Murkowski deserves respect, not attacks, on energy

Winston Churchill once remarked that, “These, gentlemen, are the opinions upon which I base my facts.” While he likely said that in jest, Kelly Tshibaka appears to be relying on the same approach as a campaign strategy — as evidenced by her recent commentary claiming she would be more effective than Sen. Lisa Murkowski on energy issues.

As Murkowski’s former staff director on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I know how deeply Murkowski cares about Alaska and how much she has quietly delivered for the state without taking credit. My experience working for her — as part of a team of homegrown Alaskans — also means I have a solid grasp of Murkowski’s real record, so I want to help set the record straight for those who read this page.

A good place to start is the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which Murkowski successfully opened to responsible development in 2017. This historic accomplishment was the result of her determination — as well as her congressional relationships, committee leadership and seniority. It took her — with her Senate partner Dan Sullivan and the irreplaceable Rep. Don Young in the House — months of careful planning and execution to achieve.

Tshibaka predictably directed her praise on ANWR solely to former President Donald Trump. While his White House and Department of the Interior teams supported us on the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and led the way on implementation, there is no question that Murkowski, above all, delivered the crucial enabling legislation.

Tshibaka was also wrong when she declared that Murkowski was the “deciding vote” for Interior Secretary Deb Haaland and therefore “personally and singularly responsible” for the anti-Alaska actions taking place in the Biden administration.

In reality, nominations that result in tie votes can still advance from committees in the 117th Congress, so Murkowski was not in a position to stop anything. Haaland’s nomination drew multiple Republican votes at final passage, not just one, not that it mattered with the Vice President ready to break further ties. Young introduced Haaland at her hearing and Sullivan also voted to confirm her, yet that went unmentioned. Meanwhile, many of the administration’s restrictions were imposed before Haaland was even sworn in, mooting the premise of this line of attack.

Tshibaka also errored in claiming that Alaska was about to receive 28 million acres of land from the Trump administration. At the request of the congressional delegation — Murkowski included — former Secretaries Ryan Zinke and David Bernhardt began lifting outdated Public Land Orders that prevent state land conveyances. Those lands are not simply given to Alaska, however, and the state will only be able to receive a fraction of them based on its remaining statehood entitlement.

The least factual claim Tshibaka made is that Murkowski “openly supports” the Biden administration’s agenda in Alaska. She offered no proof because none exists. Murkowski’s approach has been to work with the Biden administration where possible — she recently convinced them to support the critical Willow project on the North Slope — while criticizing and opposing their actions when warranted.

Another curious choice was the attempt to slam Murkowski on offshore revenue sharing, which would not provide meaningful dollars for Alaska today or perhaps years to come. Regardless, Murkowski has pushed such legislation in every Congress, and her stature ensures that Alaska is at least at the table for those discussions. Should she leave the Senate, Alaska could go from having the senior-most Republican on the committee of jurisdiction to being rolled by it.

What offshore revenue sharing lacks is bipartisan support. Murkowski’s approach, emphasizing new uses for state funds such as climate adaptation and assistance for the University of Alaska, is working — but her opponent has no known plan to draw in needed votes.

While there were additional inaccuracies from Tshibaka that deserve mention, this space is better used on a few final points.

The first is that there was virtually no daylight between what Murkowski wanted to see happen on Alaska resources and the decisions the Trump administration made — including on key issues that Tshibaka failed to mention, such as Roadless Rule exemption for Southeast and the Pebble Mine. No matter what wild tales you hear during the coming campaign, please remember that not a single vote or position that Murkowski took during the Trump administration ever harmed Alaska.

The second is that Murkowski is actually focused on “unleashing Alaska’s full energy potential.” She led the fight to open the Coastal Plain while helping to save the Cold Climate Housing Research Center after abrupt state budget cuts. She put mineral security on the map — with Alaska at its center — and has boosted renewables in the state. Whereas Tshibaka voiced support for carbon capture, Murkowski was the driving force behind the first update to our nation’s energy laws in more than 12 years — which President Trump signed in December 2020, complete with a title advancing those very technologies.

Murkowski is just as effective in other areas, as well. She is a senior appropriator, bringing home needed dollars for the state, and recently facilitated the Senate’s passage of the Alaska Tourism Recovery Act. It’s no accident the Senate has passed more bills from her than any other member in this Congress.

I won’t presume to tell you how you should vote in 2022. But right now, in Lisa Murkowski, Alaskans have a tireless and dedicated senator who has an incredible record of legislative success on Alaska energy and resource matters, plus many others. That fact should be celebrated, not attacked.

Brian Hughes was born and raised in Anchorage, Alaska, graduating from Service High School. He worked in Washington, D.C. for Sen. Ted Stevens from 2006-2007 and for Murkowski from 2009-2021.

The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.