By SUZANNE DOWNING
June 16, 2026 – If the Alaska LNG project dies in the Alaska State Senate this week, don’t expect the people responsible to stand on the Senate floor and explain why.
That’s because the “bipartisan” Senate majority has a convenient escape hatch known as the “Rule of 11.”
It’s not in state law. It’s not in the Uniform Rules. It’s not even an official Senate rule.
It’s a private caucus agreement.
Under this arrangement, no major legislation moves to the Senate floor unless at least 11 members of the majority caucus agree behind closed doors to advance it. If they don’t reach that number, the bill never sees daylight. It simply disappears into the procedural swamp.
And that appears to be exactly what is happening to Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s special-session gasline legislation.
The governor called lawmakers back to Juneau for one purpose: Remove tax obstacles that could undermine financing for the largest private construction project in Alaska history.
The House did its job and passed the legislation. Now the bill sits in the Senate, where members of the majority caucus have scheduled yet another technical session for Wednesday as the clock runs out on the special session. Friday is the end date.
The message could not be clearer: They’re stalling.
The Senate majority consists largely of Democrats and a handful of Republicans who govern as a coalition. Among them are Senate President Gary Stevens, Majority Leader Cathy Giessel, Rules Chair Bill Wielechowski, and members Scott Kawasaki, Kelly Merrick, Matt Claman, Forrest Dunbar, Jesse Bjorkman, Jesse Kiehl, Bert Stedman and others.
Collectively, they control whether this bill reaches the floor.
The Republican minority can do nothing about it. They can wait. They can plead. They can make speeches. But unless the majority chooses to move the bill, it stays trapped in caucus.
That’s the beauty of the Rule of 11: Nobody has to vote no. Nobody has to explain themselves to constituents. Nobody has to appear in campaign ads opposing thousands of construction jobs, manufacturing opportunities, and a project capable of changing Alaska’s economic trajectory.
Instead, they can simply hide behind a secret caucus vote that the public never sees.
This is the same coalition has lectured Alaskans about transparency, accountability, and open government. They have demanded disclosure from everyone else while conducting some of their most consequential business behind closed doors.
Now, when Alaska faces a decision that could shape its economic future for generations, the transparency crowd has gone silent.
The public won’t know who supported moving the bill or who opposed it.
The public won’t know who in the majority killed it because that information remains locked away inside caucus meetings.
A special session called to advance a gasline will end without accomplishing its central purpose.
And the result will be thousands of potential jobs lost, affordable long-term energy killed, and the politicians responsible can walk away claiming they never voted against any of it.
This is why the Rule of 11 exists. It’s to avoid accountability, which is what Democrats like to do.
The most revealing comment may have come from Senate President Gary Stevens himself:
“Hopefully the governor’s getting the message that we want to see very few vetoes.”
There you have it. That statement tells Alaskans everything they need to know. This is no longer primarily about natural gas.
It’s about leverage, using Alaska’s largest economic development opportunity as a bargaining chip in unrelated political disputes.
In other words, it’s blackmail dressed up as legislative process.
A serious Senate would put the bill on the floor and vote.
Let every senator explain his or her position and allow the public to see who supports the project and who opposes it. Let the chips fall where they may.
Instead, the Senate majority is going to hide behind an unofficial caucus rule and let time do the dirty work.
If the gasline dies this week, remember that it wasn’t defeated in public.
It was smothered in a back room.
And that’s exactly how the architects of the Rule of 11 prefer it.
Suzanne Downing is founder and editor of The Alaska Story and is a longtime Alaskan.
6 thoughts on “Suzanne Downing: How the Senate Majority plans to kill the gasline without leaving fingerprints”
Dunleavy should call them back into special session as many times as needed. Since he will need to give them the required 30 day notice it will give them time to hear from their constituents and give them time to think about why they were elected in the first place.
“……..Dunleavy should call them back into special session as many times as needed……..”
Agreed. Let them spend the summer in Juneau.
This was a given. 36 meetings in Senate Resources and not a single thing done by the gang of four to get a workable tax plan..
Governor should veto every damn thing that went into increasing the budget by 10% over last years.
This is your green energy Dimwit platform on display.
They’re all scum suckers in the Senate majority.
Kelly Merrick is an absolute embarrassment but even I can’t believe she’s gonna kill all these jobs. She’s a total Union shill and unions want good paying jobs. Cowards the whole lot of them.
If Alaska does not codify the tax changes, the consequences depend on whether Glenfarne can still assemble financing and reach Final Investment Decision (FID) under the existing tax structure.
There are several potential outcomes.
Scenario 1: The Project Slows Down
This is probably the most immediate risk.
Glenfarne has argued that tax certainty improves project financeability and reduces investor risk. If the Legislature refuses to codify the requested changes, lenders, export credit agencies, and equity partners may require higher returns or additional guarantees before committing capital.
Potential impacts:
* FID delayed
* Financing takes longer
* Additional negotiations required
* Higher cost of capital
* Project schedule slips
This is the argument project supporters are making.
⸻
Scenario 2: Alaska Retains Negotiating Leverage
This is the counterargument.
The world has not suddenly stopped needing natural gas.
Alaska still possesses:
* one of the largest undeveloped gas resources in North America
* existing federal permits
* rights-of-way
* strategic Pacific access
* growing Asian LNG demand
Refusing immediate codification does not necessarily kill the project.
Instead it preserves leverage for Alaska to negotiate:
* stronger local hire requirements
* Alaska business participation
* municipal protections
* downstream processing
* Alaska-owned infrastructure interests
* workforce commitments
In this scenario, the Legislature is essentially saying:
“We are not saying no. We are saying show us what Alaska receives in return.”
⸻
Scenario 3: Glenfarne Revisits the Deal Structure
This is the outcome that receives less public discussion.
If tax incentives are denied and project economics weaken, Glenfarne may need to revisit:
* ownership structure
* risk allocation
* financing terms
* Alaska participation
In many large infrastructure projects, when economics tighten, parties return to the negotiating table.
The question becomes:
Is Alaska’s leverage stronger before codification or after codification?
Many negotiators would argue it is stronger before.
⸻
Scenario 4: Alaska LNG Never Gets Built
This is the worst-case outcome.
If:
* financing cannot be assembled,
* global LNG markets change,
* costs continue increasing,
* investors choose other LNG opportunities,
then Alaska LNG could once again stall.
Supporters of codification argue this risk is real because competing projects already exist in places like Qatar, Canada, and the U.S. Gulf Coast.
Their position is straightforward:
A project that never gets built creates zero jobs, zero gas deliveries, and zero revenue.
⸻
The Real Strategic Question
The debate is often framed as:
Codify = Project Lives
Don’t Codify = Project Dies
Reality is probably more nuanced.
The real strategic question is:
Does Alaska gain more value by granting tax certainty today, or by using tax certainty as a negotiating asset to secure additional Alaska-owned benefits first?
That is fundamentally a negotiation question, not an engineering question.
⸻
What the Senate Would Be Betting On
If Alaska codifies:
The bet is: certainty attracts capital and accelerates construction.
If Alaska does not codify:
The bet is: Alaska’s gas remains valuable enough that investors will continue negotiating.
Those are two different risk calculations.
One prioritizes speed and investment certainty.
The other prioritizes retaining leverage and maximizing Alaska’s share of future economic benefits.
The consequence of not codifying is therefore not automatically “no project.”
The consequence is that Alaska and Glenfarne may have to continue negotiating until both sides believe the allocation of risk, ownership, incentives, and benefits is acceptable. Whether that ultimately produces a better deal or causes the project to stall is the central uncertainty facing the Legislature today.
To be clear, my opinion is that the Senate should not pass this legislation until terms are renegotiated.
Alaska is now receiving a “capital-call” from Glenfarne under the guise of collaborative mega-project development.
Glenfarne owns 75% and if it does not have the capacity to finance with the expansive value Alaska already transferred to them, then Alaska needs to demand additional tangible terms, I.e. take back majority control of the decision-making at the board.