ANCHORAGE, Alaska (KTUU) – Alaska lawmakers are divided over whether new legislation is needed for a liquified natural gas pipeline, with the state’s energy consultant calling it “essential” while some legislators say existing laws are sufficient.

“A successful project will likely require suitable enabling legislation from the state legislature, among other key prerequisites,” state-contracted energy consulting firm GaffneyCline, hired by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee for up to $200,000 in April 2024, says in a document made public for the first time Monday.

The 62-page document, presented to the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee last month, concludes that legislation is essential for the pipeline to be viable but more needs to be done to get the project across the finish line.

“A detailed economic model of the project is required before the legislature can take an informed view as to the appropriate degree of government take that the project can sustain, and how this could evolve over time,” the document states.

Alaska’s News Source reached out to Glenfarne Tuesday for comment on who presents the economic model and when that model could be presented. Spokesperson Tim Fitzpatrick referred on the report for GaffneyCline.

“We will continue to work closely with the legislature to discuss policy issues that may affect Alaska LNG and work collaboratively on solutions that enable Glenfarne to provide Alaskans with affordable energy security as rapidly as possible,” he said in a statement.

The document’s release comes amid optimism from pipeline developers and federal officials but growing skepticism from some state lawmakers.

During a November Legislative Budget and Audit Committee which discussed the same topic, House Speaker Bryce Edgmon, NA-Dillingham, left believing “the upcoming 2026 legislative session could be dominated by policy measures related to advancing the Alaska gas line project.”

“We don’t have any of this,” Edgmon said last month, relating to laws GaffneyCline says are essential.

Rep. Mia Costello, R-Anchorage, former House minority leader and co-chair of the Alaska Gasline Caucus, said she believes legislation for the pipeline is not needed, citing previous legislative involvement.

“Large scale LNG projects around the world are successfully developed through commercial agreements, private capital, and existing regulatory processes not legislative intervention,” Costello said in a statement. “Alaska already has established permitting, taxation, and regulatory framework capable of supporting energy development. Legislative involvement risks introducing political uncertainty, delaying timelines, and discouraging investors who prioritize stability and market driven decision-making.”

However, Sen. Elvi Gray-Jackson, D-Anchorage, told Alaska’s News Source the policy measures currently in place are more than a decade old, created for a different project, and don’t easily mesh with the task in front of them today.

“When project leadership … and financial models change, it’s our responsibility to revisit the policy framework that governs the state involvement, and that’s what we’re going to do as a legislature,” Gray-Jackson said.

Legislative action?

The asks pipeline developers want in those policies could be steep.

On the list of asks is a concept called “fiscal stability,” essentially a promise if Alaska changes its tax or regulatory policies later, the state would make up any financial losses to investors, according to a GaffneyCline presentation shown to lawmakers on the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee.

Those guarantees can mean a “tax freeze” — locking in the current tax system for the life of the project — potentially 20-30 years, according to GaffneyCline’s presentation to lawmakers. If Alaska later raises taxes or imposes new regulations, the presentation said the state would have to compensate investors to maintain their original profit expectations.

Another ask is the lowering of property taxes for the pipeline, something GaffneyCline’s November presentation said could cost the project $1 billion and add 9% to the cost of delivered gas.

Gov. Mike Dunleavy plans to introduce a bill to lower property taxes for the pipeline, spokesperson Jeff Turner confirmed Tuesday. No other LNG bills are planned at this time, he added.

Time crunch

Whatever the legislature decides to do, they’ll need to do it quickly. The regular session convenes Jan. 20, and for the following 120 days, the process to create a package of policies and framework addressing LNG issues will likely be front of mind.

That comes after Glenfarne Alaska LNG set expectations in October that construction for the pipeline will begin in late 2026 and be operational by mid-2029.

“What Alaskans should take away from the report is that we need to hope for the best, but prepare for the situation not moving as fast as Glenfarne and the other players are thinking,” Gray-Jackson said.

Lawmakers have signaled a mixture of optimism for what the pipeline could create, but it comes with skepticism, too. Gray-Jackson said she was “cautiously optimistic.”

“Frankly, I don’t know where we’re at as far as the legislature is concerned because we haven’t gotten any real answers from Glenfarne,” Gray-Jackson said.

A Glenfarne spokesperson said last month they are active in providing information to the state legislature.

“Glenfarne is making rapid progress on Alaska LNG and regularly meets with legislators to provide updates and discuss important state and local policy considerations,” Glenfarne communications director Tim Fitzpatrick said. “We appreciate the legislature’s continued engagement to help make Alaska LNG a success for the state.”

“I understand the potential, huge, multi-generational impact of the state, as well as being very positive,” Sen. Bert Stedman, R-Sitka, told Alaska’s News Source following the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee meeting in November.

“Concentrating on the benefit of the project that we know, if it’s successful, it’s going to be very beneficial, and if it’s unsuccessful, it could be detrimental for generations.”

“Will the project even come unless we present the right scenario?” House Majority Leader Chuck Kopp, R-Anchorage, asked Nick Fulford, GaffneyCline senior director and global head of gas and LNG.

“You mentioned the buyers want 20–30 years of stability … our fiscal framework might be a little bit out of alignment, if I’m hearing you correctly,” Kopp said.

“If those things are all true, our needs, our situation, us being out of alignment, we’re going to have to look at possibly a reality that this line doesn’t even get [built],” the representative added.

Federal permits completed

The project completed 20 federal permits and environmental reviews last week, according to the Permitting Council, clearing what the governor called “the last major regulatory hurdle.”

“Alaska LNG received the major federal permits needed to proceed in 2020,” Fitzpatrick said. “Some of these permits have a five-year renewal cycle, which was completed last week and all of Alaska LNG’s major permits are current and in effect. Glenfarne has an ongoing process to maintain permits and authorizations for Alaska LNG.”

With the permits cleared, the pipeline inches toward a final investment decision (FID). Natural Gas Intelligence, a natural gas news provider, described an FID as “the last step of determining whether to move forward with the sanctioning and construction of an infrastructure project.”

A source familiar with the pipeline developments previously told Alaska’s News Source to expect an FID early next year.

“Alaska LNG will strengthen our economy, create long-term jobs, and provide reliable energy to Alaskans and our global partners for generations to come,” Dunleavy said.

“I am thrilled to see the Alaska LNG project finish federal permitting actions ahead of schedule,” said Permitting Council Executive Director Emily Domenech in the press release.

“This combined effort reflects our commitment to the State of Alaska and to achieving President Trump’s energy dominance agenda.”

Domenech visited the state alongside the congressional Natural Resources Committee in August, when Dunleavy signed a deal with the Trump administration aimed at bringing more resource development investment will come to Alaska.

LNG, however, was not heavily discussed at the meeting.

“Completing federal permitting for Alaska LNG ahead of schedule shows how the Trump administration is restoring America’s Energy Dominance by cutting unnecessary delays and unleashing our abundant resources,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in the release. “This project strengthens U.S. energy security, creates jobs for Alaskans, and reinforces our commitment to a permitting system that works at the speed of American innovation.”

National momentum

The federal push comes as as GaffneyCline’s presentation said both LNG supply and demand are expected to boom globally. Liquefaction, or the process of turning gas into liquid, is expected to increase by 42% by 2030, reaching about 594 million tons per year.

This summer, Dunleavy vetoed several bills and cut more than $100 million from the state budget, largely due to reduced state revenues from oil price declines.

“The oil situation has deteriorated,” Dunleavy said in a video statement before his budget was revealed. “The price of oil has gone down; therefore, our revenue is going down.

“Basically, we don’t have enough money to pay for all of our obligations. So, as a result of that, you’re going to see some reductions in this year’s budget.”

The pipeline project has support from both the state and federal levels. President Donald Trump has pledged to ensure an LNG project gets built “to provide affordable energy to Alaska and allies all over the world.”

On Jan. 20, Trump signed the “Unleashing Alaska’s Extraordinary Resource Potential” executive order, which the administration says prioritizes “the development of Alaska’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) potential, including the sale and transportation of Alaskan LNG to other regions of the United States and allied nations within the Pacific region.”

Despite the optimistic timeline, Alaska has seen multiple LNG pipeline proposals fail over the past two decades due to financing challenges, regulatory delays and market conditions.

Environmental groups and some Alaska Native groups have also raised concerns about the pipeline’s potential impact on wildlife and traditional lands.

See a spelling or grammar error? Report it to web@ktuu.com

Copyright 2025 KTUU. All rights reserved.