Senators, from left, Bill Wielechowski, Cathy Giessel, Gary Stevens and Bert Stedman respond to questions after the governor’s State of the State speech on Jan. 22, 2026. (Marc Lester / ADN)
JUNEAU — The developer of the giant Alaska LNG project is telling federal regulators that it expects to begin construction in April, as part of a plan to build construction camps, access roads and close to 100 bridge crossings to support pipeline construction.
It’s part of Glenfarne’s ambitious schedule to start laying the steel pipe for the 800-mile gas line by the end of this year.
Some Alaska lawmakers are skeptical the work can happen by then, if at all.
Glenfarne has not announced a final investment decision to build the project, though it’s expected to cost at least $44 billion. That longtime cost estimate has recently been updated, but Glenfarne has said it won’t publicly release that information.
Advertisement
Glenfarne last month announced that it had signed several preliminary deals with gas producers and gas line builders, atop other preliminary deals with potential gas buyers. The agreements are nonbinding, but are viewed as key steps that could one day lead to binding agreements.
[Alaska LNG says it expects to start laying pipe as early as December]
Alaska lawmakers who are increasingly focused on the proposed project say they believe Glenfarne still needs to take important steps that could delay the project.
They say Glenfarne has not sought any support from the Legislature for Alaska LNG, though the company said in a statement Wednesday that it is pursuing “property tax reforms” with state and local leaders.
Gov. Mike Dunleavy, a project supporter, has said he plans to introduce a bill that would reduce the state’s oil and gas property taxes by 90% to assist the project.
Advertisement
A consultant for the Alaska Legislature, GaffneyCline, has said a property tax reduction could save the developer important money up front while additional state benefits that provide the project with “fiscal stability” may also be needed from the Legislature. GaffneyCline is a subsidiary of oil field service giant Baker Hughes, which has said it plans to provide equipment for the project and make a “strategic investment” in it.
Major questions for the project include: Who will pay for it? What steps must the Legislature take to support it? And when will binding contracts with gas buyers and suppliers be signed?
Senate Majority Leader Cathy Giessel, a Republican, said she doesn’t believe Glenfarne will keep to its schedule.
Glenfarne’s target of laying pipe by year’s end “is completely unrealistic,” she said told reporters Tuesday.
One hurdle the company has yet to pursue is certification from the Regulatory Commission of Alaska of its financial and managerial fitness, Giessel told reporters. That takes six months, she said.
Advertisement
The company also hasn’t provided the Legislature with any fiscal information that would help lawmakers understand more about the project, she said.
“There’s a lot more to know,” she said.
“I’m not even sure they can come to a final investment decision, in light of the fact that we haven’t even determined what our tax structure will be for this project,” she said.
Glenfarne’s filing, made with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission last week, does not represent a final schedule, said Tim Fitzpatrick, a spokesperson for Glenfarne, in an email Wednesday.
Rather, it shows how “early works” — initial construction — will be sequenced, he said.
Advertisement
He said the project is moving toward a final investment decision. That had originally been expected late last year.
Fitzpatrick also said Glenfarne faces no financial-fitness certification requirement before the Regulatory Commission of Alaska.
“Alaska LNG is a FERC-regulated project so this RCA certification requirement is not applicable in this instance and as such has no bearing on Alaska LNG’s schedule,” Fitzpatrick said.
“Pending FERC authorization, we are moving forward with Early Works on a pace that will enable Alaska LNG to rapidly deliver reliable, affordable energy to Alaskans,” he said.
Tons of bridges and access roads
In its first phase, Alaska LNG would deliver North Slope natural gas to Railbelt Alaskans through an 800-mile pipeline, if it’s built. The cost has been estimated at $11 billion.
Advertisement
The final, more expensive phase would include construction of a plant and marine terminal in Nikiski, where gas can be super-chilled into liquefied natural gas, or LNG, for shipment to Asian markets.
The state of Alaska, through its Alaska Gasline Development Corp., is a 25% partner in the project. The state will also have the option to invest up to 25% in the project’s major facilities, each of which will cost several billion dollars.
Glenfarne, based in New York, disclosed its pipe-laying plans last month.
The filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission provides new details about more immediate plans.
The company said construction for “early works” will start April 15, the filing shows.
Advertisement
Those activities include installation of 20 main construction camps and 46 sites to store pipes.
They include 98 bridge crossings that are up to 90 feet long, along with six specialized bridges.
Temporary and permanent access roads must also be built from ice and “granular fill material,” which can include sand or gravel.
Early construction includes 619 segments of access road, the filing says.
The information required to support the early activities will be filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on March 15, in an effort to obtain authorization, the filing says.
Advertisement
Sen. Elvi Gray-Jackson, a Democrat and chair of the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, said she hasn’t heard of any support the Legislature might be asked to provide, if any, to support those early activities.
“With respect to man camps or access roads, I’m not aware of any requests from Glenfarne for any state support,” she said in an interview Tuesday.
“A lot of what they’re doing has been so secret and confidential,” she said.
She’s cautiously optimistic the project can be built, but she said she doubts Glenfarne can meet its rapid timeline.
“I’m certainly not out of touch with reality,” she said.
Advertisement
Sen. Elvi Gray-Jackson, D-Anchorage, speaks during a floor session at the Alaska State Capitol in Juneau on January 21, 2026. (Marc Lester / ADN)
Alaska lawmakers have said they’re uncertain what steps they may be asked to take to provide the full project with long-term fiscal stability, if any.
They say they’re awaiting the governor’s property tax proposal.
Giessel told reporters on Tuesday: “Glenfarne has told us, ‘Don’t worry, this is a private-sector project. We will bear all of the cost. We will get investors. We will take all of the overruns and delays. We’ll take all that responsibility.’”
Fitzpatrick, with Glenfarne, said the company “continues to make progress toward a final investment decision for Alaska LNG.”
That includes “engaging with state and local policymakers on property tax reforms that will enable Alaska LNG to proceed and successfully unlock billions of dollars in royalty, tax, and other economic benefits for Alaskans,” he said.
“State and borough officials have recognized that Alaska’s high property taxes are an impediment for a North Slope natural gas project for more than a decade, and this issue has repeatedly been raised before the legislature including in testimony from Glenfarne and the legislature’s oil and gas consultants,” he said.
Advertisement
Asked about the need for state permits for early construction such as the proposed roads or bridge crossings, Fitzpatrick said, “Permitting requirements are fully accounted for in our construction plan.”
Glenfarne is working on smaller LNG export projects in the Lower 48, including Magnolia LNG in Louisiana and Texas LNG.
Giessel told reporters that Glenfarne has not reached a final investment decision for those projects.
“In fact, they’ve not reached FID on any North American project yet, and that Texas project has been in the works now for a couple of years,” she said. “So I am skeptical about any of those timelines they had in that FERC document.”
Should Alaska invest?
House Majority Leader Chuck Kopp, a Republican, said he’s optimistic the Alaska LNG project will be built this time after decades of unsuccessful attempts by earlier, similar projects.
Advertisement
House Majority Leader Chuck Kopp, R-Anchorage, during a floor session on Jan. 24, 2025. (Marc Lester / ADN)
“I do appreciate that all the capital risk has been on them to this point,” Kopp said of Glenfarne.
“The spend rate, whatever it is, I really don’t know,” he said. “But I know (Glenfarne has) spent a lot and the state has not.”
Kopp said the state might want to consider investing 5% in the pipeline, at a potential cost of around $600 million, from the $3 billion Constitutional Budget Reserve savings account.
“If we had an investor interest, we would have access to everything another investor could rightfully see before they made that decision,” he said.
An investment could increase revenue to the state through tariff income that would come alongside production taxes, royalties and other income, he said.
The project is important because it has the potential to support future generations of Alaskans, he said.
Advertisement
The idea of a state investment in the project is something he’s discussing with colleagues, he said.
Kopp said he believes the lack of information from the company to lawmakers may relate to upcoming details that could push the project forward.
Perhaps President Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech, set for Feb. 24, includes more federal support for the project, perhaps even a direct investment, Kopp said.
“I don’t have any insider baseball on this,” he said. ”But it would be consistent with how this administration likes do things. And the president has said Alaska is a national energy and a national strategic priority.”
“So there could be a massive commitment that pushes this into FID,” or final investment decision, he said.
Advertisement
Rep. Ky Holland, an independent and co-chair of the House Energy Committee, said he — along with many other Alaskans — would love to see the project built.
He said it has received state attention and funding in the past that has prevented state investment in other opportunities, including in renewable energy that could support stable utility costs, such as the Susitna-Watana Dam project or wind projects.
In that way, it’s been a “drag on the economy,” he said.
It’s hard to say if Alaska LNG will be built, he said.
“I’m still waiting to see clear ship-or-pay binding agreements for someone to buy gas,” he said. “Absent that, I appreciate the level of enthusiasm the current developers have.”
Advertisement
Holland said state agencies don’t appear to be staffed up with needed manpower and finances to support the project’s permitting requirements, while budgets for workforce training or contractor assistance appear inadequate. Thousands of workers will be needed to build the pipeline.
“The (state agency) budgets I’ve seen look like business as usual, which is barely keeping the wheels on the bus,” he said.
The Alaska Senate Finance committee advanced a draft capital budget on Tuesday that would put nearly $250 million toward state facilities and maintenance projects next year.
The draft budget adds $88 million to Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s proposed capital budget of $159 million, with the largest additions going toward K-12 schools and university facilities maintenance.
That was a focused effort by the finance committee, said co-chair Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka, who called funding for education facilities maintenance a “heavy concentration” on Wednesday.
Advertisement
Earlier this year, students and school officials testified to lawmakers that decades of deferred maintenance has reached crisis levels — with many rural school districts in particular grappling with deteriorating facilities, failing water and sewer systems — which they say is degrading student and staff morale. Lawmakers have expressed support and increased funding in recent years, but point to Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s history of vetoes as a roadblock for funding education.
The Senate draft includes $57.8 million in additional funding toward K-12 school maintenance through the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development and $17 million toward the University of Alaska. It also includes $5.7 million for the Alaska Court System’s facilities and $8 million for community infrastructure and workforce development programs through the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development.
The Legislature relies on state ranked lists to prioritize where to direct funding to capital projects for K-12 schools, the university system and the court system.
For K-12 schools, the state’s current major maintenance list totals over $400 million needed for 103 school projects and repairs. Stedman said he recognized this year’s capital budget will only fund a fraction of those.
“Hopefully we get a quarter of it done, or something like that, but it’d be nice to retire the entire list,” Stedman said.
Advertisement
The draft budget would fund the top 15 school projects on the list, plus funds for three other schools in need of emergency fuel tank repairs. The top projects range from roof and boiler replacements to septic systems, fire suppression and safety upgrades in schools from Fairbanks to the Aleutian Islands.
In order to distribute funds more widely, members of the finance committee reduced funding for one project in Galena, in the Western Interior of Alaska, from roughly $35 million to $5 million for renovations to the Sydney C. Huntington Elementary and High Schools. They also allocated $17 million towards rebuilding the school in Stebbins in Western Alaska, after it burned down in 2024.
The Senate draft also adds nearly $14 million in funding for the state-run Mt. Edgecumbe High School, which has been the focus of public attention and concern after a quarter of students disenrolled this year. The additional facilities dollars include $10 million to remodel the dining hall, $3.1 million to replace dorm windows, $460,000 to replace dorm furniture, $50,000 to replace mattresses and $125,000 to replace aging laundry machines.
Finance members added $17 million to fund the top nine projects across the University of Alaska system — three projects each within the three major campuses.
Sen. Jesse Kiehl, D-Juneau, serves on the finance committee and his district includes University of Alaska Southeast. He described the proposed funds as a “nickel” compared to the “colossal” deferred maintenance needs of the university system.
Advertisement
“That’s been built by Legislatures and Boards of Regents for 40 years,” he said on Wednesday, adding that it is a shared responsibility to put funding towards repairs and upgrades.
“The Constitution makes them a separate body within the executive branch that puts a lot of responsibility on them, too, more than the general state government,” he said “So university major maintenance is its own huge problem.”
The draft budget also includes $5.7 million for upgrades to state court facilities, mostly targeted to Anchorage and Sitka. It contains nearly $10 million for workforce development programs geared at the construction and oil and gas sectors, including for the Fairbanks Pipeline Training Center and Alaska Vocational Technical Center in Seward.
An amendment to add $25 million to the draft budget for the Port of Anchorage, sponsored by Sen. Kelly Merrick, R-Eagle River, was voted down on Tuesday by a 5 to 2 vote.
Before voting against the proposal, finance co-chair Sen. Lyman Hoffman, D-Bethel, said during committee deliberations the priority this year is to fund as many school maintenance projects on the list as possible, saying “schools are falling apart” and must be maintained to prevent further deterioration.
Advertisement
“Students that are trying to learn deserve better,” Hoffman said. “And if we are not able to provide this major maintenance, we are going to see these schools continue to crumble, and the financial burden to the state of Alaska will be hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild schools.”
More funding for school maintenance and other capital projects could be added by the Alaska House of Representatives, who will take up the draft budget bill after it’s approved by the Senate in the coming weeks.
Two US soldiers were wounded by a brown bear during a training exercise in Alaska on Thursday, the US Army stated.
Anchorage Daily News reported that the soldiers were from the 11th Airborne Division, and that the exercise had been a “land navigation training event” near Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson.
State wildlife officials said that the bear attack seemed to be a defensive one, from a bear which had recently emerged from its den. Staff members from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game collected evidence at the scene in an attempt to learn more about the bear, such as its species and gender.
“The incident is currently under investigation, and we are working closely with installation authorities and local wildlife officials to gather all relevant information and ensure the safety of all personnel in the area,” the 11th Airborne Division said in a statement, reported ABC News.
Advertisement
ABC News also cited an 11th Airborne Division spokesperson, Lt.-Col. Jo Nederhoed, who said that the two soldiers had been seriously wounded, but were receiving care at a hospital in Anchorage, and had shown improvement by Saturday morning.
“We hope both individuals have a full and quick recovery, and our thoughts are with them during this time,” Fish and Game Regional Supervisor Cyndi Wardlow said in a statement reported by Anchorage Daily News. “In this case, having bear spray with them in the field may have saved their lives.”
Both of the soldiers reportedly had and used bear spray during the attack.
The bear’s condition and whereabouts are currently unknown.
Up, up and away … that’s where most travel prices are going.
It’s true. Not only are our nation’s geopolitical thrusts in the Mideast affecting the cost of your fill-ups, every component of your trip from airfares to car rentals and hotel stays are subject to price hikes.
Imagine filling up a jetliner with jet fuel that’s doubled in price. It’s enough to melt your credit card, regardless of the number of points you get for every dollar spent!
Because the price of oil affects everything, higher prices are eating away at your travel budget in many ways.
Advertisement
Bag fees
There’s lots of press on this. All airlines are increasing their checked-bag fees because of the jump in fuel prices.
Back in 2009, Alaska Airlines instituted a $15 fee for the first checked bag and $25 for the second bag. At the time, there was no charge for the first bag and a second bag was $25.
Last week, Alaska Airlines, along with other major airlines, increased its fees to $45 for the first checked bag and $55 for the second bag. Delta Air Lines charges the same.
Even if the cost of oil comes down, I don’t expect bag fees will ever be reduced.
Travelers who live in Alaska are somewhat insulated from the new hikes because both Delta and Alaska Airlines offer two free checked bags, with conditions:
Advertisement
1. Alaska offers two free checked bags for travelers flying to or from Alaska who are enrolled in Club 49. This does not affect other flights on Alaska. Separately, ATMOS credit card holders can get a free checked bag. Also, elite members of the ATMOS scheme get one or two free checked bags systemwide.
2. Delta offers two free checked bags for travelers flying to or from Alaska who are SkyMiles members who live in Alaska. Again, this does not apply to other Delta flights. Separately, Delta American Express cardholders can get a free checked bag.
3. Elite-level travelers with the oneworld airline cartel, including Alaska Airlines, can get one or two checked bags on American, British Airways, Japan Airlines, Qantas or other oneworld carriers.
[Anchorage’s international airport rolls out self-driving wheelchairs]
Main Cabin vs. Basic Economy
The spread between the lowest available price, Basic Economy, and a more flexible ticket, Main Cabin, has increased. While the difference used to be $20-$30 each way when the Basic Economy scheme was introduced in 2018, the round-trip upcharge now can exceed $100.
Advertisement
For example, the lowest Basic fare to Portland is $337 round-trip on Alaska Airlines. The upcharge to Main Cabin, with full loyalty points, pre-assigned seats and more flexibility on changes and cancellations, is $447, a 33% upcharge.
This trend is not specifically attributable to the new Iran War. It’s just a cost that continues to rise.
New fees
I’m impressed at the creativity of airline people who dream up new fees. Here are some of my favorites from Alaska Airlines:
1. Phone reservations: $15
2. Partner award booking fee: $12.50
Advertisement
3. Pet travel fee: $100 in the cabin, $200 in the baggage compartment with a kennel
4. Left on board item return fee: $20
On Condor Airlines, operating the only nonstop service from Anchorage to Europe, travelers can choose from four different bundles in economy class. The least-expensive, Economy Zero, from $840 round-trip, features fees for travelers:
1. Carry-on bag fee, up to 8kg: $35; a small bag like a purse always is included for free
2. Checked bag: $75
Advertisement
3. Airport check-in: $30
All three of these fees are included in the next-highest fare bucket, Economy Classic, from $900 round-trip. It’s cheaper to buy the bundle than it is to buy the components a la carte. Seat assignments are additional, from $25 for economy.
Airfares on the rise
There are a few good deals available for travel to select West Coast/Intermountain destinations in May, including:
1. Anchorage-San Francisco on Alaska Airlines, from $307 round-trip. Fly May 15-28 only. Add $90 round-trip for Main cabin.
2. Anchorage-Los Angeles on Alaska Airlines, from $317 round-trip. May 15-25 only. Add $90 round-trip for Main.
Advertisement
3. Anchorage-Phoenix on United, Delta or Alaska, from $267-$287 round-trip. Fly May 8-June 9 only. Add $90-$100 for Main.
4. Anchorage-Denver $357 round-trip on Delta. Fly May 8-June 9 only. Add $90 round-trip for Main.
For travel to other destinations, or later in the summer, be prepared to pay more.
Flying to Hawaii? Alaska Air’s nonstop prices out at $706 round-trip between May 30 and June 6. Add $110 round-trip for Main.
Nonstop flights from Anchorage to Salt Lake City start at $669 round-trip with Delta on May 17. That’s $100 more than the cost for the same flights last month. Add $90 more for Main.
Advertisement
Hotel costs continue to rise, accompanied by pesky resort fees.
The Outrigger on the Beach in Waikiki is a very nice beachfront hotel. It’s not plush, or the nicest property. But it’s solid. The cost is $334 per night.
But there’s more: a $50 per night resort fee, plus a variety of taxes and charges, totaling $112.55 per night.
Down in Seattle, the Sound Hotel in the Belltown neighborhood is marketed by Hilton. The discounted rate for “Honors” members — it’s free to join — is $313.34 per night for a king room in late May. Taxes and fees add an extra $56.40 per night.
There’s no appreciable bump yet for hotel rates as a result of the oil price surge. Yet. But if these hotel rates seem high, they’re in line with hotel rates in Anchorage this summer. At the Sheraton in Anchorage in June, it’s $450 per night, plus $54 in taxes and fees, when booked at Expedia.
Advertisement
Car rentals are not cheap
My go-to site for car rentals is the Costco site, which compares major brands and automatically includes Costco discounts.
In Las Vegas, for a one-day rental in May, Budget charges $67 per day, which includes taxes and fees of $22.77. In Anchorage, the same kind of car, medium SUV, costs $92.97 with Alamo.
The biggest differences so far in car rental rates seems to be the bill you’ll pay when you fill up the tank before returning. There’s no appreciable jump in prices because of the new war.
When it comes to making travel arrangements for the spring and summer, it’s more risky making completely non-refundable arrangements.
I made the decision to purchase most of my summer travel plans in advance, but only after determining I would not need to change the dates. Particularly with airline tickets, it’s expensive to change your dates.
Advertisement
There’s lots of uncertainty regarding travel arrangements, particularly international travel. As fuel prices go up due to oil shortages, travel companies will look for ways to recoup the increased costs. In most cases, those higher costs will be borne by travelers.
