OPINION: Alaska shows how to responsibly develop energy

Alaska is a state like no other: Despite our small population, our abundant natural resources play a foundational role in our quality of life, funding state services and fueling our tax-free, Permanent Fund dividend-enriched economy. So, it is hard to understand why some want to ignore the unique and universal benefits our resources provide for our people.

In a mid-September opinion piece, Kate Troll and Kay Brown bemoaned ongoing fossil fuel use in Alaska. There is no question our climate is changing, but an honest discussion acknowledges that Alaska and the United States are not driving the world’s failure to meet Paris Agreement goals. Any transition to a reduced-carbon world must be orderly and must provide affordable and abundant bridge fuels as we lessen our carbon footprint to protect the most economically vulnerable members of society.

During my 17 years in the Alaska Legislature — 10 of those spent serving alongside Brown — I heard from numerous activists attempting to force our state to turn away from a traditional energy-driven economy. Arguing that the world faced extinction from global warming, they demanded the state, and the Legislature in particular, end Alaska’s use of fossil fuels and rely instead on fickle, high-cost, and untested energy sources without export value to heat our homes and power our businesses.

The reason Alaska’s economy remains resource-driven, and our power needs are largely met by a mix of hydropower, coal and natural gas, is that these solutions are economical, abundant and highly reliable. In the Railbelt area (Fairbanks to Homer) where most Alaskans live, coal and natural gas provide more than 85% of our generating capacity.

There’s no such thing as a free energy lunch — renewables have their own drawbacks, namely lower reliability, higher costs, and portability challenges that make it difficult to ship energy over long distances. Renewables are highly dependent on weather, the time of day, and seasonality — and can be least available when needs are the highest. Batteries require extensive mining and come with end-of-life disposal environmental problems that have yet to find a scalable solution.

Following Troll and Brown’s lead would relegate Alaska to a bit role in a worldwide (and false) game of “save the planet” and gut our state economy. And the most vulnerable among us — Alaskans already suffering from high energy prices — will be hit the hardest.

Data compiled by the McDowell Group shows that Alaska’s oil and gas industry accounts for one-quarter of Alaska jobs and about 50% of the state’s overall economy, including the impact of state spending and services enabled by oil revenues.

Troll and Brown first complained that oil and gas companies — responsible for half our economy — don’t contribute a “fair” share for Alaska, and then they advocated for shutting down this vital industry. Their ideas would have devastating consequences for Alaska.

While serving in the Legislature, the U.S. Department of the Interior as senior advisor on Alaska affairs, and as the federal coordinator for the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System, I took tremendous pride in the way Alaska models an effective and responsible balance between environmental stewardship and resource development. We set the global standard for worker safety and safeguarding our lands, waters and wildlife.

Nations such as China, Russia and Venezuela pay lip service to environmental protections, create rampant pollution, and quash environmental activists. China alone emits more carbon dioxide than the U.S., the entire 27-nation European Union, and India combined.

While Troll and Brown implied that the Alaska LNG project will harm our climate, global realities once again tell a starkly different story. Nations around the world, particularly in Asia, are turning to clean-burning, affordable and reliable natural gas to meet emissions-reduction targets and the energy needs of their people. Demand for natural gas in Asia, Alaska’s target export market, will grow for decades.

Alaska’s location, coupled with more than 40 trillion cubic feet of North Slope natural gas, make Alaska LNG a home run for our state and nation, offering Alaskans cheap, reliable and plentiful energy, and export benefits such as economic security for Alaska and national security for our nation and our Pacific allies.

Alaska has decades of oil and gas reserves waiting to be developed and world-class environmental practices. The companies producing our resources remain invested in Alaska, and the jobs and economic opportunities we’ll receive from new projects such as Willow and Pikka will be online by the end of this decade.

The role of renewables will continue to grow, but turning off the oil and gas spigot for idealistic reasons will bring great harm to our state. That’s why an Alaska energy matrix including natural gas and other traditional sources makes the most sense and ensures a prosperous future for Alaska for generations to come.

Drue Pearce has more than three decades of energy policy experience in the Alaska Legislature, including serving as Alaska Senate President, leadership roles in the federal government, including as deputy administrator of the Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and as an advisor to leading energy and natural resources organizations.

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.