Opinion: A new energy project, new risks and new responsibilities for Alaska

Alaska may soon face major decisions about the future of the Alaska LNG project and, if so, the Legislature will need to ensure that every step serves the best interests of Alaskans.

It is essential to remember that Senate Bill 138, the blueprint for state involvement in Alaska LNG, was passed in 2014 for a very different project: one led by ExxonMobil, BP and ConocoPhillips, with a key role fulfilled by TransCanada. Today’s project is led by a private-equity developer, Glenfarne, pursuing a structure that diverges dramatically from what lawmakers contemplated more than a decade ago. When a project changes this much, the underlying statutes need to be revisited.

In June, the Alaska Gasline Development Corp.’s president told his board that AGDC would be coordinating with the developer, the administration and the Legislature regarding legislation needed to support project development. He also noted that AGDC would work with the administration and Legislature on policies required to exercise the corporation’s option to invest 5% to 25% equity at Final Investment Decision, or FID. When AGDC itself signals that legislation is necessary, we should look forward to their outreach.

SB 138 also assigned important responsibilities to the departments of revenue and natural resources that may require legislative action. One key responsibility is the Legislature’s authority to approve major gas project contracts negotiated by the DNR commissioner. The law clearly states that balancing, marketing and gas sale agreements for North Slope gas cannot take effect without explicit legislative authorization. That statutory requirement was intentional and recognizes a project of this scale demands legislative oversight.

We also know that the pressure for speed on complex megaprojects often backfires, sometimes creating more problems than it solves. The Legislature must balance the legitimate need for progress with the responsibility to ensure Alaskans are not asked to assume unreasonable financial risk. As Speaker Bryce Edgmon recently observed, legislation of this magnitude “could dominate the session” and “take significant time.” Senate Finance Co-Chair Bert Stedman was even more direct: if we get this wrong, it could be “detrimental for generations.”

Last week, 4,000 miles away in Washington, D.C., Glenfarne and POSCO International announced a major strategic partnership. It is a meaningful milestone. But Alaska has seen similar announcements before, and it does not diminish the need for hard questions. If anything, it raises them.

Final Investment Decision is when investors and lenders commit billions based on the project’s economics and the state’s fiscal terms. Any legislation affecting property taxes, payments-in-lieu-of-taxes, aka PILTs, state equity, fiscal stability, or upstream royalties and production taxes must be decided before this takes place.

The Legislative Budget and Audit Committee has focused on providing lawmakers and the public with the information needed to understand the choices ahead. I revisited the Legislature’s 2014 “Alaska LNG: Key Issues” report, which helped lawmakers evaluate the original SB 138 framework. Building on that model, I directed our consultants, GaffneyCline, to prepare an updated “key issues” report; not to endorse or oppose the current project, but to provide a high-level overview of potential policy choices, which should be available to the public within the next few days.

The refreshed “key issues” report will be an important starting point. I ask Alaskans to approach it with an open mind and to read it as objectively as possible, free from assumptions shaped by past disappointments or early optimism. Keep asking tough questions of the Legislature, AGDC, Glenfarne and the administration. Don’t assume the project is a done deal or a doomed one. This is not about cheerleading or obstruction, but insisting on rigorous analysis, strong oversight and a fair deal for our children and grandchildren.

Some Alaskans have raised questions about a potential conflict of interest: GaffneyCline is a subsidiary of Baker Hughes, which recently announced agreements with Glenfarne to help advance the Alaska LNG project. I share those concerns, which is why I have met with the Legislature’s director of Legal Services and with GaffneyCline’s North America director. I have been assured by GaffneyCline’s leadership that no one outside the GaffneyCline project team has influenced their analysis, and that their global reputation for independence and trust remains intact. Still, we also must fully vet this issue when we convene in Juneau next month. Transparency and independence are non-negotiable.

The recent ceremony in Washington, D.C., with Glenfarne and POSCO International underscores the project’s potential; however, the authority to determine how and when Alaska monetizes its resources rests here, not with dignitaries celebrating overseas commitments. Our future will be determined in Alaska, by Alaskans, based on the fullest and most honest understanding of the choices before us.

Sen. Elvi Gray-Jackson, D-Anchorage, represents Senate District G, which includes Midtown, Spenard and Taku Campbell in Anchorage. Sen. Gray-Jackson serves as the chair of the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee.

• • •

The Anchorage Daily News 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.