Web Note No. 14

In fiscal year 2014, Alaska’s state government can afford to spend about $5.5 billion. That’s an estimate of the level of Unrestricted General Fund spending the state can sustain over the long run, based on the current petroleum nest egg of about$149 billion—a combination of state financial assets (the Permanent Fund and cash reserves) and the value of petroleum still in the ground. The size of that nest egg fluctuates, depending on the state’s forecast of petroleum revenues, earnings on investments, and other factors. This Web Note presents the latest in a series of estimates of the maximum amount the state can spend and still stay on a sustainable budget path.Northrim Bank

High Oil Prices Give Alaskans a Second Chance: How Will We Use this Opportunity?

Think about this: 10 years ago, it looked as if Alaska was on the brink of a tough transition to a post-Prudhoe Bay economy. Oil production was half of what it had once been, the state’s oil revenues were about $2 billion, financial reserves were falling, and employment in the oil industry was down. The price of Alaska oil, adjusted to today’s buying power, was$27 a barrel—and that was high by historical standards. Things have changed dramatically since then: a combination of much higher oil prices—about $115 a barrel as this paper is being written—and revisions in the way the state calculates production taxes have caused state oil revenues to skyrocket, even though oil production is down 40% since 2002. We now find ourselves in a second huge oil-revenue boom, comparable to the one in the early 1980s (Figure 1 ).Northrim Ban

Oil Pumps Alaska's Economy to Twice the Size - But What's Ahead?

Oil money has driven most of the growth and paid for state government operations in Alaska for 40 years. We’ve all gotten used to that money, so it’s easy to underestimate how much of the state’s prosperity is built on oil. Think about this: without oil, the economy today would be only half the size. But now times are changing. The North Slope is producing just a third the oil it once did—and there’s a danger Alaskans will assume the state can keep going the way it is, without future oil development. Not true.Northrim Bank

Web Note No. 9

In 2008 the Alaska Legislature passed and the governor signed into law a bill requiring the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to prepare an annual state fiscal plan projecting state spending for 10 years and identifying the revenue sources to pay for that spending. One objective of the law was to get government and the general public thinking, discussing, and planning for the long-term fiscal health of the state in light of declining oil production. These plans have not attracted the attention they deserve. In this Web Note we review the most recent fiscal year 2012 10-year plan and offer suggestions for improvement.Northrim Bank

The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend: A Case Study in the Direct Distribution of Resource Rent

The Alaska Permanent Fund is a sovereign wealth fund of the state of Alaska established in 1976 by a vote of the people to preserve part of the revenues from current oil production for future generations. Twenty percent of direct petroleum revenues have been deposited into the fund which now has a balance of $32 billion. Over its life it has generated nominal earnings of$35 billion. The successes of the fun in saving a share of the Alaska petroleum windfall and generating income are due to several factors. The boom-bust economic history of the state has been a reminder of the need to actively manage public resources. Fund management is independent of general government finances and extremely transparent. It invests to maximize long run income. In addition, the modest share of petroleum revenues set aside in the fund has left enough available for the state to expand public spending, including the establishment of a number of programs designed to strengthen the economy in recognition of the non sustainability of the petroleum sector. Since these public programs benefit particular segments of the population, the Alaska Permanent Fund dividend program was created in 1982 to provide an annual unconditional direct cash distribution to all Alaska residents. The dividend was felt to be the most equitable way to distribute a share of the public wealth of the state to the entire population. Since the inception of the program, the dividend has been paid each year. About half of Permanent Fund earnings have been allocated to the dividend program and the rest to increasing the balance in the fund. The size of the dividend has increased as the fund has grown, but it fluctuates considerably because fund earnings change from year to year. In 2010 the dividend payment was $1,281 which augmented per capita income by 3 percent. The dividend program has become extremely popular since most Alaskans feel that individuals can benefit more from deciding themselves how to spend at least a portion of the public wealth rather than allowing the government to decide on their behalf. However a minority of the population feels the dividend fosters an attitude of consumerism and leads to underinvestment. And although the dividend has created a strong constituency defending the Alaska Permanent Fund, which many feel is the main reason for the success of the fund, there is concern that the dividend will prevent the fund from being used for its ultimate purpose which is to help support the economy after petroleum production ends. Beyond its obvious positive impact on aggregate income, employment and population, little analysis has been done of other economic, social, and political effects of the dividend program. Because the dividend is not viewed as a policy to improve social welfare, but rather as a means to share public wealth equitably, interest in these other potential effects has been limited.The Revenue Watch Institut

Annual Report for the Construction Industry Progress Fund and the Associated General Contractors of Alaska

The Construction Industry Progress Fund (CIPF) and the Associated General Contractors (AGC) of Alaska are pleased to have produced another edition of “Alaska’s Construction Spending Forecast.” Compiled and written by Scott Goldsmith and Mouhcine Guettabi of the University of Alaska’s Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER), the “Forecast” reviews construction activity, projects and spending by both the private and public sectors for the year ahead. The construction trade is Alaska’s third largest industry, paying the second highest wages, employing nearly 16,000 workers with a payroll over $1 billion. It accounts for 20 percent of Alaska’s total economy and currently contributes approximately$8 billion to the state’s economy. The construction industry reflects the pulse of the economy. When it is vigorous, so is the state’s economy. Both CIPF and AGC are proud to make this publication available annually and hope it provides useful information for you. AGC is a non-profit, full service construction association for commercial and industrial contractors, subcontractors and associates. CIPF is organized to advance the interests of the construction industry throughout the state of Alaska through a management and labor partnership.Northrim Bank. The Associated General Contractors of Alaska. The Construction Industry Progress Fund

2010 Alaska's Construction Spending Forecast

The total value of construction spending “on the street” in Alaska in 2010 will be $7.0 billion, down 3from 2009.1,2,3 Wage and salary employment in the construction industry will continue the slow decline which began in 2006, but the level remains above the long-term average for the industry. Excluding the oil and gas sector—which accounts for 43spending will be$4.0 billion— down 4% from 2009. Private-sector construction spending will be down only 1% from 2009, to $4.4 billion, in spite of the slowdown in the Alaska economy. Oil and gas sector spending will be flat. Spending will increase in the utilities and hospitals4 categories but will decline in mining, residential, other commercial, and the other rural basic sector categories. Public construction spending will be down 5to$2.6 billion, in spite of the infusion of cash from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Although some categories of federal spending will be higher, many will be lower and state spending will also be lower because of the lean FY 2010 capital budget. Uncertainty in this year’s forecast comes from several sources. As we start 2010 there is no clear indication if the national economy is starting to recover from the recession, and if it does, how strong that recovery will be. Although Alaska has been insulated from the worst effects of the recession—the crash in the housing market, high unemployment, and lack of credit—concerns about the national recovery will continue to influence investment decisions in the state, particularly in the commercial and residential markets. Local government capital spending is also vulnerable to reductions in tax revenues from activities, like tourism, driven by the national economy. The passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in early 2009 has provided an important boost to construction spending this year. A second stimulus may be undertaken later this year, but it is too soon to speculate on how that might impact construction spending, so we assume no further federal action. The Alaska economy contracted in 2009 for the first time in 22 years—but the reduction in employment was only about 1%. Forecasts for Alaska’s economy in 2010 vary from further moderate declines in employment to a resumption of growth. This difference of opinion underscores the sense of caution in the business community about the near-term prospects for the economy. As the year begins, petroleum and precious metal (gold and silver) prices are strong and rising, and base metal prices (zinc) have rebounded from the lows of last year. Petroleum and mining capital budgets are particularly sensitive to these prices, which are likely to continue to fluctuate throughout the year. We assume these prices remain strong throughout the year.Construction Industry Progress Fund. Associated General Contractors of Alaska

Propane from the North Slope: Could It Reduce Energy Costs in the Interior?

Could propane from the North Slope cut energy costs in Fairbanks and other Interior communities that heat buildings or generate electricity with fuel oil or naphtha? The Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority (ANGDA) thinks it could. That’s because a North Slope producer has agreed to sell ANGDA propane for considerably less than what it might otherwise cost, if there were a natural gas pipeline. Propane is a component of North Slope natural gas—and right now there’s no way to get that gas to market.* Naphtha and fuel oil, by comparison, are refined from oil—so their prices are closely tied to the volatile price of crude oil. ANGDA hopes getting a price break on propane could make it cheaper, at least until a pipeline is built—and it asked ISER to analyze the potential effects of one idea.Alaska Natural Gas Development Authorit