Suzanne Downing: Let’s not blow the gasline this time, Alaska

By SUZANNE DOWNING

May 27, 2026 – For nearly 50 years, Alaska has been the land of “almost” when it comes to a North Slope gasline.

Almost financed. Almost permitted. Almost commercialized. Almost there.

Generations of governors, legislators, industry leaders, and dreamers have stood before maps of Alaska pointing at Prudhoe Bay and imagining what could happen if we could finally unlock the vast reserves of stranded natural gas sitting beneath the North Slope. Entire political careers have risen and fallen on the promise of a gasline.

And now, for the first time, Alaska is not just pondering a gasline as a theory, but staring at something that looks remarkably close to reality.

We’re almost there, folks. All we have is a Legislature in the way.

Back in 2007, under Gov. Sarah Palin, the Legislature passed the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, known as AGIA. At the time, it was hailed as the bold breakthrough Alaska had been waiting for. The state offered up to $500 million in matching funds to incentivize development of a major natural gas pipeline project. TransCanada emerged as the winning applicant, later joined by ExxonMobil.

The vision then was massive: a 1,700-mile pipeline stretching through Canada to Alberta, carrying Alaska gas to North American markets. It was a serious effort, backed by serious money and serious political will.

But then came the shale boom.

Natural gas prices collapsed and the economics shifted. The market pulled the rug out from under Alaska’s feet. The open season failed to attract enough firm commitments, and eventually AGIA faded into the long list of Alaska projects that never quite crossed the finish line.

Alaskans know this story all too well. We have lived through decades of “this time it’s different.”

But this time actually is different.

The world has changed. Energy security is more critical than ever. Asian allies are actively seeking long-term stable LNG supplies that don’t come from China or Russia. Alaska is no longer competing against a domestic Lower 48 shortage market. Instead, it is positioned as a strategic Pacific supplier with enormous geopolitical importance.

And perhaps most importantly, Alaska itself desperately needs this gas.

Southcentral utilities are warning about looming Cook Inlet supply shortages. Interior Alaska families continue paying crushing energy costs. For the first time, the gasline is not merely an export dream. It is a necessity for Alaska’s own future.

After AGIA collapsed, the state pivoted toward the Alaska LNG Project under the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation. Instead of a Canada route, the focus has become, through endless studies and negotiations, an 807-mile pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Nikiski, paired with a liquefaction plant for exports to Asian markets.

For years, skeptics dismissed it as another pipe dream. But then, something big happened: Federal permits were secured. Engineering advanced. International interest grew. Agreements were signed with Asian buyers. Glenfarne stepped in as lead developer. Construction planning accelerated. Washington began openly supporting the project again.

Suddenly, Alaska found itself closer than it has been in decades — genuinely close.

Which brings us to now and the very real danger Alaska always faces at the edge of major opportunity: ourselves.

The Legislature now finds itself debating tax structures, throughput formulas, municipal provisions, amendments, side deals, poison pills, and political leverage games. Some lawmakers appear determined to keep tweaking, refining, reshaping, and renegotiating every possible angle of the project. They want more, and they’re willing to talk it to death.

That instinct is understandable. This is a massive project involving enormous sums of money and long-term consequences. But Alaska has a terrible habit of overcomplicating itself into paralysis. Heck, we can’t even build a hydro project at Susitna-Watana. And hydro is even supposedly popular with liberal elites.

At some point, lawmakers must decide whether they want a viable project or merely the satisfaction of endlessly perfecting a theoretical one.

The perfect can become the enemy of the good.

There is no version of a gasline deal where every faction gets everything it wants. There never has been. There never will be. Mega-projects happen because leaders eventually decide forward motion is better than permanent gridlock.

What’s really telling is that there are three senior lawmakers still serving today were there when AGIA passed in 2007: Bryce Edgmon, Bert Stedman, and Lyman Hoffman. They have watched Alaska spend nearly two decades cycling through hope, disappointment, reinvention, and renewed hope again.

They must understand better than most how rare this window may be.

The truth is, opportunities like this do not come along often for Alaska anymore.

The state faces declining population growth, fiscal uncertainty, aging infrastructure, and rising energy insecurity. Young families are leaving. Investors are already looking elsewhere because of the paralysis in the legislature. Meanwhile, Alaska sits atop one of the largest undeveloped natural gas resources on the planet.

If Alaska cannot figure this out now, even with global demand aligned, federal support aligned, Asian interest aligned, and in-state need aligned, then someone needs to figure out who is going to turn out the lights as everyone leaves.

This is Alaska’s moment. Of course, success is not guaranteed, but this time, the possibility of success is not theoretical.

Lawmakers should absolutely do their due diligence. They should ask hard questions.

But the Legislature has already left a graveyard of gasline dreams. This time, lawmakers should be very careful not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Suzanne Downing is founder and editor of The Alaska Story and is a longtime Alaskan.