Alaska

Environmental groups file new challenge to yet-unbuilt Alaska LNG export project • Alaska Beacon

Published

2 years ago

May 31, 2024

Environmental groups file new challenge to yet-unbuilt Alaska LNG export project • Alaska Beacon

Two environmental groups filed a new legal challenge to the Biden administration’s approval of a yet-to-be-built project that would send the Alaska North Slope’s vast reserves of natural gas to markets.

In a petition filed with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club argued that federal agencies failed to properly consider harms that the massive natural gas project would cause to Endangered Species Act-listed animals living in the affected marine areas: polar bears, Cook Inlet beluga whales and Eastern North Pacific right whales.

The petition was filed against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, along with the agencies’ parent departments, the Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce.

The Biden administration last year renewed an approval of exports from the project, which has been pursued in various forms since the 1970s but never built. The current plan is being promoted by the state-owned Alaska Gasline Development Corp. It proposes a 42-inch-diameter pipeline running about 800 miles from Prudhoe Bay on the North Slope to tidewater at Cook Inlet, where a new facility would convert the product to liquefied natural gas and load it onto tanker vessels for export to Asian markets.

The Biden administration’s most recent approval, which follows numerous other permits and approvals over the years, was based on flawed biological reviews, the environmental groups argued.

“The rubber-stamp approval of the Alaska LNG project was reckless in many ways,” Sierra Club Alaska Chapter Director Andrea Feniger said in a statement. “The project will be devastating to vulnerable wildlife already struggling to face the catastrophic impacts of climate change. The agencies responsible for assessing the impacts on whales, polar bears, and other species neglected to take proper care in evaluating the full scope of harm Alaska LNG will cause.”

The lawsuit comes about a week after a different case was filed that challenges the project. On May 22, a group of young Alaskans sued the state to block the project because of its anticipated carbon emissions and impact to climate change. That case was filed in Alaska Superior Court in Anchorage.

The cases are unrelated and the timing of the two is coincidental, said Kristen Monsell, senior attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity. However, “it just goes to show how damaging this project would be in a variety of different ways,” she said by email.

The environmental groups’ legal claim was filed directly in the appeals court, bypassing lower courts, in accordance with the Natural Gas Act, Monsell said.

Under the act’s judicial review provision, challenges to permits for LNG projects other than those issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission are to be filed directly in appeals courts in which projects are located, she said.

A rare North Pacific right whale is seen swimming in Alaska waters in this undated photo. The whale, spotted during a scientific survey conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is demonstrating the distinctive V-shaped exhale for which right whales are known. Environmentalists challenging approvals for Alaska liquefied natural gas exports say the state’s yet-unbuilt pipeline project could harm the critically endangered Eastern North Pacific right whale population. (Photo provided by NOAA Fisheries)

A previous lawsuit challenging the export approval was filed last August by the same environmental groups in a different court. That challenge, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Department of Energy, alleged that federal approval decisions overlooked both climate and nonclimate environmental impacts of the yet-unbuilt LNG project. That lawsuit remains pending; the most recent action was a series of briefs filed by opposing parties earlier this month.

A spokesperson for the Alaska Gasline Development Corp., responding to the latest legal challenge, said numerous reviews have already found the project to be worthwhile.

“Alaska LNG has withstood intensive environmental scrutiny by two successive administrations because of its obvious and abundant benefits, which include reducing global emissions by up to 2.3 billion tons, strengthening allied energy security, and finally ending longstanding air quality problems plaguing Interior Alaska villages and communities,” corporation spokesperson Tim Fitzpatrick said by email.

The Alaska North Slope has about 35 trillion cubic feet of known natural gas reserves, with more than that believed to exist in different areas of the region, including both conventional sources that would be produced through normal drilling technology and unconventional sources that would require more advanced techology, according to the U.S. Geological Survey estimates.

While oil has flowed from the North Slope since 1977, the natural gas that exists in the same fields has been stranded without a market and without any means of delivery to a market. The natural gas that is pumped up with oil in the North Slope fields is mostly reinjected into the ground to help push up more oil.

State, federal and industry officials have for decades pursued plans for pipelines to send that natural gas to markets – including a plan that was endorsed by then-President Jimmy Carter in the 1970s – but none has proved economically feasible.

The Alaska Gasline Development Corp. estimates its plan would cost $39 billion.

The Alaska Legislature, in its operating budget passed earlier this month, appropriated money to continue the state-owned corporation’s operations through the fiscal year starting on July 1.

Legislators allocated about $2.5 million in general-purpose state money to the Alaska Gasline Development Corp., less than the $4.5 million the corporation had requested at the start of the session. The corporation can also spend up to $3.1 million from a special gasline-specific account, under the operating budget.

Earlier in the session, some lawmakers expressed skepticism about continued state funding of the Alaska Gasline Development Corp. and its efforts.

Reporter James Brooks contributed to this article.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Source link

Click to comment

Alaska

Wayne and Wanda: I love Alaska winters, but my wife has grown weary and wants to move

Published

5 hours ago

January 11, 2026

Press Room

Wayne and Wanda: I love Alaska winters, but my wife has grown weary and wants to move

Wanda and Wayne,

My wife and I moved to Alaska four years ago for work and adventure, thinking we’d stay a couple of years and see how it felt. We fell hard for it almost immediately. But by our second winter, my wife started talking about how hard the cold and dark were on her, and every winter since that feeling has grown heavier.

This recent cold snap and snow dump really pushed things over the edge. She’s deeply unhappy right now, withdrawn, sad and openly talking about how depressing it feels to live here, especially being so far from family and old friends. She tries to manage it with running, yoga, the gym, but even those things she often does alone. She hasn’t really built a community here, partly because she’s introverted and partly because she sticks closely to her routines and her co-workers aren’t the very social. Meanwhile, I’ve found connections through work and the outdoors, especially skiing in the winter (cross country and touring, downhill, backcountry, all of it!), and Alaska still feels full of possibilities to me.

But now she’s done. She wants to move back “home” soon. She wants to start trying for kids within the next year and doesn’t feel like Alaska is the right place to raise a family. She worries about schools, politics, the economy and being so far from family support. We both have careers that could take us almost anywhere, as well as savings, and a house we could sell quickly, and many of the Alaska toys we could also sell. Logistically, it would be easy. Emotionally, I feel like I’m being told to leave after I just got settled.

There are places I still want to explore, trips I’ve been planning, seasons I want to experience differently now that we’re more established. I keep thinking: If we can just get through to summer, maybe she’ll feel better. But I don’t know if that’s hope or denial, and yeah, summer feels a long ways away and goes by pretty quickly. Honestly, now I’m starting to get bummed about the idea of leaving.

I love my wife and I don’t want her to be miserable. But I’m scared that if we leave now, I’ll resent her, and if we stay she’ll resent me. Is there a way to buy time without dragging this out painfully? Or is this one of those moments where love means choosing between two incompatible futures?

Wanda says:

If this was your first Cheechako winter here, or your second, I could write off your wife’s apprehension to culture shock or a sophomore slump. But this is year four, which means she’s endured winters of record snowfalls, weird snow shortfalls, terrible windstorms, bleak darkness and desolate below-zero temps. Sorry to say, but it’s likely there’s no number of laps at the Dome or downward dogs on the mat that will make her find the special beauty of an Alaska winter.

This place is tough. For every old-timer who jokes, “I came for two years and I’m still here,” there are plenty who maybe made it that long and bailed. While the state shines with possibilities, rugged beauty, unique traits and cool people, it’s also far from basically everything, pretty expensive and definitely extreme. Some people will thrive here. Some people won’t. No one’s better or worse, or wins or loses. Were you on your own, at a different point in life, you may have made your forever home here. But instead you pledged forever to your wife, and I’m afraid it’s time to start out on your next adventure — in the Lower 48.

Your wife gave this a real shot. She’s stayed four years. That’s four long — and for her, miserable — winters. It was also four seasons of no doubt incredible summers, full of fresh halibut and farmers markets and quirky festivals and blue skies at 11 p.m. If these special aspects of Alaska haven’t yet been enough to convince her the winters are worth it, they won’t ever be.

Wayne says:

Sure, your Alaska bucket list is still growing faster than you can check things off, but take it from a lifelong Alaskan: You’ll never do it all. People fall in love with this place in a million different ways. You and I? We believe there’s always another season of adventures ahead, another trail and another corner of the state to explore, and we’ll always feel some serious AK FOMO when we’re stuck at the office working while everyone else is ice skating on a perfect winter day or dipnetting during a hot salmon run.

Here’s the perspective shift you need. You love your wife. You’re committed to a happy life together. And by any reasonable measure, you’ve made the most of your four years here. So ask yourself this honestly: Is another spring of shredding pow in the Chugach more important than her mental health and your marriage? And why resent her for being ready for a new chapter after she showed up and gave Alaska a chance? When you frame it that way, “incompatible futures” sounds dramatic and “buying time” sounds selfish.

And Alaska isn’t going anywhere. You know that. It’s a flight or two away no matter where you end up Outside. Maintain your friendships, stay on the airline alerts, narrow your must-do list to the Alaska all-timers, and plan to come back regularly. And imagine this: years from now, bringing your kids here after years of telling them stories about the winters you survived and the mountains you climbed. That’s not losing Alaska, that’s carrying it with you wherever you go, along with your wife and your marriage.

[Wayne and Wanda: How can I support my partner’s hardcore New Year’s reset, even if it’s not for me?]

[Wayne and Wanda: I kissed my high school crush during a holiday trip home. Now I’m questioning everything]

[Wayne and Wanda: My girlfriend’s dog fostering has consumed her life and derailed our relationship]

[Wayne & Wanda: My husband has been having a secret, yearslong emotional affair]

Source link

Alaska

The Alarming Prices Of Groceries In Rural Alaska — And Why They’re So Expensive – Tasting Table

Published

17 hours ago

January 11, 2026

Press Room

The Alarming Prices Of Groceries In Rural Alaska — And Why They’re So Expensive – Tasting Table

ViDI Studio/Shutterstock

Many households across America have been struggling with their grocery bills due to inflation that hit the global markets after the COVID-19 pandemic, but for families in Alaska, especially in rural communities, the prices of basic goods have reached alarming heights. Alongside inflation, the main issue for the climbing prices is Alaska’s distance from the rest of the U.S., which influences the cost of transport that’s required to deliver the supplies.

Given that Alaska is a non-contiguous state, any trucks delivering grocery stock have to first cross Canada before reaching Alaska, which requires a very valuable resource: time. According to Alaska Beacon, “It takes around 40 hours of nonstop driving to cover the more than 2,200 highway miles from Seattle to Fairbanks” on the Alaska Highway. That’s why a fairly small percentage of the state’s food comes in on the road. For the most part, groceries are shipped in on barges and are then flown to more remote areas, since “82% of the state’s communities are not reachable by road,” per Alaska Beacon. As such, even takeout in Alaska is sometimes delivered by plane.

Planes, trucks, and boats all cost money, but they are also all vulnerable to extreme weather conditions, which are not uncommon in Alaska. Sometimes local stores are unable to restock basic staples like bread and milk for several weeks, so Alaskans struggle with high food insecurity.

How much do groceries cost in Alaska?

The storefront of a local City Market in Alaska

Ruben Ramos/Getty Images

Groceries in Alaska cost significantly more than in the rest of the U.S., but even within the state itself, the prices vary based on remoteness. You’ll find that prices of the same items can double or even triple, depending on how inaccessible a certain area is. The New Republic reported that prices in Unalakleet, a remote village that’s only accessible by plane, can be up to 80% higher than in Anchorage, Alaska’s most populated city. For example, the outlet cited Campbell’s Tomato Soup costing $1.69 in Anchorage and $4.25 in Unalakleet. Even more staggering is the price of apple juice: $3.29 in the city, $10.65 in the village. Such prices might make our jaw drop, but they’re a daily reality for many Alaskans.

As one resident shared on TikTok, butter in his local store costs $8 per pound — almost twice the national average. Fresh produce is even more expensive, with bananas going for $3 a pound, approximately five times the national average. It’s therefore not surprising that most of the people who live in Alaska have learned to rely on nature to survive.

Subsistence living has great importance for many communities. They hunt their own meat, forage for plants, and nurture their deep cultural connection to sourdough. For rural Alaskans, living off the land is a deep philosophy that embraces connection with nature and hones the survival knowledge that’s passed down through generations — including how to make Alaska’s traditional akutaq ice cream.

Source link

Alaska

Backcountry avalanche warning issued for much of Southcentral Alaska

Published

1 day ago

January 10, 2026

Press Room

Backcountry avalanche warning issued for much of Southcentral Alaska

High avalanche danger in the mountains around much of Southcentral Alaska prompted officials to issue a backcountry avalanche warning Saturday for areas from Anchorage to Seward.

The Chugach National Forest Avalanche Information Center said that a combination of heavy snowfall, strong winds and low-elevation rain Saturday “will overload a weak snowpack, creating widespread areas of unstable snow.”

The warning is in effect from 6 a.m. Saturday to 6 a.m. Sunday.

Human-triggered and natural slides are likely, and avalanche debris may run long distances into the bottoms of valleys and other lower-angle terrain, the center said.

In Saturday’s avalanche forecast, which noted high avalanche danger at all elevations in the Turnagain Pass and Girdwood areas, the center said avalanches were likely to fail on weak layers about 1.5 to 3 feet deep.

Forecasters recommended that people avoid traveling in avalanche terrain, staying clear of slopes steeper than 30 degrees.

“Avalanche conditions will remain very dangerous immediately after the snow finishes,” the avalanche center said in its warning.

The center also said conditions may cause roofs to shed snow, and urged that people watch for overhead hazards, use care in choosing where to park vehicles and watch out for children and pets.

Areas covered under the backcountry avalanche warning include the mountains around Anchorage, Girdwood, Portage, Turnagain Pass, Lost Lake and Seward.

Farther north, the Hatcher Pass Avalanche Center in its forecast Saturday said danger was considerable at upper elevations and moderate at middle elevations.

Snowfall in Anchorage and Mat-Su

A winter weather advisory remained in effect until 9 a.m. Sunday from Anchorage up to the lower Matanuska Valley, including the cities of Eagle River, Palmer and Wasilla.

The National Weather Service said total accumulations of 4 to 8 inches of snow were possible, with localized areas potentially receiving up to a foot of snow.

The snowfall was expected to peak Saturday evening before tapering off Sunday morning, the weather service said.

Source link