Dividends and spending While the Permanent Fund generally generated large surpluses even after payment of the Dividend [PFD], the state general fund operated at a substantial deficit. However, the consolidated account of both General and Permanent Funds usually shows a surplus. The Funds' ultimate uses were never clearly spelled out at its inception, leaving no current consensus over what role Fund earning should play in the current and expected state budget shortfalls. However, some people argue that the original intent was to fund state government after the temporary oil riches ceased, while others note that the Fund's intent changed from its 1976 origin when in 1982 the Dividend program began. Public opinion strongly favors the Dividend program. Indeed, in 1999, with oil prices going as low as $9 per barrel and Alaska's oil consultant Daniel Yergin forecasting low prices "for the foreseeable future", the State put an advisory vote before Alaskans, asking if government could spend "some" part of Permanent Fund earning for government purposes. Gov. Knowles, Lt. Gov. Ulmer, and many other elected officials urged a "yes" vote. Campaign spending greatly favored the "yes" side. Despite this, the public voted "no" by nearly 84%. (Oil prices rose dramatically, starting about two weeks after Yergin's prediction, to above $60 per barrel, though the quantity produced continues to fall.) Perceived support of the dividend program is so universally strong that it ensures the dividend's continuity and the protection of the Fund's principal, since any measure characterized as negatively impacting dividend payouts represents a loss to the entire populace. That is, legislators willing to appropriate the Fund's annual earnings are constrained by the high political costs of any measures leading to a decrease in the public's dividend.
Percent of Market Value (POMV) proposal In 2000, the APFC Board of Trustees proposed changing the Permanent Fund's management system to a
Percent of Market Value (PoMV) approach which would require an amendment to the state constitution. The PoMV proposal would limit withdrawals to five percent of the fund's value each year, to be spent at the discretion of the Legislature. Currently the Legislature has authority to appropriate all of the fund's realized earnings. Tentative, unapproved proposals indicate that half of this five percent withdrawal would go to the dividend and half to government spending—but POMV died in the Legislature because most there saw POMV as unambiguously tied to such politically unpopular spending proposals. Most Alaskans (84% in 1999) disapprove of allowing the
government to tamper with the fund, especially if that means government might spend Fund income. Again in 2015–2017, a POMV approach was considered. The market price for North Slope oil fell from an average $107.57 per barrel in FY2014 to $50.05 per barrel in FY2017. This price shift caused an 80 percent decline in state revenue and resulted in a multibillion-dollar budget gap. Both bodies of the legislature have passed a bill that provides for an annual draw of 5.25% of the average balance of the Permanent Fund (average of the first 5 of the last six years). Since the formula is based on an average, rather than a single year, the effective draw is only about 4.2%—enough to preserve the real value of the fund considering that the fund has returned close to 9% annually. The legislature carefully vetted this percentage over the course of two sessions and has come to a consensus. This draw is projected to produce $2.7 billion in FY2019 and grow with the balance of the Permanent Fund. The major point of disagreement, however, is the size of the dividend: The House of Representatives version of the bill uses 5.25% draw for government (33% for Dividends and 67% for government services) and an additional 0.25% draw for Permanent Fund inflation proofing. This produces $2.7 billion ($1.8 billion for government use, net of a $900.9 million dividend—about $1,250.00 per Alaskan—growing with the value of the fund). The Senate version of the bill uses the same 5.25% draw as the House, but directs only 25% of the draw to dividends. This produces the same $2.7 billion but government services receive $2.0 billion while the dividend receives just under $700 million—about $1,000.00 per person—growing with the value of the fund. Oil revenues are forecast (by the state Department of Revenue) to remain stagnant through FY2027, and traditional budget reserves may be empty by FY2019 but with a Permanent Fund value in excess of $60.0 billion, the budget gap can be reduced significantly. Since this POMV proposal does not close the gap entirely, members of the legislature are considering a tax bill as well.
Wielechowski Lawsuit In 2016, Alaska State
Senator Bill Wielechowski, alongside former senators Rick Halford and
Clem Tillion, filed a lawsuit against the State of Alaska, challenging
Governor Bill Walker's veto that reduced the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) payments. The plaintiffs argued that the governor's veto violated existing statutes governing the PFD, which mandated automatic transfers from the Permanent Fund's earnings reserve to the dividend fund without requiring legislative appropriation. However, the
Alaska Supreme Court upheld the governor's veto, ruling that the transfer of funds for dividend payments required legislative appropriation and was subject to the governor's veto power. This lawsuit effectively placed the PFD in direct competition with other state budgetary items, as its funding became contingent upon annual legislative appropriations rather than automatic transfers. == Impact ==