From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Joel Emes

Despite promising in February to rebuild the Heritage Fund to help eliminate Alberta’s reliance on resource revenue, last month Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said she plans to use income from the fund to “assist in de-risking projects” in the oil and gas sector (in other words, projects that can’t secure financing from private lenders). Clearly, if Alberta has any hope of building up the Heritage Fund, it needs robust fiscal rules to help ensure governments responsibly grow the fund—and don’t raid it for other purposes.

The Lougheed government created Alberta’s Heritage Fund in 1976 to save a share of the province’s resource revenue for the future. Since its creation, however, governments have only contributed resource revenue in 11 out of 48 years of the fund’s existence, and just 3.9 per cent of total resource revenue has been deposited in the fund over its lifetime. Instead, governments have largely spent away onetime resource revenues, contributing to Alberta’s boom-and-bust cycle, rather than saving a share of resource revenue to turn it into a financial asset that can generate steady income over time.

While Premier Smith says she wants to build up the fund so its investment income (i.e. earnings) can eventually replace resource revenue in the budget, the fund’s earnings in 2023/24 are a projected $2.1 billion compared to a projected $19.4 billion in resource revenue. Obviously, Alberta needs a new approach to grow the fund. On this front, it can look to Alaska’s experience with its Permanent Fund, which was also created in 1976 but has grown much larger over time.

Unlike Alberta’s Heritage Fund, Alaska’s fund operates under robust fiscal rules. First, according to Alaska’s constitution, the state government must deposit at least 25 per cent of all mineral revenues into the fund each year. Alberta could introduce a similar constitutional rule.

In addition, a share of the Alaska fund’s earnings are set aside each year to ensure that the principal of the fund is not eroded through inflation. Alaska also prohibits use of the principal without approval by a referendum; the government may only spend the earnings of the fund (minus what’s needed to inflation-proof the principal).

And crucially, there’s the dividends—a topic that would surely pique the interest of many Albertans. In Alaska, the government pays a share of the fund’s earnings to Alaskan citizens via a dividend, which has helped support growth in the fund over the long term. By giving citizens an ownership share in the state’s resource fund, Alaskans recognize their vested interest and demand that the state maximize returns. Put simply, due to the annual dividend, Alaskans want the government to maintain the Permanent Fund’s health. And any government that tried to use the fund for irresponsible purposes would face the ire of Alaskan voters.

Which brings us back to Alberta. If the Smith government began contributing 25 per cent of resource revenue to the Heritage Fund and inflation-proofing the principal this year, it could pay each Albertan a dividend worth between $148 to $297 in 2024/25, equivalent to $594 to $1,187 per family of four. From 2024/25 to 2026/27, each Albertan could receive a total of $571 to $1,108 in dividends, equivalent to $2,284 to $4,430 per family of four. And as the fund grows, so would the dividends.

The Smith government has promised to rebuild the Heritage Fund, yet at the same time wants to use the fund’s earnings to “assist in de-risking” energy projects in the province. Without a mechanism to ensure growth of the fund, it will remain vulnerable to the whims of governments. Alberta should learn from Alaska’s success and start paying annual dividends to Albertans.