Stolen Alaska LNG agreement sparks more heat than light as critics overlook testimony already on the record

By SUZANNE DOWNING

June 26, 2026 – The latest controversy surrounding the Alaska LNG project has generated far more political theater than genuine revelation, as news reports have fixated on content of a stolen confidential commercial agreement that was never intended for public circulation. How the document was made public is a matter of great concern.

Lost amid the breathless media coverage is a simple fact: many of the contract provisions now being portrayed as shocking were openly discussed before lawmakers more than a year ago. It’s on the legislative record. That point was brought up by Glenfarne, the gasline contractor, to the legislative conference committee hammering out the details of HB 381 in Juneau today.

Much of the attention has centered on a so-called “clawback” provision in the agreement between the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation and Glenfarne. Some lawmakers and media reports have suggested the clause obligates the State of Alaska to pay Glenfarne for a project that might never be built.

But legislative testimony from April 23, 2025, tells a different story, Glenfarne’s representatives pointed out.

During a meeting of the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee that day over a year ago, Rep. Zack Fields asked directly whether the state could end up paying Glenfarne for “the theoretical project that didn’t yet exist” if milestones were missed under the agreement.

Matt Kissinger, then speaking on behalf of the project, answered unequivocally:

“No, that’s not correct.”

He went on to explain that the provision was never intended as a windfall for the developer. Instead, it was designed to preserve incentives for a private company investing enormous sums into developing a $44 billion infrastructure project.

“The clawback would be a paid clawback,” Kissinger testified then. “There’s a real important reason for that… If you’re going to penalize your developer and if they miss a milestone and you just pull everything away from them and they lose everything, they will put nothing into it. And this is a $44 billion project that we’re building. We need to put the very best work going into it. So that’s why there are paid milestones or paid clawback.”

In other words, the provision addresses an extraordinary circumstance in which the State itself elects to reclaim control of the project after the developer has already invested substantial resources. It is a risk-allocation mechanism commonly found in major commercial agreements, not a prediction that Alaska expects to write a massive check.

The irony is that some of the lawmakers now expressing alarm over this point were in the room when that explanation was given a year ago.

Among those attending the April 2025 hearing were Senate Majority Leader Cathy Giessel and Senate Rules Chairman Bill Wielechowski, both of whom have since become among the Legislature’s most vocal opponents of the gasline project.

The larger issue extends well beyond one contract provision.

What should concern Alaskans is not simply that a confidential commercial agreement became public, but what the episode signals to companies considering multi-billion-dollar investments in Alaska.

A confidential business agreement is not the same thing as a secret document but is a standard practice in virtually every major industry, from energy companies, technology firms, manufacturers, financial institutions to health-care organizations. They all rely on contracts that protect proprietary financial information, negotiating strategies, and commercially sensitive terms. Such provisions exist because businesses cannot negotiate effectively if every draft and every contingency becomes public fodder before agreements are finalized.

If the Alaska Legislature develops a reputation for treating confidential commercial agreements as political weapons whenever they become convenient, companies considering investing billions of dollars may inevitably question whether proprietary business information can remain protected here.

The circumstances surrounding the disclosure also raise questions. Some of the lawmakers involved in discussing or circulating the leaked material are licensed attorneys. Lawyers are bound by professional responsibilities that extend beyond ordinary political debate, including obligations involving confidential information and respect for legal rights.

Whether any professional rule applies in this particular situation is to be determined. But it is fair to ask whether licensed professionals like lawyers should exercise heightened caution when confronted with documents that appear to have been disclosed outside normal commercial channels.

Equally important is the context surrounding the agreement itself. Lawyers draft provisions answering questions like, “What happens if one party walks away?” or “What happens if government policy changes?” Those clauses allocate risk; they are not forecasts that the events will occur. This is normal procedure to discuss the “what ifs” of a project.

Project officials have repeatedly stated that Glenfarne bears the commercial risk if the project simply fails under normal business conditions. The clawback provision, by contrast, was added by AGDC as a mechanism to protect the State’s ability to regain control of the project under specified circumstances. If the State of Alaska were to exercise that option after Glenfarne had invested substantial resources, compensation would be part of the bargain—precisely because no rational private developer would invest hundreds of millions of dollars if government could simply seize the project without consequence.

If Alaska wants companies willing to invest tens of billions of dollars in transformative infrastructure, preserving trust may prove just as important as the contract itself.