Connect with us

Alaska

Opinion: The pipeline that stole Christmas: Why Alaska can’t afford this costly project

Published

on

Opinion: The pipeline that stole Christmas: Why Alaska can’t afford this costly project


Gov. Mike Dunleavy, left, and Brendan Duval, CEO and founder of Glenfarne Group LLC, talk about construction of an Alaska LNG pipeline during the Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference at the Dena’ina Center in Anchorage on Thursday, June 5, 2025. (Bill Roth / ADN)

Too many residents, business owners and politicians of Southcentral Alaska — we’re talking the state’s population center of Anchorage, the Mat-Su and Kenai Peninsula — are all agog in anticipation that a multibillion-dollar North Slope natural gas pipeline will save them from unaffordable heating and electric bills.

It’s the time of year for holiday dreams — a warm tradition like Hallmark movies, grandma’s cookies and the Budweiser Clydesdales. But the wintry cold truth about this dream is that there will be no pipeline under the tree — just bits of tinsel left over from premature and misleading celebrations.

The megaproject is too costly and too risky in a world that has plenty of easier and cheaper gas to sell. It has uncertain construction costs, with public estimates ranging from roughly $40 to $44 billion; no binding long-term customer contracts to provide collateral for loans; no binding financial commitments from investors; and actually no gas under firm contract to sell. Other than that, it’s a great holiday package, with the lead promoter publicly talking of delivering a construction decision before the holiday season is over.

Yet many still want to believe it’s possible, preferring to perpetuate the warm holiday glow of bountiful gas, plentiful jobs and wishful thinking of billions of dollars flowing into the state treasury.

Advertisement

But while the notion of a pipeline delivering North Slope gas to Southcentral boilers, furnaces and power plants is consuming much of the air in the convention hall of big ideas, Southcentral utilities face the real prospect of running short of gas before the end of the decade, as Cook Inlet production declines.

Which means those utilities would need to import gas — supercooled into a liquid and delivered by tanker from Canada or elsewhere. Which means spending money to build an import facility. Which means charging ratepayers for the investment.

That’s the immediate problem, not waiting for a pipeline to come to the rescue.

Southcentral’s largest electric utility, Chugach Electric Association, is negotiating with Harvest Midstream, an affiliate of Cook Inlet oil and gas producer Hilcorp, which plans to restore operations at the unused gas export terminal in Nikiski and turn it into an import hub. It’s a low-cost, low-risk plan — with federal authorization in hand — to use the existing dock and storage tanks to help keep the state’s population center warm and well-lit.

However, the same project developer that wants to build the North Slope project, a company named Glenfarne, thinks it has a better backup answer before its pipeline arrives. It proposes to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build a gas import terminal from scratch. Southcentral gas utility ENSTAR is in on the plan.

Advertisement

The Glenfarne/ENSTAR project not only lacks approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, it hasn’t even applied for authorization. Glenfarne has talked of spending tens of millions of dollars just getting to a construction decision. Then more spending, and years, before it could start importing gas.

All of the Southcentral utilities need to get their collective acts together and use the lowest-cost, fastest-to-develop, most certain option to ensure their customers have the gas they need. That is repurposing the existing export plant into an import terminal.

Building an entirely new facility for a small customer base is as wasteful as spending more public money on an unaffordable gas pipeline.

Any bad spending decisions by the utilities could fall on ratepayers to cover, or the state to bail out. Alaska has made a lot of poor decisions about energy over the years. We don’t need one more.

Larry Persily is a longtime Alaska journalist, with breaks for federal, state and municipal public policy work in Alaska and Washington, D.C. He lives in Anchorage and is the publisher of the Wrangell Sentinel weekly newspaper.

Advertisement

• • •

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.





Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Alaska

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

Published

on

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






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.

Advertisement

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?

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.

Advertisement

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

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Alaska

Backcountry avalanche warning issued for much of Southcentral Alaska

Published

on

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.

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Alaska

In US Supreme Court case over which absentee ballots count, Alaska doesn’t pick a side

Published

on

In US Supreme Court case over which absentee ballots count, Alaska doesn’t pick a side


Ballot envelopes from the special primary election for Alaska’s lone U.S. House seat are prepared to be opened at the State Division of Elections Region II office in Anchorage on June 13, 2022. (Bill Roth / ADN)

Alaska’s appointed attorney general on Friday filed a friends of the court brief in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court involving whether absentee ballots that arrive after Election Day can be counted.

The filing does not side with either party in the case, which arose in Mississippi.

Instead, it informs the court of the logistical hurdles in Alaska — far-flung villages, lack of roads and severe weather — that make it difficult to receive absentee ballots by Election Day.

Alaska, like roughly half the other states in the U.S., allows some ballots cast by Election Day to be received later, the brief says.

Advertisement

The case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, challenges a law in Mississippi that allows absentee ballots received shortly after Election Day to count if they are postmarked by Election Day.

The Republican National Committee, the Mississippi Republican Party, the Libertarian Party of Mississippi and a Mississippi voter challenged the law in 2024. They argue that under federal law, ballots must received by state officials by Election Day to be counted.

The case could have national implications by influencing midterm elections, and comes amid baseless assertions from President Donald Trump that mail-in voting results in “MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD.”

The Alaska brief was filed by Jenna Lorence, the first Alaska solicitor general after Attorney General Stephen Cox created the role and appointed the Indiana attorney in October to fill it.

The 14-page brief says it does not support either party in the case.

Advertisement

The state’s impartiality drew criticism from an elections attorney, Scott Kendall, one of the main architects of the state’s ranked choice voting and open primary system.

“If you’re going to file something, take a position in favor of Alaska’s laws because they’re there for a very good reason,” Kendall said.

If the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the law in Mississippi, that could lead to the disenfranchisement of many Alaska voters whose ballots arrive after Election Day, he said.

“Thousands upon thousands of Alaskans, through no fault of their own, wouldn’t be able to vote, and that’s not the democracy I signed up for,” Kendall said.

Under Alaska law, absentee ballots sent in state are counted if they are received “by the close of business on the 10th day after the election,” the filing says. Ballots from overseas must be received by the 15th day after the election.

Advertisement

Asked why the solicitor general did not take a position defending Alaska’s law or siding with either party, the Department of Law said in a statement emailed by spokesperson Sam Curtis:

“The State is committed to providing fair elections for Alaskans and will do so whatever rule the Court adopts. Alaska has previously filed these factual briefs to ensure courts understand the State’s unique perspective. Here, we wanted to ensure the Supreme Court knew how circumstances in Alaska make rules that might be simple in Mississippi more complicated in our State. We’re asking for clarity, so the Division of Elections and Alaska voters have straightforward rules to apply in the 2026 election.”

The filing notes that most Alaska communities are hard to reach.

“With over 80 percent of Alaskan communities off the road system, and extreme weather making access by boat or plane unreliable during certain months, including November, Alaska’s Division of Elections will continue to establish processes unlike any other State to ensure that its geography does not limit its citizens’ ability to vote,” the filing says. “Alaska asks that as this Court crafts a rule in this case, it provide clear parameters for Alaska to apply.”

The filing provides examples of how determining when a ballot was “received” by the Division of Elections is not always clearly defined, the Department of Law said.

Advertisement

In some cases, even in-person votes can struggle to reach the state elections division due to weather and geographical challenges, the filing says.

In 2024, poll workers in Atqasuk in northern Alaska tallied the votes cast on Election Day, but could not reach the elections division by phone that night.

So they “placed the ballots and tally sheets into a secure package and mailed them to the Division, who did not receive them until nine days later,” the filing says. “This exemplifies the hurdles that the Division regularly faces to receive and count votes from rural areas.”

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that ballots must “be both cast by voters and received by state officials” by Election Day, the filing says.

“While that rule may invalidate laws like Mississippi’s delayed receipt deadline, what does it do in a situation like Atqasuk, where votes were cast and received by some poll workers on election day, but state officials did not receive the physical ballots or vote tallies until days later?” the filing says.

Advertisement

“Even more standardized voting situations in Alaska raise these questions,” the filing says.

“For example, when a voter casts an in-person absentee ballot in a remote area shortly before election day, the absentee voting official must send the ballot (in its unopened absentee ballot envelope) to the regional office, which may take some time,” the filing says. “Is the ballot ‘received’ the day it is turned over to the voting official? Or is it ‘received’ only once it reaches the regional office, where, for the first time, the Division evaluates eligibility before opening the envelope and counting the ballot within?”

“While it is clear when a ballot is ‘cast’ in Alaska (meaning that the vote cannot be changed), when certain ballots are actually ‘received’ is open to different interpretations, especially given the connectivity challenges for Alaska’s far-flung boroughs,” the filing says.

Alaska Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom, who oversees elections, said in a prepared statement that Alaska wants the Supreme Court “to provide clear guidance that protects election integrity while recognizing Alaska’s logistical challenges, so every eligible voter can make their voice heard.”

Cox said in the statement that Alaska wants the court to “consider how a rule that seems straightforward in some states might raise more questions in others. All we want is clarity in the rules.”

Advertisement

The filing also points out that for absentee ballots, many voters rely on the United States Postal Service.

“But unlike in other states, where mail delivery can be accomplished by simply driving to someone’s house via a continuous road system, USPS must use creative solutions to reach 82 percent of Alaskan communities,” the filing says.

In a separate matter, new guidelines from the U.S. Postal Service could also lead to votes not being counted across the U.S.

The postal service said on Dec. 24 it cannot guarantee that it will postmark ballots the same day they are put into a mailbox.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending