L - Alaska Energy Data Inventory

zero growth thereafter. State employment as a result goes from 14,700in 1975 to 19,159 in 2000, about 6.4 percent of civilian employment inthe latter year. In the region, total State employment rises from 5,400to 7,140 in 1985-2000, about 6.1 percent of civilian employment in 1975and 3.1 percent in the year 2000.Local Government: Local government was assumed to be influenced inthe future by many of the same factors influencing the rate of growthin State employment. The historic rate from 1965 to 1975 was 10.5 percent(10.1 percent in southcentral), partly a result of development ofschool systems and the transfer of State-operated rural schools in theunorganized borough to local control. Due to increasing numbers offunctions being performed at the local level and rural development inthe high case, statewide growth was expected to be faster than insouthcentral, where local governments are already well organized. Dueto the moving of the State capital and due to local government responseto fishing and oil, local government employment was projected to sustainabout a 4 percent per year growth rate outside the region and about 3.4percent within the southcentral region. This meant a statewide increasein local employment from 14,200 in 1975 to 34,900 in 2000. In the lowcase, since the State capital does not move and State-local transfersare expected to be sharply curtailed after 1985, the assumed rates ofgrowth are about 2 percent until 1985 and about 1 percent thereafter.Total employment in local government goes from 14,200 in 1975 to 20,100in 2000. Within the region, local government in the high case growsfrom about 8,100 to about 18,600. In the low case, regional localgovernment employment grows from 8,100 to 11,300.Miscellaneous Assum tions: In the model, Alaskan wage rates aredetermine in most ln ustries as a function of Alaskan prices and U.S.average weekly wages in the private econon~, deflated by the U.s.Consumer Price Index for Urban Clerical Workers. (Both the latterseries are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.) Alaskan pricesare in turn determined as a function of U.S. prices and local demandconditions, reflected by changes in employment. Finally, migration toAlaska is calculated as a function of the change in employment opportunitiesand relative per capita income in Alaska, compared to therest of the country. In order to project a "high" and "low" scenario,the economics Task Force reexamined the assumptions usually used torun the model for impact-assessment purposes in Alaska and concludedthat "high" or "low" growth could occur because of movements of theeconomy outside the State as well as inside the State. In particular,the rates of growth of U.S. disposable personal income per capita (2.0percent) and wages (1.2 percent) appeared a bit optimistic for the lowcase. Therefore, in the low case, "pessimistic" forecasts by DataResources, Inc. were used: 1.0 percent per annum average increase inreal wages and 1.77 percent average increase in real disposable personalincome per capita. These two changes had little influence.C-20