Sen. Mike Cronk: Alaska needs a vision, Alaska needs a gasline

By SEN. MIKE CRONK

June 30, 2026 – Alaska doesn’t have a resource problem. Alaska doesn’t have a talent problem. Alaska has a vision problem.

For years, we’ve talked about prosperity. We’ve talked about opportunities. We’ve talked about building a brighter future for our state and our citizens. But somewhere along the way, we stopped building.

We live in the most amazing place on Earth. There is nowhere in Alaska that doesn’t possess its own unique beauty and opportunity. It’s why we choose to live here. It’s why we fight to protect it. It’s the place we want our children and grandchildren to build their lives.

We’ve been blessed with natural resources that entire countries dream of possessing—not just states, but countries. Oil. Fish. Seafood. Timber. Minerals. Fresh water. Vast lands. And perhaps our greatest untapped opportunity: natural gas.

Let’s talk about natural gas. Alaska’s North Slope holds more than 40 trillion cubic feet of known natural gas. Yet decades after its discovery, we still have no meaningful way to deliver it for the maximum benefit of the people who own it—the people of Alaska.

Nearly fifty years ago, Alaska built the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. That single project transformed our economy and forever changed our state. Since then, what have we built that has been equally transformational? What major investment have we made that has secured Alaska’s future for the next generation? The answer is: very little.

Today, Cook Inlet faces natural gas shortages. Southcentral Alaska faces uncertainty about long-term energy supplies. Families and businesses pay some of the highest energy costs in America, and concerns about future shortages continue to grow. 

Meanwhile, we continue debating whether to build a natural gas pipeline.

I understand why some Alaskans are skeptical. Projects of this size carry risk, and our responsibility is to protect the interests of the people who own these resources. But refusing to build carries risks of its own—and today we’re already living with those consequences. Some argue this legislation gives away Alaska’s gas. I see it differently.

Without a pipeline, that gas remains locked underground—providing no heat, no power, no jobs, and no long-term benefit to Alaskans. A resource that cannot be delivered is a resource that cannot strengthen our economy or secure our future.

The reality is simple: Alaska does not have enough in-state demand to make a project of this scale viable on its own. The export component is not a giveaway—it is what makes affordable in-state energy possible. Export markets spread the enormous costs of production and transportation across a much larger base, lowering the cost of gas delivered to Alaskan homes and businesses. That is why this project is critical to our future.

The Alaska LNG Project is estimated to cost approximately $55 billion. It is an enormous undertaking requiring significant private investment, complex engineering, and years of construction. Projects of this scale are never easy. But Alaska’s greatest achievements have never come from choosing what is easy.

I have served in the Legislature for six years. During that time, I’ve watched us study, debate, delay, and revisit the same challenges repeatedly. Too often, we spend years talking about solutions without ever building them. This project gives us an opportunity to change that pattern. Natural gas can provide affordable heat and electricity for generations. It can strengthen our energy security, stabilize our economy, create jobs, and give businesses the confidence to invest in Alaska’s future. But the pipeline is not the finish line. It’s the foundation.

Affordable, reliable energy makes everything else possible. It allows manufacturers to expand. It makes value-added seafood processing more competitive. It supports responsible mining, attracts new industries, encourages technology investment, and gives entrepreneurs the confidence to build businesses here instead of somewhere else. Most importantly, it gives young Alaskans another reason to stay, raise their families, and build their futures here at home. That is what vision looks like.

Throughout our history, Alaska has never moved forward by accident. Our greatest successes came because previous generations had the courage to make difficult decisions that shaped decades of prosperity. There have been four defining moments that transformed our state.

The first was statehood. Alaskans wrote one of the finest constitutions in America and secured our place as the 49th state.

The second was the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, which resolved long-standing land claims and created the certainty needed for responsible development while empowering Alaska Native corporations to become an enduring force in our state’s economy.

The third was the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. Despite years of legal, political, and environmental challenges, leaders found a way to move forward. Imagine Alaska today without TAPS. Much of the prosperity we’ve enjoyed over the last fifty years simply would not exist.

The fourth defining moment came when Alaskans created the Permanent Fund, ensuring that a portion of our resource wealth would benefit future generations. None of those moments happened because people chose the easy path. They happened because leaders looked beyond the next election and focused on the next generation.

As a Legislature, one of our longest-running debates has been over Alaska’s constitutional mandate to develop our resources for the “maximum benefit” of its people. What does that really mean? Some argue it simply means generating as much revenue as possible. I respectfully disagree. Maximum benefit is about much more than dollars deposited into the state treasury. It is about how Alaska’s resources improve the lives of Alaskans.

With a natural gas pipeline, the benefits extend far beyond royalties and taxes. It’s affordable heat for families during our long winters. It’s reliable electricity for our homes and businesses. It’s thousands of jobs during construction and operation. It’s lower energy costs that allow businesses to grow, create jobs, and invest in their communities. It’s more disposable income in the pockets of working families, strengthening local economies across our state. 

Most importantly, it’s hope. Hope that our children and grandchildren will inherit an Alaska with reliable, affordable energy. Hope that businesses will choose to invest here because energy costs are competitive. Hope that communities will no longer have to wonder whether they’ll have enough gas to keep the lights on and homes warm. That, to me, is the true meaning of maximum benefit. It’s not simply extracting the greatest value from our resources. It’s using those resources to create the greatest opportunity for the people who own them: the people of Alaska.

Current fiscal projections estimate approximately $26 billion in state revenue over the project’s first thirty years, with revenues increasing significantly over time. Municipal governments could receive billions more, and communities across Alaska could see meaningful reductions in energy costs and improvements in reliability. But this project is about more than numbers. It is about whether Alaska still believes in building. It is about whether we have the courage to invest in ourselves rather than accept long-term decline. It is about whether we are willing to finally solve the energy challenges we have known about for decades. Some people are pro-pipeline. Some people are anti-pipeline. 

I am pro-Alaska. I believe Alaska’s resources should benefit Alaskans. I believe affordable, reliable energy is essential to our future. The question before us is bigger than a pipeline. It’s whether Alaska still believes in building. It’s whether we still believe our best days are ahead of us. Alaska doesn’t lack resources. Alaska doesn’t lack opportunity. What we’ve lacked is the willingness to act. 

There are those who will say we’re giving away Alaska’s resources by moving from property tax to an Alternate Volume Tax. I understand that concern. But here’s the reality. This project has been talked about for years. If it made economic sense under the current tax structure, it would already exist. It doesn’t. That’s because this is a massive, expensive, high-risk investment with very narrow margins. We have a choice.

We can insist on a tax structure that keeps the project from ever being built—or we can adopt one that attracts investment, creates jobs, generates long-term revenue, and puts Alaskans to work. I’d rather earn a fair return from a project that exists than demand a higher return from one that never gets built.

The debate over Hilcorp often focuses on one question: Do they pay their fair share? That’s a legitimate question. But it’s only part of the equation. Alaska doesn’t just benefit from taxes. We benefit from investment. Hilcorp’s business model has been to acquire mature fields that larger companies were no longer aggressively developing, invest significant capital, improve operations, and increase production. More production means more royalty revenue, more production tax revenue, more property taxes, more jobs, more contractor work, and more oil flowing through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Every additional barrel produced from an existing field generates revenue for the State of Alaska. 

If investment turns a declining field into a stable or growing producer, the state benefits year after year—not just from one tax source, but from multiple revenue streams. Alaska has a history of fields declining when investment slows. The state earns far more from producing oil than from taxing oil that never gets developed.

The real question shouldn’t be whether we can collect another $100 million in taxes today. It should be whether changes to our tax structure encourage or discourage the billions of dollars in private investment that ultimately produce billions in public revenue. That doesn’t mean companies should receive special treatment.

It means tax policy should balance two objectives: ensuring Alaskans receive a fair return for their resources while maintaining an investment climate that rewards companies willing to develop challenging, high-cost fields. If a company invests billions to recover oil that otherwise would remain in the ground, that’s not simply increasing corporate profits. It’s increasing the size of Alaska’s pie. The goal should be maximizing that pie—and ensuring Alaskans receive a fair share of it.

The question before us is straightforward: Do we pass a bill that gives Glenfarne the opportunity to move the Alaska LNG project forward, or do we burden that bill with unrelated tax provisions aimed at Hilcorp? Are we going to allow this to kill the AKLNG project or do we pass a clean bill that could get the gas line built.

These are two separate policy questions. One is whether Alaska wants to create the conditions necessary for a private company to invest tens of billions of dollars in a project that has remained economically challenging for decades. The other is whether the state’s oil tax structure should be changed. Combining them risks turning a bill focused on economic development into a broader tax debate.

If the Legislature believes changes to oil taxation are warranted, that discussion deserves to stand on its own merits. It should be debated independently, with a full understanding of the impact on investment, production, and state revenues.

The immediate question is whether we want to give Glenfarne a clear opportunity to pursue the gas line. If we believe the project can create jobs, generate long-term revenue, expand markets for Alaska’s natural gas, and strengthen our economy, then we should allow that opportunity to proceed without attaching unrelated provisions that could undermine investor confidence or jeopardize the project’s viability.

Alaskans deserve a clear decision: advance the gas line on its merits, and debate tax policy on its own merits.

Let’s be clear of the consequences of not having an in-state gas line, Alaska faces a future of declining gas supplies, increased reliance on imported LNG at significantly higher prices, and energy costs that will continue to climb. The choice before us is straightforward: invest in Alaska’s energy future today, or force Alaskans to pay far more tomorrow through higher utility bills, greater energy insecurity, and lost economic opportunity. 

Fifty years from now, our children and grandchildren will either thank us for having the courage to build—or wonder why we allowed another generation to pass without acting.

Now is the time to prove it. Let’s build the AKNLG for Alaska.

Sen. Mike Cronk serves in the Alaska Legislature and represents Senate District R in Interior Alaska.

Mike Dunleavy: Alaska has waited long enough for the gasline

Tomas J. Philipson: Alaska’s Senate is about to learn a lesson private capital has tried to teach before

Robert Seitz: Don’t be timid, pass the property tax relief now

House rejects Senate draconian changes to Alaska LNG bill, sends HB 381 to conference committee

Sen. Wielechowski meltdown illustrates tension over Alaska gasline he is trying to block