State Government

In Alaska, a state famous for abundant salmon and huge, cold-water-loving crab, another type of fish is making a splash: tuna.

Incursion of warm waters into Southeast Alaska coastal areas off Sitka and Baranof Island created a brief tuna jackpot earlier this month for sport fishers.

One of the first of those anglers was Troy Tydingco, who happens to be the Sitka sportfish area management biologist for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

He took a day off from work when conditions were just right to search for tuna, a type of fish suited to more southern latitudes: beautiful weather, with calm waters and water temperatures that reach 60 degrees.

About 30 miles offshore, the search was successful. Tydingco and his six companions caught 44 albacore tuna in all. Other fishers followed.

“I think this is probably the first time sport anglers have really successfully targeted them and harvested them out of Sitka,” he said.

Another successful Sitka tuna angler was Adam Olson, operations manager at the Northern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association.

What makes it fun, he said, is that it is “incredibly unique and unusual.” It is a big change for Sitka, he said. “We’re very salmon-centric here in Southeast Alaska,” he said.

Olson enjoyed eating the tuna as well as catching it, grilling it with a little salt and pepper. “It was phenomenal,” he said.

Tydingco said there is no precise count for the tuna haul. Based on anecdotal reports, social media posts and general talk around town, he estimates that there were 200 caught out of Sitka.

Anyone with a sportfishing license is allowed to harvest tuna in Alaska, as long as they use legal means. Most anglers use rod-and-reel gear that would typically be used to catch salmon. It is also legal to use a spear gun, which one man employed successfully to get a skipjack tuna in the Sitka harbor.

Commercial opportunity?

The Sitka tuna flurry generated enough interest to prompt the Department of Fish and Game to issue an advisory on Friday laying out the rules for a commercial harvest.

There is no federal fishery for tuna in Alaska, so it is up to the state to regulate catches if they occur, said Rhea Ehresmann, a Sitka-based groundfish project leader for the Department of Fish and Game.

Though no one may have tried it yet, commercial tuna fishing is legal in Alaska. There are requirements for permits, gear types and record-keeping. Trolling and jigging gear, which uses hooks to catch fish, is allowable for tuna, but nets are not.

So far, the department has issued a couple of permits to interested fishers, Ehresmann said.

Any commercial catch of tuna – whether deliberate or accidental bycatch during a harvest targeting another species —  is required to be reported to the state. There had been no such reports as of Monday, said Grant Hagerman, a Sitka-based troll management biologist for the Department of Fish and Game.

The Sitka tuna bounty may be new. But the occasional presence of tuna in Alaska waters is not.

Up to now, Prince of Wales Island, at the far southern tip of Southeast Alaska, has been the site of most of the state’s tuna fishing, Tydingco said.

There are also isolated cases of tuna catches farther north, such as a skipjack tuna fished off Yakutat in 2015.

History indicates that the presence of tuna in Alaska waters is ephemeral. They might linger for a few weeks if waters are warm enough, then swim south.

Excitement over tuna in Alaska and rumors of their appearances date back to the 1920s, according to a 1949 report by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There was a Ketchikan-based commercial harvest in 1948, though that tuna appears to have been caught off British Columbia’s Queen Charlotte Island, according to the report.

Whether tuna fishing will become a trend in Alaska is yet to be determined.

Tydingco said this year’s successes are likely to encourage more fishers to look for tuna, but that people should not count on having tuna-friendly conditions every year.

“That warm water temperature doesn’t even always make it up this far,” he said.

There are signs that Alaska will be more hospitable to tuna in the future, due to warming waters caused by climate change and other factors.

While sea surface temperatures have increased in almost all of the world’s marine areas, temperatures in the North Pacific Ocean are rising faster, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists. That includes the Gulf of Alaska, which has had recent marine heat waves.

A panel of state lawmakers voted 9-2 on Wednesday to approve spending up to $100,000 on a lawsuit against Gov. Mike Dunleavy.

The lawsuit, if filed, would challenge the governor’s decision to press ahead with plans to create a cabinet-level Alaska Department of Agriculture via executive order.

The governor issued an executive order in January, but lawmakers rejected it in a 32-28 vote in March, saying they preferred to create it through legislation instead. Creating the department through legislation, legislative leaders said, would allow lawmakers to debate and structure the department how they wish, instead of relying on the governor’s plans alone.

Dunleavy disagrees with that approach and in August filed a new executive order during a 30-day special session.

The leaders of the House and Senate refused to accept the filing, saying that it was not within the governor’s power to issue an executive order during a special session, or to reintroduce an already-rejected order.

The governor’s office has said that lawmakers’ failure to vote down the new order means that it will take effect and allow the executive branch to create the cabinet-level department at the start of 2026.

Under Article III, section 23 of the Alaska Constitution, the “legislature shall have sixty days of a regular session, or a full session if of shorter duration, to disapprove” executive orders that would make a change to the functions of the executive branch.

For almost two hours on Wednesday, members of the joint House-Senate Legislative Council — a committee that makes decisions for the Legislature when it is out of session — heard about the dispute behind closed doors, then debated it briefly in open session before voting.

“It’s a disagreement between the Legislature and the governor about whether or not the governor has the authority under the Alaska Constitution to introduce an executive order during a special session,” said Emily Nauman, director of Legislative Legal Services, the legal department for Alaska’s legislative branch.

Because the House and Senate’s presiding officers returned the order to the governor without taking action, “the governor is asserting that he will give effect to the executive order because it was not specifically rejected or disapproved by the legislature, thus causing a conflict in the interpretation of the Constitution between the Legislature and executive branch.”

Rep. Louise Stutes, R-Kodiak, voted in favor of authorizing the Legislature to prepare and, if necessary, file a pre-emptive lawsuit to keep the governor from enacting the executive order.

“It’s just a question, to me, of, we said, ‘No. Don’t you understand what no means?’”

Rep. Calvin Schrage, I-Anchorage, also voted in favor of moving forward with a lawsuit. He said that while there is still time for the governor to back away from his position, “I really see it as our prerogative to protect ourselves procedurally, and for us to do that, I believe we need to file litigation.”

The two votes against Wednesday’s proposal came from Reps. Chuck Kopp, R-Anchorage, and Mike Prax, R-North Pole.

Prax said he feels as if it could set a precedent that could allow lawmakers to disapprove of a future governor’s actions in a “more urgent” situation by simply not taking action.

“We would establish a precedent that the Legislature can do something by doing nothing, and that just does not seem like a very good practice to have established for any organization,” Prax said.

Sen. Jesse Kiehl, D-Juneau, said he doesn’t think that’s a correct interpretation of the lawsuit.

“With great respect to Representative Prax, no one is asserting here that the Legislature may act by inaction. What is before us is the question of whether the second shot at an executive order came in a way that the Constitution allows. I am convinced it did not.”

Kopp said he believes the governor may be prepared to change course on his executive action, and he’s reluctant to approve a lawsuit unless the governor attempts to take action and actually create the department.

“I would like to see us not initiate this until there’s some overt action by the administration that clearly indicates their intent to move unilaterally on this issue outside of the legislative process,” he said.

As of Friday, there was no estimate as to when a lawsuit might be filed.

Under the Alaska Constitution, the executive branch may not sue the legislative branch. Lawsuits by the Legislature against the governor are rare; this would be the fourth against Dunleavy during his two terms in office beginning in 2018.

In 2019, lawmakers sued the governor over a school funding issue. The governor won that case in the Alaska Supreme Court. The following year, legislators sued Dunleavy over their failure to consider some of his appointees during the COVID-19 pandemic emergency. The Alaska Supreme Court again ruled in Dunleavy’s favor.

In 2022, lawmakers filed a ‘friendly’ lawsuit against the governor in a dispute over the proper handling of oil and gas tax settlements. That dispute, which dates to the administration of Gov. Bill Walker, has yet to be decided by the Alaska Supreme Court.

Industry leaders say a “renaissance” is underway on the North Slope. Major projects are well on their way to production, and oil companies say they’re planning to expand even further, helping to reverse a long-running decline in production in the Arctic.

Construction is well underway on high-profile oil development projects like ConocoPhillips’ Willow and Santos and Repsol’s Pikka. Both of those stand to substantially boost the amount of oil flowing south.

At the Alaska Oil and Gas Association’s annual conference last month, ConocoPhillips’ Donald Allan said Willow remains on track to start production in 2029.

“It’s a super exciting time for Alaska,” he said. “We have big projects happening right now. We have a whole new play ramping up, and there’s more to come with our exploration season and future projects.”

Meanwhile, Santos VP of Business Development Peter Laliberte shared the news that the Pikka project is running months ahead of schedule and is more than 90% complete. It’s on track to produce its first barrel of oil in the first quarter of next year, he said.

“Once we start up, we’ll ramp up about mid-year,” he said. “We’ll ramp up to 80,000 barrels a day, and by then, we’re going to be looking on for the next project.”

An additional 80,000 barrels a day would boost North Slope production by nearly 20% from where it is right now.

What does that mean for the state’s economy — and the state’s stretched budget?

“I look at it as all positive,” said Sitka Republican state Sen. Bert Stedman, one of the top budgeters in the state Legislature. “Quite frankly, this is just the beginning. There’s going to be probably a decade of build-out going on on the Slope.”

It’s a boon for the economy, he said, and a welcome source of relief for the state budget. Pikka — which, importantly, is on state-owned land, and thus generates more state revenue than projects on federal land — is likely to yield more than $200 million for the state in its first year, according to an analysis from the state revenue department.

That’s a significant, though not life-changing, chunk of change for the state, Stedman said. For comparison, the education funding boost lawmakers approved this session cost about $170 million.

“It’s not going to be, you know, you’re in euphoria because you have massive surpluses in your budget or anything like that, but it’s definitely positive,” he said. “You want to take multiple steps like this forward, then they all add up to definitely helping the state balance its budget.”

Higher-than-expected oil prices are also providing a lift to the budget, he said.

Sen. Bill Wielechowski, an Anchorage Democrat, said the surge in North Slope activity is, indeed, good news. But not as good as it could be.

“Absolutely, $200 million, of course, happy to see it. It will help the budget,” he said. “But when you compare it to what other jurisdictions are getting, it is nowhere near what we should be getting.”

He pointed to oil-producing states like Texas and North Dakota, which have substantially higher tax and royalty rates than Alaska. Of course, the fact that most of Alaska’s oil comes from the remote North Slope, where costs are high, complicates the picture.

“We can’t even afford to fund our schools. We’ve got schools falling in the ocean. We’ve got communities that still have honey buckets. We can’t maintain our roads, we can’t plow our roads,” he said. “We have colossally mismanaged our oil wealth in the state of Alaska.”

Wielechowski said lawmakers should make changes to the state’s tax and royalty system to take advantage of the surge in activity. For one thing, he said he’d like to prevent companies from deducting investments on federal land — like Willow — from the state taxes they owe on other projects. State revenue officials recently cut the state’s projected income from Willow by half.

“Why should we subsidize that?” he said. “Why should the state of Alaska be subsidizing hundreds of millions to billions of dollars for production, for exploration costs, drilling costs, for which we get zero royalties, for which we get very little in production taxes?”

Wielechowski has backed a number of bills that would stiffen the state’s oil and gas taxes, though they have yet to advance to a final vote.

Listen to this story:

Juneau might lose its ability to say that its electricity is created entirely by renewable hydropower if the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, or AIDEA, prevails in a lawsuit over the ownership and sale of renewable energy credits created by the Snettisham Hydroelectric Project, which currently supplies two-thirds of Juneau’s electricity.

Renewable energy credits, known as RECs, are much like carbon credits. Utilities that burn fossil fuels can buy them to say they’re powered by renewable energy, allowing them to claim carbon emissions reductions.

But, once sold, the utility that generates the renewable power — in this case Alaska Electric Light & Power, or AEL&P — could no longer claim it produces entirely renewable energy. The City & Borough of Juneau, along with businesses and nonprofits that use this power, would lose the claim too.

Randy Ruaro, the executive director at AIDEA, said selling the credits is a way for the state to make money.

“Frankly, it was an oversight, I guess, by previous AIDEA staff and employees to recognize that this opportunity was out there,” he said. “But once it came to our attention, we’re obligated to take steps to create and generate revenue for AIDEA and for the state of Alaska treasury.”

Exactly how much revenue the agency could make is unclear. On the open market, RECs are priced at anywhere from $1 to $700 per megawatt hour. Snettisham produces roughly 281,000 megawatt hours annually and AEL&P estimates the credits would sell for between $281,000 and $421,500.

Although the dispute comes down to who gets to say what — in essence, a matter of reputation — the impact of selling the credits could be financially detrimental for those who use the claim in Juneau.

Steve Behnke is a founding board member of Alaska Heat Smart, a nonprofit that installs heat pumps in homes across coastal Alaska. He also leads Renewable Juneau, a nonprofit that advocates for clean energy.

“Renewable Juneau and Alaska Heat Smart have created the Alaska Carbon Reduction Fund, which raises money by saying that we’re using this nice clean hydroelectricity, a renewable resource, to put heat pumps in low-income Juneau homes, saving them 50% on their heating bills, and demonstrating a reduction in carbon emissions,” he said.

He says the fund relies on individuals and companies contributing to offset their carbon emissions.

Alaska Heat Smart is also rolling out a program to install 6,000 heat pumps funded by a $38.6 million dollar federal grant. Behnke said that if AIDEA is allowed to sell the credits outside of Juneau, then local nonprofits would lose their claim to renewable power, making them less competitive in seeking grants that score project applications based on clean energy.

Robert Barr, Juneau’s deputy city manager, echoed Behnke’s concern.

“I certainly understand (AIDEA) wanting to bolster their bottom line, but in this case, they’re doing that at our expense, and that is certainly frustrating,” Barr said.

Barr called the sales proposal short-sighted and said AIDEA didn’t consult with the city before starting the process.

Greens Creek Mine, the largest silver mine in the country that’s located near Juneau on Admiralty Island, runs partially on surplus hydropower supplied by Snettisham through an agreement with AEL&P. Hecla, the company that owns the mine, claimed a 38% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions between 2019 and 2024. Last week, Hecla filed a complaint against AIDEA, asking the Regulatory Commission of Alaska to determine that AIDEA doesn’t own the renewable energy credits and therefore can’t sell them.

On Thursday, AEL&P filed a lawsuit against AIDEA alleging the same thing. Although AIDEA owns the Snettisham Hydroelectric Project, it long ago sold the power generation rights to AEL&P.

In the court filing, AEL&P asserts that any renewable energy credits created at Snettisham should belong to the utility, not AIDEA.

Most states have laws governing how renewable energy credits are created, traced and transferred. The Alaska Legislature considered a bill a few years ago that would have done that, but it didn’t make it out of committee, leaving it unclear how renewable energy credits work here.

Alec Mesdag, the CEO of AEL&P, said the utility looked into the credits a while ago and decided not to pursue selling them.

“It’s been something that has just provided substantially more value than what we would obtain by selling the RECs to someone who doesn’t live here at all,” he said.

Mesdag said the credits make more sense for energy grids that have a mix of power generation. Utilities buy and sell them to meet renewable portfolio standards set by state laws — but Alaska doesn’t have one of those laws either.

Now it’s up to the Alaska Superior Court to decide whether Juneau’s only operating electric utility owns the renewable energy credits that until now, local businesses and nonprofits believed they could claim. The court issued a temporary restraining order on Friday preventing the sale of RECs until the issue can be discussed in court. A hearing will be held Sept. 18.

Correction: This story has been updated to better distinguish between two separate heat pump installation programs. 

An Anchorage Superior Court judge’s ruling has cleared the way for the state of Alaska to repeal its “80th Percentile Rule,” enacted by the state in 2004 as part of an attempt to reduce health care costs in the state.

The Dunleavy administration repealed the rule in 2024, saying it was counterproductive and argued it contributed to higher health care costs. Medical providers say that isn’t true and that repealing the rule will cause some clinicians to close down.

In 2023, a group of medical providers sued the state, alleging problems with the process used to repeal the rule. On Aug. 27, following a four-day bench trial in February, Judge Yvonne Lamoureaux ruled in favor of the state.

In her findings of fact and conclusions of law, Lamoureaux concluded that the repeal was not “unreasonable or arbitrary,” and the state did not conduct an improper procedure.

An appeal to the Alaska Supreme Court is possible.

When in place, the rule required that insurance companies reimburse out-of-network medical providers at a rate equal to the 80th percentile of charges for the given service.

If five clinics provide a given procedure, the required payment would be what the second-most-expensive clinic charges.

The rule was intended to prevent Alaskans from being left with large medical bills after visiting out-of-network clinics. The state and Alaska’s largest health insurance company, Premera Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alaska, contend that it required insurance companies to pay more for services than was warranted, contributing to higher insurance costs.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Bernadette Wilson announced Tuesday that state Senate Minority Leader Mike Shower, a Wasilla Republican, would join her ticket as her pick for lieutenant governor.

Shower is a conservative who has served in the state Senate since 2018. He’s a commercial cargo pilot and retired Air Force officer. He has focused some of his legislative work on election security, though his reforms have largely failed to find support in the state Legislature.

Wilson highlighted that work in a statement, calling him a “deeply respected conservative leader.” If elected, Shower would be responsible for administering state election laws and appointing the director of the Division of Elections.

In a statement, Shower called Wilson “the clear choice to be Alaska’s next Governor.”

Wilson is a business owner, conservative activist and former talk radio host. She has never held elected office and pitches herself as an outsider.