Brett Huber: AK LNG Is moving fast. Let’s hope the ‘No’ Caucus doesn’t sabotage it

 

By BRETT HUBER

With all the breaking good news and the daily positive progress reports about the long-awaited Alaska Gas Line project, it’s hard to keep up!  But the “take-home” message is simple: Nearly unprecedented political alignment exists from the president of the United States, our federal delegation, the Governor, the Borough Mayors, our public utilities, private business, to local consumers.  They are all supporting and advocating for this project and the private developers are already spending smart money to make it happen.

This gas line is no longer a PowerPoint presentation or a pipe dream. It’s not owned by China, that was Gov. Walker’s failed vision.   It’s happening the right way, private sector led, with direction and oversight from the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation, the state agency purpose built for that job. The only thing that can screw it up now is the “Caucus of NO” in the Alaska Legislature.

Progress looks like this: President Donald Trump just highlighted the gas line in the Wall Street Journal. Also this month, Glenfarne, the private-sector project owner, filed with regulators at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, for permission to begin construction work in mid-April. The early work includes man camps, access roads, bridge crossings, pipe storage sites, and other infrastructure needed to support full pipeline construction, with pipe laying potentially starting later in the year. Private investment put to work.

Earlier, Glenfarne announced other big milestones that shifted the Alaska LNG project decisively toward the building phase: agreements for gas supply from North Slope producers, in-state gas sales deals, and a letter of intent to supply up to 50 million cubic feet per day to the Donlin Gold Mine. Additionally, tentative selections of construction and engineering firms, pipeline contractors, and pipe suppliers have been made.

Mechanical completion of the gas line is now targeted for 2028, with first in-state gas delivery expected in 2029.

Alaska has never been closer to having our North Slope gas providing another anchor revenue stream for state and local governments, adding thousands of jobs to the economy, and solving the pending energy crisis in Cook Inlet.

This momentum grew also because the governor and congressional delegation have worked together and pushed hard to get the project off the vision board, onto the drawing table and into the field. Glenfarne became lead developer less than a year ago — March 2025. The company partnered with Worley for final engineering, secured preliminary LNG offtake commitments from buyers in Asia, and signed cooperation agreements with international partners.

And yet, just as the project is gaining traction, the Legislature’s professional naysayers are back at it. Instead of getting to “yes,” they’re trying to get to “no.”

Rather than focusing on what they are actually supposed to do, such as fix the budget, address the Permanent Fund, tackle education failures, and deal with the state’s fiscal trajectory, some legislators have decided their main job is to throw cold water on the one project that offers long-term energy security for the Railbelt.

Now remember, these legislative naysayers have zero expertise in this lane. They are not engineers. They are not pipeline builders. They are not energy market specialists. They have not spent careers in oil and gas or utility operations.

So why are these few members of the “Caucus of NO” acting like authorities? The answer appears to be they just want to stop progress, at any cost.

Alaskans have been warned about running out of gas for a long time. Producers in Cook Inlet have been telling us this since 2010: Railbelt supply was tightening and that we could not assume cheap, reliable energy forever.

Some of us remember when former Mayor Larry DeVilbiss urged Mat-Su residents to prepare. Who in the Legislature remembers how in 2011, Mayor DeVilbiss, along with Anchorage and Kenai Peninsula leaders, launched an “Energy Watch” campaign to urge residents to conserve power, potentially including voluntary brownouts, during winter months to avoid natural gas shortages? Former Anchorage Mayor Dan Sullivan also warned of brownouts and need for prompt action.

That was 15 years ago.

And yet now we are listening to lawmakers in Juneau acting as if the gas crisis is theoretical, as if they can debate and block it endlessly without consequence.

Without a pipeline, Alaska is headed toward importing gas after 2030. That’s four short years away. Expensive shipments will be brought in just to keep the lights on. It will be down to “subsistence gas” for the Railbelt — survival level only — and it will be expensive!

There will not be enough to expand industry, attract investment or grow the economy.

What will power our military bases along the Railbelt? Our national defense depends on stable energy infrastructure just as much as families and businesses do.

This is why the Alaska gasline must move forward quickly, and why the constant drumbeat of negativity from the legislative “stall squad” is so damaging.

Alaskans deserve to know: Why do you signal your opposition to the project?  What is your better idea?

So far, it’s crickets.

Their entire modus operandi is to cast doubt, call AK LNG a pipe dream, sneer at progress, and provide no alternative that could realistically come online in the next two and a half years.

Criticism is easy. Raising eyebrows with “concern” is easy. Leadership requires solutions and courage.

Other than holding a legislative seat, what gives the vocal critics the authority to downplay the progress of one of the most important infrastructure projects Alaska has ever undertaken when facts on the ground are moving in the opposite direction?

Alaska has the permits. We have the regulatory pathway. We have a private-sector developer leading the effort. This is a real project advancing through federal oversight into early construction work.

The early works scheduled to begin this spring are substantial: construction camps, pipe yards, access roads, borrow pits, and nearly a hundred bridge crossings.

No matter what you feel about President Trump, he gets things done. Trump just wrote in the Wall Street Journal on Jan. 30, Japan will help construct one of the largest natural gas pipelines in the world, in Alaska, to export American energy to allies in Asia.

At some point, the Legislature needs to stop pretending endless doubt is a substitute for leadership. Alaska cannot naysay its way into an energy future.

Here is an idea: Get out of the way. Stop stopping progress. Let private industry build the gas line. Don’t tax it to death or regulate it into paralysis, and don’t sabotage it for political sport.  Alaskans deserve better!

Brett Huber is state director for Americans for Prosperity-Alaska and a longtime Alaskan.

Latest Post

Comments

9 thoughts on “Brett Huber: AK LNG Is moving fast. Let’s hope the ‘No’ Caucus doesn’t sabotage it”
  1. ahhh Brett. Too nice or political to publish names?
    I’ll do it.
    .
    Giessell – just hates the Governor so much she won’t even give the state a win if he wins too.
    Weilechowski – also hates the governor, but hates oil companies worse
    Merrick – her husband and Bill Walker wanted to be playa’s. Now they are not and she is pissed
    Bjorkman – will do whatever Merrick tells him to do…
    .
    We are so screwt.
    .
    glad to be of assistance Brett

    1. Accurate, especially Giessel who’s quite literally flipped 180 degrees on every issue from conservative to far left. But don’t forget the leftists democrats who will stop at nothing to deny Alaska resource development, and remember, democrats own platform is anti oil and gas. Fields, Tobin, Dunbar, Hannon, Josephson, Schragge, to name just a few. Almost all the democrats minus a handful are in line with the green, anti resource development agenda.

  2. The “No” caucus is fairly easy to explain: They are “rent seekers” that, because of their position, want to exact tribute – be it money, power or other conditions for their own benefit or their clients. Think in terms of trolls controlling a toll bridge – they want to get paid before allow the project to pass. (Another way to look at things is that they are like gangsters or warlords trying to control a territory.). In many ways, they represent some of the worst people in our society. Alaskans would be better off recognizing these folks for what they are and treating them accordingly. A thug is a thug. Is a thug.

  3. “……..Mechanical completion of the gas line is now targeted for 2028………”

    That’s good, because there’s a presidential election in 2028. This pipeline has to cross a lot of federal land. If a Democrat is elected in November of 2028, and that pipeline isn’t complete by January 20 of 2029, the new POTUS can simply stop it with a stroke of a pen. Remember Keystone XL? The Mexican Border Wall?

    The Resistance is persistent, and yes, it’s all based on irrational hatred or blind greed.

  4. Before yes or no, Brett, why not share your wisdom on what seem like simple questions?
    .
    1. How much are Alaskan heating bills expected to increase following pipeline construction?
    2. If supply problems arise, are Asian buyers prioritized over Alaskan customers?
    3. Will product be sold directly or indirectly to Communist China?
    4. Are Communist Chinese involved in project financing, insurance, or construction?
    5. Is a contingency plan in place if a Democrat-controlled administration revokes construction permits or if a changing Japanese political climate precludes their participation?
    6. Recall Palin’s $500M giveaway to TransCanada, what prevents another giveaway from happening?
    7. What assures pipeline-control gear will be CISA vetted? (https://www.cisa.gov/)
    8. When is “Development” actually over, does AGDC go away then?
    9. What assures that Alaskans and the Permanent Fund won’t be on the hook for debt traps, up-front costs, contractor fraud, and losses if Glenfarne can’t get, or loses, binding financial commitments from Asian companies and governments?
    (https://ptop.substack.com/p/guide-to-uncovering-contractor-fraud?)
    10. Is this fact or fiction: “The latest evidence that no one knows what the gas will cost comes from an independent report by Rapidan Energy Group, which says the likely cost of the pipeline project is far higher than the $44 billion estimate still in circulation …Add in the cost of the so-called first phase—building a pipeline from the North Slope to Anchorage without compression and export facilities and the total project cost would exceed $70 billion.”?
    (https://www.dermotcole.com/reportingfromalaska/2025/6/24/glenfarnes-latest-deceptive-press-release-about-alaska-lng-project)
    .
    Maybe you can understand, Brett, we’ve been lied to so many times about so many things, gas lines and budgets included, that one more terrible crisis, like this one, doesn’t mean much. Recall the education-industry crisis, the PFD crisis, the budget crisis? We’ll get income and sales taxes to fix those. What are we getting to fix yours, another $500M gift to Trans Canada?
    .
    So spare us the jeremiad, okay?
    .
    Good news is this: if things are really as desperate as you say, if this government wants to stay in business, they’ll give you lot whatever you want to keep our heat and power on because even they know what’ll happen if power and heat quit because of something they could have done, but didn’t..
    .
    Not picking on you, Brett, nothing wrong with recruiting a Big Beautiful Yes Caucus who can’t be ignored. Ditch the lectures and cheerleading, you could make a decent. leader
    .
    It’ll need a bunch of verifiable facts, which folks can learn, understand, and repeat, in order to get, and keep, the No Caucus’s attention.
    .
    So, Mr. Spokesman, you ready for this, starting with the first ten questions?

  5. Mr Huber: You’re a Good Dude and I want to see that Big Beautiful LNG Pipeline built too. Not just for my economic & ‘warm’ benefit, but for my kids and grandson too!

    But it’s hard to take Mr Glen Farne seriously when presser after pressers are touting agreements, contracts and MoA’s that all ALL conditional; no real financial/supply/customer commitments yet; not even any solid buy/sell agreements

    That said: in 2024 I offered a wager (for charitable purposes only) . A wager that there would NOT be a positive Final Investment Decision (FID) before the end of 2025. Putting my money where my mouth is I offered $3,000:$1,000 and I’m pleased that one person took me up on it. He’s now agreed to donate $1,000 to the Kenai Salvation Army

    If you ‘believe’ Mr Farne, Gov Dunleavy, Sen Dan Sullivan and others then I’ll offer a similar wager to you: $1,000 says there will not be a positive FID prior to December 15, 2026.

    Can a firm such as Glenfarne really start spending their/their investors real cash with out such?

    With all the news, a $1,000 donation to the charity of your choice should be a sure thing, right? And I’ll be happy to write that check….

  6. What’s amazing is that most of the NOs are union-backed. You’d think the unions would want a humungous construction contract since they know they’ll get a piece of it, but they are so short-sighted.

  7. “Without a pipeline, Alaska is headed toward importing gas after 2030.” No, much earlier than that. Suuuuper cold temps this winter and extremely lackluster base gas production throughout 2025 from Kenai/Cook Inlet fields did serious damage to gas storage volumes. My guess is we’ll be importing diesel to feed some of Chugach’s turbines as early as next winter.

    “Alaska has the permits. We have the regulatory pathway. We have a private-sector developer leading the effort.” We’re just missing a) announcing to the public the $60-80 BILLION price tag (it’ll very probably cost even more) and b) the capital. The economics of this project do not make a lick of sense; that’s why it hasn’t happened. The only thing special about Alaska’s gas for international export will be its high price tag and providing gas to 350k Alaskans in a closed market is not something anyone (with a profit motive) will/should bankroll. For perspective, Bluecrest is sitting on a “sure thing” undeveloped gas field in Cook Inlet and has been unable – for many years – to land an investor to fund the ~$350 million it needs to build a platform and drill some wells. AK LNG is only 170x (at the very least) as much…

    My advice: Buy a wood stove.

Leave a Reply

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