Ky Holland June 30, 2026

The Legislature had been scheduled to return to Juneau on July 1 to consider the conference committee’s work on HB 381. Because the committee is not yet ready with a proposal, that meeting has been postponed until July 16. A technical session will still occur tomorrow, but legislators are not required to attend.

You can follow the conference committee here:
https://www.akleg.gov/basis/Committee/Details/34?code=HHB381

The page includes meeting recordings, and documents. There are no additional meetings scheduled at the moment, but I expect more meetings will be posted as negotiations continue. Much of the current discussion has centered on the S corporation tax provisions that the Senate added to the House bill.

Some of the most significant information actually came out during recent Senate Finance hearings, including:

• The existence of a confidential agreement governing how Glenfarne would be compensated if the state sought to regain its 75% ownership interest.
• Confirmation that Glenfarne shifted from pursuing federal financing and loan guarantees to private financing. I suspect that change is a major reason the project is now seeking additional property tax relief, since private financing could increase financing costs by roughly 2% per year—about $1 billion annually on a $50 billion project, and that is how much the new tax breaks are worth.
• Clarification that the state’s 25% interest in 8 Star Alaska does not automatically provide ownership in the operating subsidiaries where the project revenues are expected to be earned. As I currently understand it, the state would need to make additional investments to participate in those revenues.

The message I’ve heard most consistently from constituents is clear: people want to see the pipeline built—especially if it helps address Alaska’s long-term revenue and natural gas needs—but they also want to ensure public support and tax incentives are provided only to the degree they are truly necessary.

My current thinking is:

• Support a project that is validated by binding LNG export commitments and necessary investment, rather than relying primarily on Alaska’s relatively small in-state demand for phase 1 only development, and hope of later investment for the completion of the export project when we see the affordable gas.
• Ensure the state has a plan to cover construction impacts and any reduction in General Fund revenue before phase 2 is generating revenue. We cannot continue cutting essential services like education to offset project costs.
• Do more to help Alaska businesses—not just Alaska workers—compete for project opportunities so more of the economic benefits stay in our state.
• Improve transparency around confidential agreements. While some business terms may need to remain confidential, legislators and the public should at least know that agreements exist and understand when they could be affected by legislation. We should not be making major policy decisions without knowing what agreements are in place.

I’d appreciate hearing your thoughts. What are your priorities for the gasline project, and what issues do you think the Legislature should be focused on as negotiations continue?

Thank you,

Ky Holland
Representative, House District 9