Unanswered questions about the gasline

State senators confer during the final hours before adjournment of this year’s regular legislative session on Wednesday, May 20, 2026. (Ellie Ruel / Juneau Independent)

By Bridget Smith

When I read that Gov. Dunleavy was asking for a multibillion-dollar tax break, also known as a massive indirect subsidy, to build the liquified natural gas (LNG) line, and a special session to take this up, I was taken aback. I am struggling to understand how the state of Alaska can provide a huge tax break, which means less revenue in the future.

We are just starting to properly fund education, we have a climate emergency in western Alaska villages, the Alaska Marine Highway System is barely running and we are often being told that there isn’t enough money for public services. This is reminding me of what happened in the past with taxation and regulation that benefited the oil and gas industry (see the book "Capitol Crude: The Impact of Oil on Alaska Politics" by former legislative oil and gas attorney Lisa Weissler for details). Why is it that the gas line was to be built without subsidies a year ago and suddenly now it has to have subsidies? What happened to change the arithmetic?

Aside from that, I am concerned about the opacity of this process, the lack of public oversight. I understand that the first part of this process will be dealt with by the Senate Finance and House Finance committees, and that House Finance, after polling its members, decided to go to Anchorage to deliberate. This is problematic as Gavel Alaska cannot televise the proceedings from Anchorage, which means that many people cannot see what is going on. Not only that, but with the two committees in different cities, there will be no face-to-face interaction between the two. That can’t be good for Alaskans. Shouldn’t this be a public discussion?

Like other Alaskans, I have seen many numbers being thrown around, and yet very few details of how this tax break will lead to benefits for Alaskans. There are no firm or credible cost estimates for this project. Not to mention there is the fact that liquefied natural gas is a fossil fuel, and Alaska has melting permafrost and melting glaciers and villages being destroyed by extreme weather. Certainly, that has to be taken into account. I have so many questions, and yet the process for these very important decisions is being squeezed into a short time frame, and with a physically divided Legislature. So, I am asking Gov. Dunleavy, who has called this special session, and who has a sworn duty to Alaskans, two questions: Is this in the public interest? How does this benefit Alaskans?

• Bridget Smith is a Juneau resident.