A recent piece by Dana Raffaniello claims the legislature was “recruited” into a federal scheme, that HB 50 hands Alaska’s geology to outsiders for a $2.50 royalty, and that we “passed a scam.”

Those are serious claims. They ought to match the actual record. They don’t.

I voted to move HB 50 out of House Resources in March 2023 and voted yes on final passage in April 2024. I’ve said before I don’t like 45Q on its merits. But that doesn’t change the system we’re operating in. If we’re going to debate this bill almost two years later, we should at least stick to the version that actually passed.

The Numbers Are Wrong

Raffaniello and others say Alaska collects a $2.50 per ton royalty under HB 50. That part is true. But it is not the whole picture, and leaving out the rest gives a misleading impression of what the bill actually does.

Yes, the statute sets a $2.50 floor, with inflation adjustments over time. But that charge is treated as a royalty, and half of every dollar goes straight into the Permanent Fund. That matters. This is revenue that benefits Alaskans.

There is another piece missing. The bill makes clear that operators cannot use the federal 45Q credit to reduce their Alaska corporate income tax. They do not get to take a federal credit and then turn around and zero out what they owe the state.

So yes, the $2.50 number is in the law. But stopping there leaves out how the system actually works. The structure matters, and it was written to make sure Alaska gets its share.

That is not a small difference. On a project capturing a couple million tons a year, that means tens of millions more to the state every year, and hundreds of millions over the life of the project. If you are still citing $2.50 by itself in 2026, you are not describing the bill we passed.

Same problem with the vote count. A “37–3 Senate vote” is impossible. The Senate has 20 members. The 37–3 vote was House concurrence on the last day. Senate passage was 18–2. House passage was 32–8. These numbers are public. They’re easy to find. If the argument is that the legislature didn’t do its homework, the writer ought to do his.

HB 50 Is Bigger Than Carbon Storage

Carbon storage gets the headlines, but it’s not the whole bill.

HB 50 also covers LNG import facilities, reserve-based lending through AIDEA for Cook Inlet, production tax treatment for carbon capture, DEC jurisdiction over CO₂ pipelines, and updates to geothermal authority.

This is a long-term energy framework. Carbon storage is a big part of it, but it’s not a one-issue bill and it never was.

Why AKLNG Doesn’t Move Without It

Projects like an Alaska gasline don’t get built in a vacuum.

If Alaska wants to move North Slope gas, the CO₂ has to be dealt with. That’s just reality, technically and financially. Buyers and investors expect a plan for it, whether we like it or not.

That wasn’t hidden during session. Dan Sullivan has pointed to Alaska’s carbon storage potential as part of the project’s value. Rep. Tom McKay said on the House floor that HB 50 was important to getting a gasline built for that exact reason. Turns out he was right.

I’ve said before: 45Q is the toll to access private capital in a system already shaped by federal policy and ESG pressure. We can argue about that, but it doesn’t change where we are today.

Without HB 50, there’s no clear state framework for carbon storage tied to 45Q. No path for projects like Terra Energy Center to qualify. No reserves-based lending authority for AIDEA in this space. No real foundation for the carbon side of the AKLNG conversation.

That doesn’t get us a better deal. It gets us no project.

Capital will go where the rules are already in place such as North Dakota, Wyoming, Louisiana. We’ve seen that happen before.

Where the Critique Has a Point

There is one issue worth taking seriously: the closure trust fund.

The fund is set up with initial contributions and inflation adjustments, but the monitoring obligation doesn’t go away. DNR’s fiscal note ended up indeterminate late in the process. That’s not something to ignore.

If there’s a fix to make next session, this is it. Require an actuarial standard so the fund is actually sized to the obligation before a project fully closes out.

That’s a reasonable safeguard. It strengthens the bill. It doesn’t stop projects from moving forward.

The Honest Accounting

Alaska without HB 50 isn’t Alaska protected from bad policy. It’s Alaska without the tools to move these projects at all, no framework for carbon storage, no support for Cook Inlet, and no credible path on the carbon side of a gasline, thus likely no financing for any projects and limited customers both of whom insist on some sort of Carbon Cap

With HB 50, we have a higher royalty floor than the early drafts, revenue flowing to the Alaska Permanent Fund, and a framework that lets Alaska compete for investment instead of watching it go somewhere else.

Is it perfect? No.

But the idea that legislature somehow sleepwalked through this is patently ridiculous. We worked it. We changed it. We made it better before it passed. A simple jaunt through the bill packet on AKLEG should tell anyone who actually does the research that.

Repeal doesn’t fix anything. If there are improvements to make, we should make them.

Alaska is better off with HB 50 than without it. Now the job is to make it work and make it better.