Alaska—including Hilcorp—should be deeply invested in helping solve our long-term fiscal challenges. The roads their employees travel, the schools their workforce’s families depend on, and the communities they operate in should meet the highest standards.

This conversation is about consistency and fairness.

If most large oil and gas producers pay corporate income taxes, then similar companies—regardless of how they are structured—should be treated the same way. They should also receive the same credits and tax provisions as others.

Fair is fair.

Why I Voted Yes Anyway

Even with its limitations, I supported HB 194 because it represented movement.

For too long, Alaska has been stuck in a pattern: we reject incremental steps because they don’t solve everything. The result? We solve nothing.

Closing the S-Corp gap was not a complete fiscal plan. But it could have been one step—an imperfect but necessary step—toward addressing what many have called the “Alaska Disconnect.” It would have been a first step toward taking control of our future with purpose, rather than relying on hope for a market miracle.

Right now, our state budget relies on:

• Drawing down savings (Over $20Billion!)
• Reducing Permanent Fund Dividends (PFDs)
• And a bit of luck with oil prices

That’s not a strategy. It’s a stopgap.

The Cost of Doing Nothing

Over the past decade, we’ve cut deeply into public services in the name of fiscal restraint. But those cuts haven’t come without consequence.

We’ve lost more than 34,000 working-age Alaskans—people who left in search of better opportunities elsewhere.

That loss has real impacts:

• A smaller workforce
• Slower economic growth
• Reduced long-term revenue

In other words, what looked like savings has often turned into greater costs.

My Priorities

I take responsibility for my vote—and for the direction I believe Alaska needs to take.

My priorities remain clear:

• Support strong, stable education funding
• Invest in long-term economic development
• Create the conditions to bring Alaskans back—and keep them here

Those goals require a functioning fiscal plan. And a functioning fiscal plan requires us to be willing to take steps—even when those steps are not perfect.

So Now What?

With the defeat of HB 194, we are left where we’ve been for too long: without action.

And that’s not why I’m in Juneau.

A Question We Can’t Avoid

During the debate, I asked a simple question:

“Are we willing to begin looking at our fiscal cliff and do something about it?”

That question still stands.

Alaska doesn’t need perfection to move forward.
But we do need the willingness to start.

Ky