For decades, Alaska shipped liquefied natural gas to Japan, which burned the fuel to generate power — and also generated ample climate-warming carbon emissions.

Now, the Biden administration wants to study whether those Japanese emissions could be captured, liquefied and shipped back to Alaska. There, they’d be injected and locked away underground in Cook Inlet, just west of Anchorage, to help stem the warming of the climate.

Officials from the U.S. Department of Energy announced Tuesday at an Anchorage workshop that they’re starting a formal study of the concept, building on Japan-U.S. cooperative agreements announced by the White House last month.

“Even as the decline of natural gas in the Cook Inlet heralds the end of a previous and impressive energy area in this region, awareness and interest is growing here in the region’s potential to become a storehouse for capturing carbon emissions — both domestically and internationally,” said Brad Crabtree, assistant secretary for the Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management.

Crabtree spoke Tuesday to an audience at Anchorage’s Sheraton hotel that, in addition to Alaska policymakers and fossil fuel executives, included some 15 representatives of Japan’s energy industries and government. 

The Department of Energy’s new study is a reflection of the growing interest in injecting and storing climate-warming carbon pollution in underground reservoirs in Alaska — a trend amplified, in part, by provisions in President Joe Biden’s signature climate law to incentivize greater use of the technology.

Alaska lawmakers are currently debating a bill sponsored by GOP Gov. Mike Dunleavy that would establish a legal system for carbon injection and storage. And one Japanese company recently hired an Alaska-based lobbyist, at $7,500 a month, to track carbon-related policy developments in the state.

Many climate advocates are skeptical of carbon storage’s potential to meaningfully reduce global warming, saying it’s expensive, unproven on a large scale and enables continued dependence on fossil fuels. 

But Crabtree, in an interview after his announcement, said that certain substantial sources of carbon pollution aren’t tied to fossil fuel combustion. Cement manufacturing, he noted, generates emissions not just from burning fuels but from a specific chemical process that converts limestone into lime.

“I don’t see this as enabling oil and gas at all,” he said. “I see this as enabling the transformation of our energy industrial economy to be fully decarbonized.”

Alaska, however, has to overcome a significant obstacle in order to participate in the carbon storage industry, according to Crabtree: While it has “enormous” storage potential in the form of depleted oil and gas reservoirs, it produces relatively low quantities of emissions from its few major power plants and industrial facilities.

That’s where Japan, and possibly South Korea, come in. 

Japan is the world’s fifth-highest energy consumer, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s most recent statistics. But while Japan has committed to being carbon neutral by 2050, it has limited capacity to deposit emissions underground, as well as risks to the integrity of storage from earthquakes, Crabtree said.

Japanese businesses have already signed study agreements with international partners to explore the idea of shipping carbon to Malaysia and Indonesia and storing it there. Now, Crabtree’s office will examine whether the same idea is possible in the U.S., with a focus on Alaska.

An official from a Japanese company following those developments, who requested anonymity because of their political sensitivity, described the interest from his country as “very, very early.”

“It’s a tool that’s being evaluated,” the official said. “The economics are painfully expensive.”

Oil companies have long injected carbon into their reservoirs to help extract more petroleum. But the federal government has licensed very few projects solely dedicated to storing carbon to keep it out of the atmosphere. 

As of September, the Environmental Protection Agency had issued just two permits that have led to projects, both in Illinois, according to E&E News.

Enhanced tax credits for CO2 storage in Biden’s climate law have boosted industry interest in new projects, but there’s now a major permitting backlog at the EPA. And because the tax credit only applies to carbon captured in the U.S., Japanese emissions shipped to Alaska wouldn’t qualify, Crabtree said.

The energy department’s study, with help from a newly hired contractor, will examine whether the cross-border carbon shipment concept makes technical and economic sense — and what costs and prices for capture and storage would allow such projects to move forward. 

One idea is that if Alaska can produce climate-friendly fuels, like hydrogen, to ship to Asia, the same tankers could return to the state carrying carbon emissions.

“We create this value chain of, potentially, exporting energy to Japan and backhauling carbon dioxide, which we then sequester in our rocks,” said John Boyle, Alaska’s commissioner of natural resources.

Studying the technical feasibility should be just the first step, said Kelsey Schober, director of government affairs at Alaska’s branch of the Nature Conservancy, which recently published a study on carbon capture and storage in the state.

“It can’t be the only step. We also have to ask: What are the impacts? Who’s going to feel those impacts the most? Have they been consulted about these projects?” she said.

From an environmental perspective, Schober added, the potential benefits of carbon capture and storage depend on where the pollution is coming from. It’s more valuable, she said, if it’s being used for industries — like cement manufacturing or steelmaking — that are difficult to decarbonize.

“We have to think about prioritizing avoiding and reducing direct emissions — not just using CCUS technologies as a way to bail out existing emission levels,” she said, using an acronym for carbon capture and underground storage.

Nathaniel Herz welcomes tips at [email protected] or (907) 793-0312. This article was originally published in Northern Journal, a newsletter from Herz. Subscribe at this link.

For many Alaskans, spring’s warming temperatures and lengthening days stir a sense of apprehension about the threat of wildfires. Last season, just under 300,000 acres burned statewide, including high-impact fires like the Lost Horse Creek Fire and Anderson Complex. These Interior Alaska fires, which threatened nearby communities and required significant firefighting effort, were a stark reminder of fire’s potential devastation.

Our northern neighbors in Canada experienced devastation across the country last year. More than 37 million acres burned in a record-shattering season that lasted seven months. Eight people died, about 232,000 residents evacuated from more than 200 communities, and millions, including in the eastern U.S. and western Europe, experienced unhealthy air quality from smoke.

The unprecedented situation in Canada required an equally unprecedented contribution of international firefighting resources. More than 5,500 individuals from 12 countries and the European Union provided assistance, including many from Alaska.

The intensity of the 2023 Canada fire season and the increasing trend in fire activity in North America over the past few decades coincide with rapid climate change. From 2003 to 2023 wildfires in Alaska burned more than 32 million acres, more than double the acres burned during the previous two decades.

Hot, dry and windy weather conditions that raise fire danger are becoming more frequent, and fires are starting earlier in the year and ending later. When human activity sparks an ignition in this new fire regime, a wildfire can quickly spread and endanger people and property. Dead grass and brush also more easily ignite in a drier climate.

Alaskans saw what happened in Canada last year, and they know it can happen here too. They recognize we need to prevent and prepare for wildfires across the state – from the time the snow melts until it falls again. During Alaska Wildland Fire Prevention and Preparedness Week (May 4-10), we ask people in Alaska to reflect on key ways to help protect each other and our communities from wildfire.

1. Alaska’s fire season is longer

On average, Alaska’s snowpack now melts two weeks earlier than it did in the late 1990s. This trend has pushed the fire season start date earlier. Beginning April 1,  Division of Forestry & Fire Protection (DOF) burn permits are required on all state, municipal and private lands that don’t fall under a local government burn permit program.  These permits have guidelines to follow for the safe burning of yard debris, using a burn barrel or burning off lawns.

2. Human-caused fires are preventable

People cause approximately 60% of Alaska’s wildfires. Those human-caused fires tend to occur closer to communities, threaten lives and property, and require more resources to control than lightning-caused fires. Preventing these accidental human ignitions is the most effective way to reduce wildfire costs and limit damages. Be vigilant with anything that can spark a fire, including equipment like chainsaws and off-road vehicles, burn barrels, barbecues, ashes and campfires – especially in dry and windy weather. Of the 36 fires reported by May 2, all 36 have been determined to be caused by humans. While these fires have fortunately been small, some have threatened homes and required division wildland firefighters and local fire departments to respond.

3. Wildfire preparedness to protect communities and homes is a shared endeavor

Constructing fuel breaks between populated areas and wildlands is a proven way to protect Alaska communities from wildfires and save money. A fuel break is a gap in vegetation that acts as a barrier to slow or stop the spread of wildfire. Federal, state, Indigenous and local agencies are working together to create fuel breaks that reduce flammable vegetation and enable firefighters to work more safely near communities. Fuel breaks helped firefighters protect nearby communities during the Shovel Creek and McKinley fires in 2019 and the Lost Horse Creek Fire in 2023.  A new interagency flyer describes fuel breaks, with links to examples and recommendations.

Homeowners should follow FIREWISE guidelines found on the DOF website to help prepare their property before a wildfire occurs. Implementing these FIREWISE measures can help your property withstand a wildfire even without intervention by firefighters, who may need to travel a great distance to respond.

4. Smoky days are increasing across Alaska

During active wildfire seasons, smoke particulates pollute the air. Oftentimes, air quality in Alaska is impacted by smoke from fires other countries. Visibility can be so limited that aviation, including evacuations and aerial firefighting, is not possible. Smoke poses a significant health hazard, especially to children, the elderly, and those with existing heart and lung conditions. Learn how to reduce your exposure to smoke.

More information about how Alaska’s fire seasons are changing is available in a report called Alaska’s Changing Wildfire Environment from the University of Alaska Fairbanks International Arctic Research Center and the Alaska Fire Science Consortium.

Tyler Anderson leads fire operations for the U.S. Forest Service in Alaska. leads Fire Operations for the U.S. Forest Service in Alaska.

Kyle Cowan is the manager of the Bureau of Land Management Alaska Fire Service.

Norm McDonald is the deputy director of fire protection for the Alaska Division of Forestry and Fire Protection.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.

In an airline industry continuing to navigate the turbulent skies of consolidation and mergers, among other even bigger issues, the proposed union between Alaska Airlines and Hawaiian Airlines presents a complex situation that is drawing considerable attention from regulators and industry observers alike. While recent reports from some source want to suggest that the the merger is almost certain, a deeper dive into the circumstances surrounding this potential tie-up reveals a less straightforward path. That in spite of the news this week.

Regulatory scrutiny and historical precedents

The federal government has adopted a strong stance on antitrust enforcement, particularly in the airline sector. This was recently exemplified by the Justice Department’s actions against other airline mergers and partnerships, such as the lawsuit to dissolve the partnership between American and JetBlue, as well as successful efforts that blocked JetBlue’s acquisition of Spirit. Even as many have pointed out significant differences between the proposed Alaska/Hawaiian tie-up and these, this is no slam-dunk. These federal interventions depict a commitment to preventing consolidations perceived as anti-consumer and stifling competition.

The Alaska Airlines/Hawaiian Airlines journey began with their joint announcement at a press conference on December 3, which Beat of Hawaii attended. That set the stage for extensive regulatory review at the hands of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), which commenced its in-depth investigation in February. That scrutiny involves a thorough examination of documents, data and other factors in order to assess the merger’s implications on Hawaii airline market competition.

Compliance and cooperation between Alaska, Hawaiian and regulators.

In an important development this week, the two airlines recently confirmed compliance with a second detailed request for information from the DOJ. That milestone was crucial and has been successfully met according to Alaska and Hawaiian. You’ll recall that the airlines previously agreed to not attempt to finalize their merger until at least 90 days following this event, in cooperation with the ongoing regulatory processes .

Financial and operational plans.

If the merger is allowed to proceed, Alaska Air is set to become the parent company and will be based in Seattle, while both airlines plan on continuing to operate under their existing brands. This arrangement may suggest an important merger success strategy, as we’d indicated, in maintaining each brand and its operations individually. But will that be enough to mitigate government concerns about concentrating the Hawaii airline market?

Analysis and outlook on Hawaiian merger prospects.

Contrary to some more optimistic reports, it appears that the reality reflects that the proposed merger still faces a series of hurdles and uncertainties. The severe regulatory landscape, reflected in the administration’s proactive antitrust stance, suggests that the path to a merger could still be fraught with challenges and delays, both anticipated and not.

As industry observers, we are maintaining a cautious but optimistic outlook on the merger’s prospects. Indeed the timely cooperation between Alaska Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines, and the DOJ is a good sign. Final approval and completion of the merger, however, still hinges on complex regulatory decisions, including how the DOT views the market conditions, and possible strategic concessions that may still be required to address any antitrust concerns. We will know no later than August 5 what the DOJ has in mind for this merger.

Do you have any thoughts on the upcoming Alaska/Hawaiian merger?