Alaska’s energy future is on the line, and too often our first instinct is to say no. Not a careful no, not a measured no, but a reflexive, default position that shuts the door before the facts ever get a fair hearing. That fear-based approach does not protect Alaska; it holds us back. I laid this out in my recent Substack, and the point bears repeating. When opposition becomes automatic, whether it is driven by environmental alarm, local skepticism, or a blanket distrust of anyone willing to invest here, we do real damage to our own prospects. Jobs do not get created, infrastructure does not get built, and families are left paying higher costs for less reliable energy while other states move ahead.
There is a difference between scrutiny and stagnation. Alaskans expect us to ask hard questions, and we should. But rejecting projects without offering a better path forward leaves us exactly where we are today, facing high energy prices, tightening Cook Inlet gas supply, and missed opportunities that do not come back.
The Terra Energy Center proposal is a good example of why a more disciplined, fact-based approach matters. This is not a vague concept on paper. It is a modern biomass and coal facility paired with carbon capture, proposed near Skwentna, with the scale to provide the kind of baseload power Alaska has been lacking. More importantly, recent developments show this effort is moving beyond talk. A one billion dollar in-principle boiler agreement with Hyundai Heavy Industries, a five hundred million dollar equity commitment from the South Korean firm Koreit announced at the Indo-Pacific Energy Security Ministerial in March of 2026, and the Mat-Su Borough Assembly’s decision to override the mayor’s veto on RS 26-019 to jointly market land for high-energy users all point in the same direction.
A project like this does not need blind approval, and it does not deserve blind rejection.
Serious private capital is taking a hard look at Alaska.
That matters because one of the consistent criticisms has been a lack of transparency and financial commitment. Those concerns deserve to be raised, but they also deserve to be updated when new information comes forward. Private investment at this level is not speculation; it is due diligence backed by dollars.
The piece that could bring this entire concept into focus is a firm power purchase agreement with a major data center operator. If a hyperscale or AI-driven company steps up and commits to a long-term, take-or-pay contract in the range of two hundred to five hundred megawatts or more, that changes the conversation overnight. A project like Terra, with roughly 1.25 gigawatts of capacity possibility, is built for exactly that kind of steady baseload demand. A fifteen to twenty-year agreement provides the revenue certainty needed to finance construction, support debt, and potentially reduce reliance on federal subsidy programs. It moves the project out of the realm of theory and into a market-backed reality.
If we allow every concern to default into a veto, we guarantee that nothing of consequence gets built, and we lock ourselves into the very problems we say we want to solve.
From there, the infrastructure begins to line up in a way that makes sense for Alaska. Transmission built with purpose, whether toward Port MacKenzie or along the West Susitna corridor. Opportunities to use waste heat for industrial processes or agriculture. Strategic use of borough land to attract long-term investment instead of letting it sit idle. These are not abstract benefits; they are tangible steps toward a more diversified and resilient economy.
The upside for Alaskans is real. We preserve Cook Inlet gas for home heating instead of burning through it for power generation or importing expensive LNG down the road. We create construction jobs in the near term and stable operations jobs over the long term. We generate revenue through resource development and local taxes. And we position Alaska to compete in a world where energy availability is increasingly tied to technological growth, including the expansion of AI and cloud computing.
None of that means we ignore the risks. Matanuska Electric Association has made it clear as of March 20, 2026, that this project remains in the early stages, with discussions but no signed agreements. Permitting will take time, and it should. The Susitna Valley is a valuable area, and environmental concerns must be addressed with real mitigation, not dismissed. There is also competition, including emerging nuclear options and large-scale renewable investments in other parts of the country. Those are all part of an honest evaluation.
ALASKA WATCHMAN DIRECT TO YOUR INBOX
But here is the key point. A project like this does not need blind approval, and it does not deserve blind rejection. What it requires is a willingness to engage honestly and seriously with the facts as they evolve. A data center power purchase agreement would not eliminate every risk, but it would anchor the project in market demand rather than speculation. It would demonstrate that a real customer is willing to pay for reliable, in-state power at scale.
Alaskans have every reason to be skeptical of government – that skepticism has been earned over time. But skepticism cannot become an excuse for inaction. If we allow every concern to default into a veto, we guarantee that nothing of consequence gets built, and we lock ourselves into the very problems we say we want to solve.
The better path is not complicated. We ask tough questions, we demand accountability, we fix what needs fixing, and when a project demonstrates clear value for Alaskans, we dare to say yes. Not recklessly, not blindly, but pragmatically and with our eyes open.
That is how Alaska moves forward. Not by hiding from opportunity, but by meeting it head on and making it work for the people who live here.
It is time to get past no. It is time to get responsibly to YES, or even “yes-but.”
The views expressed here are those of the author.
14 Comments
McCabe you, state government and the trump kleptocracy have been lying to us for years. pardon me if I’m skeptical . Conservatives have done themselves, moderates and Americans in general a major constitutional disservice by not challenging all that trump spews. sullivan and Begich polish the palace silverware while America burns TWO BILLION DOLLARS A DAY in Iran. Our delegation nibbles velveta and cheezits while democracy burns . I can’t understand why you all are silent, or worse, complicit.
I am confused about carbon capture. Some say we must have it; some say we must avoid it. How does it change things if we want everything except the carbon capture, is it more or less expensive? Does a coal/biomass plant produce more or less power with or without it?
I understand what coal is, but what’s biomass exactly? I have yet to have a single representative explain any of this to me or anyone I know. I think what would be helpful is to hold a public forum so the public could ask direct questions and get, hopefully, direct answers.
Most people I talk to don’t understand any of it at all, but it all seems to be moving forward despite this fact. Honestly, sometimes I wonder who these people represent. Maybe this is where the “no” comes from, the public is not being provided all the necessary details for projects like this. And to be honest, there is a lot of disinformation out there; it’s hard to know what’s true.
There are reasons for the fear. Just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get me.
the old adage let them all freeze in the dark, ( That’s from the late 60’s early 70’s referring to the lower 48, along with eat moose 10,000 wolves cant be wrong) the first referring to north slope oil and the pipeline.
so we should all freeze in the dark is the greenie mantra, naked, starved and frozen!
just how many people could live without the god given energy that is so hated
not saying this is the only solution but one of many to be studied
Maybe the “reflexive, default position that shuts the door before the -facts- ever get a fair hearing” is due to the -fact- that -facts- seem to be in such short supply?
.
Please stop cheerleading, Kev! Why not get straight answers to simple questions, which even you have to admit haven’t been forthcoming to date?
.
Answers under oath, like in a House hearing (hint, hint), would be nice, but we’ll take what we can get.
.
1. How much will Alaskans’ heating bills increase following pipeline construction?
2. Will product be sold directly or indirectly to Communist China?
3. If supply problems arise, are foreign buyers prioritized over Alaskan customers?
4. Are Communist Chinese entities involved in project financing or insurance?
5. Is a plan in place if a Democrat-controlled administration revokes construction permits?
6. Recall Palin’s $500M giveaway to TransCanada, what prevents a similar giveaway from happening?
7. What assures pipeline-control gear will be CISA vetted? (https://www.cisa.gov/)
8. When LNG development is actually over, will AGDC go away?
9. What assures Alaskans and the Permanent Fund won’t be on the hook for up-front costs, contractor fraud, and losses if Glenfarne can’t get binding financial commitments from Asian companies and governments?
(https://ptop.substack.com/p/guide-to-uncovering-contractor-fraud?)
.
On June 25, 2025, AGDC released an updated $38.7 billion cost estimate for the Alaska LNG Project.
(https://agdc.us/updated-38-7-billion-project-construction-cost/)
.
Now Glenfarne wants $44 billion-plus.
.
And there’s this: “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)
.
So, Kev, who’s on the hook when project cost runs up to, say, $90 billion, or reaches a point at which the thing doesn’t seem worth building because financial, geopolitical, legal, and physical risks outweigh benefits, making it unlikely to turn a profit during the lifetime of anyone alive today?
.
Do you, Kev, understand what the Rapidan analysis shows, which the Dunleavy administration, AGDC, and Glenfarne analyses apparently don’t show?
(https://www.rapidanenergy.com/about)
.
Do you, Kev, understand Alaskans want straight answers because they reasonably fear that diving, eyes closed, into the deep end of what could be an empty pool won’t end well for them, they want to see the water for themselves, not have to take some damned cheerleader’s word that it’s there?
.
Do you, Kev, understand the lousy rotten optics of contemptuously dismissing constituents’ concerns as “fear-based approach” while seemingly not doing your job, which is getting answers to these very questions before committing your constituents to a game …in which you’ve apparently done nothing to prevent your new BFF’s from making up rules as they go along?
.
You and Anna, the Anchorage Assembly’s Agnew-Beck girl, what’s your obsession with data centers, what are you and A-B cooking up that working stiffs damn sure don’t need but will wind up subsiding anyway?
I understand the skepticism. Alaska has been burned before, and it is right to ask hard questions when projects of this scale are on the table. But what we are seeing in your reply is not just scrutiny, it is the same pattern, lead with fear, stack the loaded questions, and stall the project until it dies. That does not protect Alaskans, it keeps energy costs high and sends opportunity elsewhere.
Here are the facts.
This Alaska LNG effort under Glenfarne is not the old model. There is no upfront check from the State of Alaska. Glenfarne is funding development through Final Investment Decision, roughly $150 million, with no payout if the project does not advance. That means real skin in the game.
At the same time, the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation holds a 25 percent equity stake and maintains oversight. That is a far stronger position than past arrangements. The structure is designed to limit state exposure on the front end while preserving long-term value.
Phase 1 is focused where it should be, getting gas to Alaskans. Moving supply to Cook Inlet addresses a real shortage and could reduce reliance on imported LNG that has been running $12 to $15 per MMBtu. That is direct relief for families and businesses.
On supply, agreements are in place with ExxonMobil, Hilcorp, and ConocoPhillips. On demand, preliminary offtake discussions from buyers in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan show there is real market interest. Claims about foreign control do not match the facts.
Costs are a fair point to press. Estimates have moved, AGDC at $38.7 billion, Glenfarne closer to $44 billion, with higher outside projections depending on risk. That is exactly why the Legislature needs full transparency. Bring the parties in, put the numbers on the record, and test the assumptions.
What matters just as much as cost is risk. Glenfarne carries development risk to FID. Beyond that, financing is expected to rely heavily on private capital. That is why we set clear milestones. If the economics do not hold, the project stops. If they do, we should not be the obstacle.
There are real issues to watch, cybersecurity, contracting, long-term governance. Those are handled through oversight, audits, and enforceable agreements. No project is risk-free, but doing nothing guarantees higher costs and tighter supply. We get nothing, from nothing.
The same goes for growing demand. Large users like data centers are not a distraction, they can help stabilize and lower system costs when done right. Alaska has the resources to compete if we are willing to act.
Alaskans deserve answers, and I support hearings to get them, costs, timelines, risk, and in-state benefits, all on the record. But we need to be honest about the alternative. Saying no is easy. It carries no responsibility, and it delivers no results.
Alaska is not a museum. We are a resource state. We should demand accountability, get the facts, and move forward when the numbers make sense. Fear will not build this, or any, project, disciplined action will.
Thanks for your note and summary.
.
“No” is easy when we repeatedly ask specific questions, but don’t get answers, specific or otherwise.
.
Buy a home sight unseen, no inspection, pay anything the seller wants plus more later if he wants, pay more if it falls apart after closing, who does that, but that’s how we’re getting a pipeline?
.
Look, you’re an airplane guy …call it a checklist. Don’t you “fear” what’s likely to happen if you ignore your landing and takeoff checklists one too many times? Your poor doomed pax, captive audience strapped down for the ride, who trust you …they shouldn’t “fear” what’ll happen when you ignore your checklist (and their safety) one too many times?
.
Survivors won’t quit flying, they still have to go places, but don’t you think justifiable, healthy “fear” might make them not want to fly with you?
.
Hearings are good, but you know they’ll devolve into delphi meetings if experts aren’t there -on our behalf- to ask expert questions, recognize BS when they hear it, and respond expertly.
.
So what experts you got lined up to do this, what army of experts are on tap to keep a close watch on our behalf?
.
Your “disciplined action”, brought us: (a) one of the worst-performing, most expensive education cartels in the country, (b) a thoroughly corrupted election system, (c) a corrupted grand-jury system, (d) a corrupted justice system which condemned an innocent man, Thomas Jack, to 50 years in jail for a crime even his former accuser said he didn’t do, (d) politicians’ inability to write an honest budget while allowing the Alaska Municipal League to stash $850,468,390.58 out of taxpayers’ reach, (e) legalized theft of PFD payments, (f) creation of the in-your-face “Animal House”, (g) corrupted voter rolls, (i) homicidal Covid policies, (j) Alaska’s fair share of illegal aliens living on the state dole, (k) registered special interests who outnumber legislators nearly 8 to 1, (l) threats to saddle working stiffs with sales and income taxes because no official dares commission forensic audits of state finances and management practices which might reveal who needs to be in jail instead of government, (m) a de facto co-governor and finance minister in the pperson of Senator Giessel, (n) transvestic perverts in schools, (o) pornography in school libraries, (p) school boards opening doors to large-scale contract fraud …shall we continue?.
.
No elected official seems able to fix these things but we better get on board with everything every elected official says about pipelines.
.
Speaking of BS, what’s this: “Alaskans expect us to ask hard questions, and we should.”?
.
You got your “hard questions”, now you’re like: “…what we are seeing in your reply is not just scrutiny, it is the same pattern, lead with fear, stack the loaded questions, and stall the project until it dies.”
.
Maybe we missed the list of state-sponsored projects in the last thirty years which shows the “pattern” of projects coming in on time, under budget? Questions you can’t or won’t dare answer are “loaded”?
.
Point is, you screwed up royally by conflating “fear” with distrust. Might help credibility to remind us what good, trustworthy things have slithered out of the Juneau Swamp since you arrived?.
.
Someone Important asks these things, you’re gonna gaslight them too? Don’t think so.
.
Finally, for you and Agnew-Beck’s girl running the Anchorage Assembly: we don’t share your strident fascination with data centers for pretty much the same reasons. Fear of the unknown? Loss of confidence and trust in leadership? Damn right!
Recall the TAP’s project passed the US Senate by a Vice President’s tie breaking vote. The TAP’s project changed Alaska forever…for the good. Anyone saying otherwise is a fool pure and simple. Naysayers are all about “ what if’s”. That said, We all deserve answers to honest questions. Remember the Stranded Gas on the North Slope has been an issue since the oil began to flow. With the current President and his team this is the perfect timing to solve the Stranded North Slope Gas problem. It is also a great way to address the trade imbalance that the USA has with the foreign countries that have signed on as customers of the Alaska Gas.
No build SOB’s will always lead the charge on why what if’s regardless of how crazy the reason. It is the steady view of what we want as Alaskans for the future Generations to enjoy the benefits that our State affords to its citizens. No other State in the Union even comes close.
My first question, Is the power plant financially viable without the carbon credits?
The second question Will you or any of your family have a position with Terra Engery or other enities involved with the power plant’s construction or operation?
The third question, Who is Robert Powers?
There are two documented and paid for surveys for the gas line to Valdez and the cost is one third of the cost the jokers of the plan to Kenai. The third survey was to the Yukon border brought on when Palin was governor. Parnell killed that one.
The necessary issues are security for shipping which is solved at Valdez and port of entry which is no problem without having to change the navigational tools for ships using our maritime law and congress had approved that years ago.
The pipe is smaller than the oil pipe and the manageable areas are already secure and established with safety plans along the oil pipe corridor. One third the cost in comparison of what the destruction of the McKinley National Park access along with years of law suits with any entry of pipe or problems in the clean waters of Cook Inlet and rivers in that planned path won’t happen with the gas pipe going to Valdez. The companies and the bad money problems are nothing short of a serious disaster. The whole corridor along the gas line survey from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez is prepped, permitted and more ready and easy access for the shorter time frame for construction. The materials to add to Valdez can be built and ready by the time the gas line is finished and ready for gas shipping. Valdez is a naturally well protected port and ready with the security plans in place with Congressional approval and a much, much better place to ship to the world with National Security issues taken care of today.
To the gas line to Kenai I say NO and NO to entry into the popular, clean sport and commercial fishing waters that should remain protected against such petroleum, commercial activity. The legislators need to take a look at the serious issues being reviewed and the issues of another line in a much, much better protected place than proposed by bad companies with bad reputations with too many financial problems. Time to rethink and plan today, and for Alaska’s future in the short term with the long term issues, so we can get our resource to market with all important elements of a plan coming to a better outcome for Alaska and the customers who may want Alaska’s resources. To the Congressional persons, STOP promoting dead beat companies and lying about signed commitments. To the legislative body, look to do a better job of using and working for this important project for Alaska and not the foreign entities that will purchase from Alaska and companies the people of the state want to manage and build the gas pipe line.
Mr. McCabe, I take umbrage with some of your statements. Alaskans are asking very normal, pertinent questions. Some of your comments are coming across as supercilious, chastising reprimands. I believe there are a lot of educated, intelligent people here in the MatSu that have every right to know the relevant particulars of this proposed project. For those that don’t know, last week the MatSu Borough Assembly voted to override the borough mayor’s objections to partner with and pay a non-borough entity to help facilitate and pave the way for an unnamed private, for profit, data collection center. No public interaction/vote there folks, Just more of your tax $$$ spent without your knowledge or approval. Where is the transparency? If the endeavor you promote is viable then let the unnamed, multi billion dollar data collection corporation build out it’s own needed infrastructure? It can recoup its costs by selling excess energy to those in need. The truth of the matter is that either way the for profit corporations will own this generation plant and profit from it.
Why should we the taxpayers build it for them? Win/win for them. Lose/lose for us.
The following is an informative article for NOT allowing any data collection center in AK.
This will be like cutting your own throats people. Please read:
The New American.com
Patel Confirms FBI Buying Americans’ Location By Veronica Kyrylenko
March 20, 2026
This information, your intimate daily data will be for sale to the highest bidder, Including your government. This is an end run to circumvent your Constitutional Rights that is harmful to you and very profitable for the corporations. Also profitable to opposing political parties? Anyone who wants it.
And thanks for coming onboard Mr. Macabe. I again suggest that a series of pubic forums are in order to facilitate the public’s education on this private, for profit data capture corporation and the ramifications of what it means to the citizens of AK.
Also it will be great to engage the taxpayers to find out what alternative industries that they might prefer. And thank you for passing along and mentioning the state of the art greenhouses. Being more able to feed our self’s in-house here in AK should be a priority over collecting our private intimate data. Remember people it is our land and our money. Our lives. Speak out!
Alaskan leaders resistant to new projects that’ll bring New leaders, families, singles is their whole reason saying no. The small leadership circle that is existing don’t want to be challenged by men and women who would lead better and smarter than who are leading communities pushing all you and the leaders you know both R and D out of the way.
I core-drilled all of the coal seams in the Tyonek to Mt.Spur area in the late 70s and 80s. The 1st seam is on the surface and there are many seams just below the first one. This coal is low sulfur [no smoke] with enough to last Alaska and others for a hundred years. With the new process of burning coal for energy it is a win-win. South-Central Alaska’s energy ran on coal from the late 30s to the 60s and everyone was happy.
This from another writer: “A deep water port is under construction at Cape Blossom near Kotzebue that would service LNG tankers from an over the top pipeline route. Over the top is only about half the length of one down the highway and may actually be affordable. Add to that the new Coast Guard base under construction near Nome, 300 km S of Kotzebue…”
.
But not a word from you about what may be a practical, affordable alternative LNG delivery choice for your new Asian BFF’s!
.
What gives here, Kevin?