The argument I keep hearing against the Alaska gasline project sounds simple and, at first glance, reasonable. If it’s worth doing, free enterprise will build it. If it needs public support, then maybe it is not worth it.

I get it. Alaskans are not interested in writing blank checks to billion-dollar developers, and they have seen enough big promises fall apart to be skeptical when government money gets involved. I share that skepticism. But a principle only matters if you apply it consistently, and on that test, this argument falls apart the moment you compare it to Alaska’s own record. It’s worth walking through that record before the Legislature finalizes HB 381, SB 280, and SB 275, because the “subsidy” framing being used against the gasline collapses when you hold it up against what we have already done, repeatedly and with bipartisan support, for renewables and for plenty else besides.

In 2008, the Legislature created the Renewable Energy Fund with a unanimous vote. Over the next decade we appropriated roughly $270 million in state general funds into that program. That is direct cash, not a tax adjustment, not deferred liability, not a structural incentive. It is a check written by the State of Alaska to subsidize energy projects. That funding supported more than 100 developments across the state. In 2023, we removed the sunset entirely. In 2025, we added more funding again. At no point in those debates did the Legislature stop and say, “If these projects are truly viable, free enterprise will build them.”

At the project level, the pattern holds. Fire Island Wind, a $162 million project, depended on roughly $70 million in combined state and federal support to pencil out. The developers said as much at the time. Without that support, it does not work. Support was provided, and the project moved forward.

Nobody stood up and said perhaps it is not worth doing.

Look at the Houston solar project – borough land, private developer, outside capital, utility purchase agreements. A layered public and private structure designed to make the project viable. We did not call that a subsidy. We called it a partnership.

Then add the federal stack that underpins nearly every renewable project, tax credits, loan guarantees, accelerated depreciation and direct grants. These are not small adjustments. They are foundational to the economics. We have accepted that reality for years without pretending otherwise.

The state’s involvement in energy infrastructure runs deep. The Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) has financed projects for decades. The Healy Clean Coal Project moved forward with AIDEA bonding and federal support, struggled, and sat idle for years before being reworked. AIDEA financed the Snettisham hydro acquisition. The state has supported geothermal exploration. We have provided land, infrastructure, financing, and risk-sharing across energy types for as long as anyone paying attention can remember. Some worked. Some did not. None were built without the state playing a material role.

That matters, because it exposes the flaw in the argument. The claim is not just that this project might be structured poorly. The claim being made is broader – that the state should not be involved at all. That is not consistent with Alaska’s history or with the votes many of the same legislators have already taken.

The Senate Resources Committee is asking hard questions about the gasline, and they should. They want to see the numbers. They want disclosure from Glenfarne and AGDC. They want to understand pricing, volumes, and long-term revenue. That is legitimate, and I support asking those questions.

But I do not recall that level of insistence on the projects we have already funded. I do not recall detailed economic disclosures being demanded before Fire Island received public support. I do not recall a full accounting of project economics for every Renewable Energy Fund round before appropriations passed. I do not recall anyone pressing for a full cost breakdown before borough land was committed to solar development in the Mat-Su. The scrutiny we are seeing now, while appropriate on its own terms, has not been applied evenly. The standard changed. Why?

It cannot be both ways. If the principle is that the state should not participate in projects that require fiscal support, then we should be honest enough to say the Renewable Energy Fund was a mistake, AIDEA’s energy investments were a mistake, and those projects should not have been built.

No one in Juneau is making that argument.

What I hear instead is a selective standard. Renewable projects are evaluated on long-term benefits, lower costs, energy security, jobs and diversification. The gasline is dismissed with a slogan about free markets that we do not apply anywhere else.

In truth, the state owns the resource. We are involved whether we like it or not. The question in front of us is not whether there is some theoretical subsidy. The question is what structure gives Alaskans the best outcome over time. That means total state and local revenue, in-state energy costs, and the likelihood the project is actually built and competitive in a global market.

Those are real questions. They involve property tax treatment, the production tax rate, in-state gas price caps, the AGDC equity position, and audit and disclosure requirements. The work being done to refine those pieces matters. I am open to a final bill that looks different from where we started.

But we should be honest about the framework. This is not a debate between pure free enterprise and government involvement. That ship sailed a long time ago. This is a debate about which projects we are willing to support and which ones we are not.

Alaskans deserve a straight answer on that. Either we have a consistent principle, or we have a preference. And over the next few days in Juneau, it will be clear which one is driving the vote.

The views expressed here are those of the author.

Click here to support the Alaska Watchman.