the account | alaska.city

As of August 11, 2026 / provisional public-interest model / not a State of Alaska record

How the account begins.

Alaska created a Permanent Fund, then a dividend program with a statutory calculation. Beginning in 2016, the amount distributed diverged from that calculation. The record below separates what was written, what was paid, what officials proposed restoring, and what alaska.city models afterward.

written: statutes, enacted structures, and official formula references
paid: the amount actually distributed to eligible Alaskans
promised: an explicit official proposal to restore prior differences
modeled: alaska.city's separate counterfactual calculation

1976
documented · constitution

the fund
Alaskans amended the state constitution to place a share of mineral revenues into a permanent fund whose principal would be invested rather than spent. The idea was intergenerational: turn a finite resource into lasting financial value.
APFC · history of the Fund
1982
documented · dividend

the dividend
The first statewide dividend under the revised program was distributed in 1982. For decades the program used a statutory structure tying the amount available for dividends to Permanent Fund earnings and the number of eligible recipients.
five years of Fund earningsstatutory calculationdividend fundeligible Alaskans
APFC · 1980–1982 history · Wielechowski v. State · formula and appropriation history
2016
documented · payment

the break
For the 2016 dividend, the legislature appropriated an amount consistent with the longstanding statutory calculation. Governor Bill Walker reduced the appropriation by line-item veto. The legislature did not override it.
written reference$2,083
paid$1,022
difference$1,061
The calculation remained in statute. The amount distributed changed.
Wielechowski v. State · Opinion No. 7194
2017
documented · ruling

the ruling
The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the 2016 reduction on constitutional budget grounds. It held that use of Permanent Fund income remains subject to the normal appropriation and gubernatorial-veto process. The opinion described the statutory calculation but held that it did not itself remove the need for an appropriation.
This distinction is the legal boundary of the account: a statutory reference can be documented without describing the difference as a court-recognized debt.
Wielechowski v. State · 403 P.3d 1141
2018
documented · framework

the Fund changes too
SB 26 added a percent-of-market-value draw from the Permanent Fund earnings reserve to the state's broader fiscal framework. That matters because the post-2016 story is not simply one frozen 1980s mechanism running untouched. The dividend calculation remained a statutory reference while the way Alaska used Fund earnings was changing around it.
Alaska Legislature · SB 26 · Chapter 16 SLA 2018
2016–18
documented · differences

three years
The Dunleavy administration later published the historic-calculation differences for the first three reduced dividends:
2016$1,061
2017$1,289
2018$1,328
nominal difference$3,678
Office of the Governor · 2019 back-pay announcement
2019
documented · proposal

the promise
Governor Mike Dunleavy proposed legislation to repay those three differences over three years. His administration described them as unpaid dividends, published the same $3,678 total, and said the PFD should be "restored and repaid." That is an official executive position and proposal, not a court judgment.
proposed back pay$3,678
The proposal did not become a completed repayment.
Office of the Governor · January 17, 2019

Provisional modeled total $29,231.35

Model for one Alaskan eligible from 2016 through 2025, carried using APFC Total Fund performance, plus the signed 2026 package.

The 2026 package is $1,200: $1,000 PFD plus $200 energy. It remains revenue-dependent. Values are U.S. dollars, not a personal balance, state liability, legal judgment, guaranteed return, security, entitlement, or financial offer.

Historical principal difference: $17,670.00
Fund-linked modeled growth: + $9,111.35
Historical modeled value: $26,781.35
Provisional 2026 difference: + $2,450.00

The account can be recalculated.

October 1Assumed credit date
APFC Total FundSourced annual series
June 30, 2026Reporting cutoff

Each difference is credited October 1 of its distribution year and carried through June 30, 2026 using the sourced APFC Total Fund series; the first year excludes pre-credit performance.

Fund-linked growth is a counterfactual benchmark. It is not interest owed, a recognized liability, an investment return, or proof the difference remained invested.

APFC's monthly reports are unaudited. The model uses APFC's later audited and restated 12.89 percent FY2017 result rather than the preliminary monthly figure.

Download the calculation receipt (JSON) or the historical ledger (CSV).

Verify APFC performance

Ten distributions. One comparison.

"Reference" is the comparison used for that year. Its provenance is labeled row by row; the 2022 reference remains unverified. "Distributed" includes relief where the state presented it as part of the payment package.

The annual difference comes first.

Each strip uses the same $4,000 scale. Dark green is the amount distributed. The exposed rust segment is the difference up to the annual reference. Exact values are printed in every row; nothing depends on hover.

2016

Reference
$2,083

Distributed
$1,022

Annual difference
$1,061
2017

Reference
$2,389

Distributed
$1,100

Annual difference
$1,289
2018

Reference
$2,928

Distributed
$1,600

Annual difference
$1,328
2019

Reference
$3,000

Distributed
$1,606

Annual difference
$1,394
2020

Reference
$3,100

Distributed
$992

Annual difference
$2,108
2021

Reference
$3,800

Distributed
$1,114

Annual difference
$2,686
2022

Reference
$3,810

Distributed
$3,284

Annual difference
$526
2023

Reference
$3,800

Distributed
$1,312

Annual difference
$2,488
2024

Reference
$3,600

Distributed
$1,702

Annual difference
$1,898
2025

Reference
$3,892

Distributed
$1,000

Annual difference
$2,892

Annual references, distributed amounts, differences, and values carried through June 30, 2026
Year	Reference	Distributed	Difference	Fund-linked modeled growth	Modeled value through June 30, 2026	Reference provenance
2016	$2,083	$1,022	$1,061	$1,412.84	$2,473.84	Official calculation Back-pay bill
2017	$2,389	$1,100	$1,289	$1,365.86	$2,654.86	Official calculation Back-pay bill
2018	$2,928	$1,600	$1,328	$1,190.77	$2,518.77	Official calculation Back-pay bill
2019	$3,000	$1,606	$1,394	$1,114.65	$2,508.65	Executive estimate Budget proposal
2020	$3,100	$992	$2,108	$1,468.79	$3,576.79	Executive estimate Economic plan
2021	$3,800	$1,114	$2,686	$915.01	$3,601.01	Secondary report Reported estimate
2022¹	$3,810	$3,284	$526	$236.99	$762.99	Unverified carried estimate PFD and relief
2023	$3,800	$1,312	$2,488	$829.74	$3,317.74	Executive estimate FY24 proposal
2024	$3,600	$1,702	$1,898	$353.94	$2,251.94	Legislative estimate Legislative estimate
2025	$3,892	$1,000	$2,892	$222.76	$3,114.76	Executive estimate FY26 proposal
Historical model			$17,670.00	+ $9,111.35	$26,781.35	Unrounded total

Note 1. 2022 sensitivity. The filed source verifies the $2,621.81 dividend and $662.19 energy-relief composition, not the $3,810 reference carried into this model. Excluding that unverified comparison produces a $26,018.36 historical modeled value, or $28,468.36 including the provisional 2026 difference.

Rounding. Totals are calculated from unrounded row values, then rounded to cents. The displayed rows reconcile to the historical total.

The 2026 package

Published statutory reference: $3,650
Signed dividend: $1,000
Signed energy payment: $200
Signed package: $1,200
First mass direct deposit: October 1, 2026

$3,650 minus $1,200 yields a $2,450.00 provisional difference; added to $26,781.35, the total is $29,231.35. Without the energy payment, it is $29,431.35.

The words do not mean the same thing.

"Unpaid," "denied," and "owed" are different legal and political claims.

What the court held: In Wielechowski v. State, the Alaska Supreme Court held that Permanent Fund income remains subject to annual legislative appropriation and gubernatorial veto. The 2016 veto stood. Read Opinion No. 7194.
What the court did not hold: The court did not create a retroactive personal debt, award damages, or require future appropriations to follow the statutory calculation. This account is political and economic framing, not settled law.
What remains codified: Alaska Statutes (AS) 37.13.145 still addresses disposition of Fund income, and AS 43.23.025 still states the dividend calculation. The practical payment is set through the annual budget.

Terms used on this page

Statutory formula: The dividend calculation written in Alaska statute, distinct from the amount authorized in a yearly budget.
Appropriation: Legislative authorization to spend public money for a stated purpose.
Fund-linked modeled growth: A counterfactual benchmark produced by carrying each annual difference through a sourced APFC Total Fund series using the stated October 1 timing convention.

The account does not erase the other side of the ledger.

The case for restoration

A same-dollar dividend reduction consumes a larger share of a low-income household's resources. The Institute of Social and Economic Research's (ISER) fiscal-options work estimates that PFD reductions cause larger employment and income losses per $100 million of deficit reduction than oil or corporate tax changes. The statutory formula also supplied a public rule before annual bargaining displaced it.

The budget case

Fund earnings now support schools, public safety, roads, health programs, and other services. Paying the full formula without replacement revenue can require service reductions, savings draws, or new taxes. Senate leaders' 2026 argument treats those earnings-funded services as another public return.

The model makes the household comparison visible. It does not pretend that visibility balances Alaska's budget.

the fund

the dividend

the break

the ruling

the Fund changes too

three years

the promise