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.
