JUNEAU, Alaska — Alaska U.S. Senate candidate Dan Sullivan acknowledges that sharing a name and party affiliation with the incumbent Republican gives him “an instant megaphone” in the crowded primary race. But Sullivan said his campaign isn’t a sham or something Democrats put him up to doing.

He said friends for years have jokingly referred to him as senator and asked if he has ever thought about running. He said he’s been considering it for more than a decade.

“This is my choice,” Sullivan, who lives in the small fishing community of Petersburg, said in a telephone interview Monday.

Last week, Sen. Dan Sullivan accused the challenger Sullivan of “trying to trick” voters to help his main rival in the race, Democratic former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola. The senator suggested the other Sullivan’s entrance in the August primary was part of a coordinated effort by Democrats and Peltola’s campaign to confuse voters, an accusation they deny. He threatened litigation to get to the bottom of it.

Late Monday, Alaska Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom, a Republican who oversees elections in the state, announced she was opening an investigation into the candidacy of the challenger Sullivan.

‘I have every right to run’

The issue is of national concern to Republicans because they are seeking to hold onto their majority in the U.S. Senate in what is expected to be a difficult midterm election year for the party in power. Sullivan, the challenger, dismissed claims that his candidacy is a merely a ruse to undermine the senator’s reelection chances.

He said he has had no contact with Peltola’s campaign — “zero, none, zilch” — and said “no” when asked if anyone from the state Democratic Party or any national Democratic operatives had contacted him to run.

A Peltola spokesperson, Harry Child, has said the campaign “has no involvement with either Sullivan campaign.” The executive director of the Alaska Democratic Party, Jenny-Marie Stryker, said her organization “is in no way affiliated with either Dan Sullivan.” A Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesperson, Monica Robinson, replied “no” when asked if the group had been involved in urging the challenger Sullivan to run.

Sullivan called sharing a name with the Alaska’s incumbent U.S. senator “a matter of fate” and said he had done nothing wrong.

“I have every right to run for whatever office I’m qualified for, and I’m qualified for this office,” the challenger said, adding: “I think I’m doing what most Americans would think would be a patriotic thing to do when you’re unsatisfied with the status quo. You stand up and say, I’m going to fight for things I believe that are going to make my community better.”

Like Murkowski, but with ‘touches of a Rand Paul Republican’

Ballots in prior years in Alaska have not identified the incumbent, but the Alaska Division of Elections’ current candidate list online does. It also distinguishes the candidates using a middle initial — Dan S. Sullivan for the senator and Dan J. Sullivan for the challenger.

Alaska has open primaries in which the top four vote-getters, regardless of party, advance to the ranked choice general election in November. Sen. Sullivan’s campaign worries having two Dan Sullivans on the ballot could confuse voters.

Sen. Sullivan’s campaign, in a statement Monday, said, “Alaskans deserve a fair and honest election — not political games meant to manipulate the ballot and benefit Democrats.”

The challenger said he was registered with the limited government-leaning Alaskan Independence Party for decades, until the party’s dissolution late last year. Election officials had said voters registered with the party could change their affiliation but if they did not, they’d be shown as “undeclared.” Sullivan said he then was listed as undeclared until filing to run for office, when he registered as Republican.

He said he was motivated in part by his late father, whom he described as a “true, compassionate, conservative Republican.” He said if he had to label himself, it would be “a pragmatic Republican centrist” — similar to Alaska’s senior U.S. senator, Lisa Murkowski, but “with touches of a Rand Paul Republican in there.”

He said he grew up in the Chicago area but was drawn to Alaska and put down roots nearly 50 years ago in Petersburg. The fishing community of about 3,400 in southeast Alaska’s Tongass National Forest is known as “Little Norway” for its many residents with Scandinavian roots. He worked for the U.S. Forest Service before changing careers and becoming a teacher. He has since retired.

Candidate ponders how to run a campaign

Like most communities in Alaska, Petersburg isn’t connected to the state’s main road system and is accessible only by air or water. Juneau, the nearest city, is about 45 minutes away by plane.

Petersburg sits on Mitkof Island, which is distinguished by mountains, thick stands of forest and boggy areas called muskeg. Sea lions hauled up on buoys and humpback whales and orcas are common sights off its shores.

Sullivan, who will turn 69 this weekend, passed on an interview request last Friday, he said, because the king salmon were running and he wanted to fish.

As far as his run for office, the challenger said he plans to do some fundraising and hopes to campaign in the state’s larger cities, including Anchorage and Juneau, but he so far has no firm plans to do so and is working on the details.

He finds the current dustup over his Senate run — and the incumbent’s reaction — a bit surprising.

“I guess my thought would be, ‘Dude, why don’t you just run your campaign?’ If you’ve got a strong record, run on your record. People will love you for it and you’ll be swept back into office,” he said Monday. “Why would he be concerned that a guy out of Petersburg is this huge threat?”

Alaska legislators are being asked to grant a 90% reduction in state and local gas property taxes to advance the latest North Slope natural gas project without knowing whether other revenue concessions and costs may be asked of the state in the future. Some legislators are asking for more information before deciding on the tax reduction. History confirms their cautious approach.

Since the 1950s, at least 15 efforts have been made to transport North Slope gas to Alaskans and outside markets. Early private company attempts failed because of high costs, changing market conditions and a lack of commitment from the major corporate oil and gas producers that controlled the gas supply and had the capacity to move a project forward.

In 1996, a consultant advised Alaska policymakers that oil and gas tax changes locked in by contract might improve project economics enough to persuade producers to build a pipeline. In 1998, the Legislature authorized negotiations based on that premise, reinforcing the idea that state fiscal concessions could unlock Alaska’s gas potential.

Ten years later, in a gas fiscal contract negotiated with the producers by the Murkowski administration, the state conceded to so many producer demands that the same consultant who initiated the fiscal contract idea warned that the state had gone too far and there was “absolutely no need to treat Alaska as a banana republic in order to secure the gas line.” Legislators who withstood intense political pressure and refused to approve the contract protected Alaska from a deal that could have cost the state more than it returned.

In 2014, the Parnell administration offered the producers concessions similar to the 2006 contract to advance a liquefied natural gas project, Alaska LNG. Under the agreement, the producers owned 75% of the project and the state owned 25%. The producers helped fund early planning efforts, but changing markets led the companies to withdraw in 2016, leaving the state-owned Alaska Gasline Development Corp. to carry the entire project with the backing of state funds in the hundreds of millions.

Also in 2014, the administration negotiated an arrangement with developer TransCanada Alaska, where TransCanada owned most of the state’s 25% share of the project. TransCanada agreed to pay development costs associated with the state’s share. The state committed to repay the state’s share of TransCanada’s costs with 7.1% interest if the project failed to advance. In 2015, Alaska paid $65 million to exit the deal.

For today’s version of Alaska LNG, AGDC entered a confidential ownership agreement giving private developer Glenfarne 75% of the entire project and AGDC 25%, with Glenfarne funding development costs, including the state’s share, through to the project’s go-or-no-go decision. Given the payback provision in the TransCanada agreement, a key question now is whether the AGDC-Glenfarne agreement contains similar risks for the state.

Gas supply is another unresolved issue. Historically, North Slope gas producers showed little interest in supporting a pipeline they did not own. Today, they have confidential gas supply agreements with Glenfarne, leaving unknown whether their supply commitments are contingent on the sort of fiscal concessions they previously sought from the state.

Alaska’s gas is a public resource. AGDC is funded with public dollars. Alaskans will be impacted by AGDC’s decisions. Prior gas projects had flaws, but their terms were public and subject to legislative review and approval. Under a 2013 law, important details of the current project can remain confidential even as lawmakers are asked to grant major tax relief. That leaves them making a generational decision without knowing the full scope of state commitments and costs.

Legislators are right to insist on getting the information needed to protect Alaskans’ interests. As in the past, caution is Alaska’s best protection against a bad deal.

Lisa Weissler is a retired state of Alaska oil and gas attorney and former Alaska legislative staffer. Much of her career involved advising Alaska lawmakers on natural resource and oil and gas issues, including natural gas pipeline project proposals. More recently, Weissler authored the book “Capitol Crude: The Impact of Oil on Alaska Politics,” which includes a comprehensive history of previous attempts to transport state natural gas from the North Slope.

• • •

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.