Press Conference: LNG Project

You guys ready? All right. Hey, thanks for, uh, thanks for coming. I know, Grant, there's a number of reporters in Juneau, correct? Yeah, and I'll be, uh, I had a bunch of meetings here today on some important items, so I'll be, uh, heading down to Juneau tonight, and I'll be down in Juneau for, uh, uh, pretty much the duration of, uh, the session.

And, um, you know, it's kind of what I want to talk about, and the big item on, uh, the agenda I think for Alaskans is energy. And energy with regard to this gas line. I think there's no denying that this gas line has more momentum behind it now than it ever has before. Everyone from the President of the United States to his staff to his secretaries here in Alaska, our bases, our own utilities, as Cook Inlet continues to diminish in its ability to supply gas to Alaskans. And then we look at what's happening in the Persian Gulf.

And if you're following the Persian Gulf, I, like many people, don't care for wars. And I, like many people, don't, don't, don't care to see innocent people get injured or killed. I mean, that, that's, that should be a given. The, the war in the Persian Gulf obviously has really changed the energy dynamics throughout the world and probably will for some time. Some think maybe permanently.

Much of the world's gas and oil— let me rephrase that. A lot of the world's gas and oil comes from the Persian Gulf. There's some of your largest producers in the world are located there. It's Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, United Arab Emirates. When it comes to gas, Qatar is one of the largest producers on the planet.

And for decades and decades and decades, this oil and gas flowed from the Persian Gulf with little issue. I mean, with, you know, in the '70s, we had the oil— Arab oil embargoes because of the war that was happening there between several Middle Eastern countries and Israel. But after that, it was kind of, quote, smooth sailing for a while until February. There's many that believe that it's never going to return back to what it was, that the longer this conflict goes on, And a lot of this is in the hands of Iran to mitigate. But as long as this conflict goes on, the longer this conflict goes on, the worse it's going to get for energy, an energy-focused or energy-centric Persian Gulf.

And you got to remember, it's not just energy, it's aluminum, it's fertilizer, it's petrochemicals, it's a lot of things. So what's the point in bringing up the Persian Gulf? When it comes to Alaska, this is really an Alaska advantage at this point, and to our Asian allies it is, because our proximity to Asia, 8 days to Tokyo, 8 or 9 days to Tokyo and Seoul, South Korea. But uncontested waters is really the big thing. And so where for decades our Asian allies and others were looking to the Persian Gulf to get really, relatively speaking, cheap gas, cheap oil, and to diversify their portfolios, there was always this looking over the shoulder that what happens?

What if the Persian Gulf goes off the rails. Well, it has. And when people look at it, they realize that the potential to go off the rails was always there because of the— just the mixture in that part of the world in terms of philosophies, uh, doctrine, religion, etc. And so again, we don't know when this is going to end, but what do we have going on for Alaska right now? You have a whole host of things coming together at this moment, and it's this moment—.

It's not going to last forever, and that's the point I want to make. A moment is a moment. It's not an eternity. And right now in Juneau, we are working on— many legislators are working on getting a bill passed that would modify our very high property tax law that I think never really contemplated a project of this magnitude. And as a result of that, you have a number of legislators that are working very hard.

You have some that are skeptical. As to whether this project will ever happen. But modifying this property tax, converting it into a PILT, which is a plan in lieu of taxes, in which the local communities, the local boroughs, the state, and the private concern Glenfarm could come together around an agreement that would allow this to become financeable. In other words, we want to be as competitive as possible with the rest of the country and the rest of the world. So people are asking, you know, well, Dunleavy, what's this PILT all about?

Why do we need it? Why is it necessary? Why is it so important? Because it is crucial to, to the financing of this project. For example, if anyone can envision a map of North America, Alaska is way up on top of the world.

You go down south and you have Texas on the Gulf. Texas has a lot of gas. Well, what Texas also has that we don't have are interstates, large, large permanent labor pools. The pipe itself is either made or shipped in very close to where Texas is. And so if you were to compare the price and the cost of building an 800-mile pipeline in Alaska versus an 800-mile pipeline in Texas, the cost is nearly half as much in Texas.

That makes that more attractive to investors. When you think about us building a pipeline this far north, you got to ship equipment up, you have to ship pipe up, uh, you have to use every available worker in Alaska. And I'm going to talk about that more detail in just a moment because I think it's important for our unions and others to understand that this will be a job creator like no other. Uh, this, this, this project in many respects will be bigger than the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline. But going back to this PILT, we have to make it economical.

There's a lot of movement now in the energy world across, across the world. Many of our Asian allies and others are looking, where are we going to get energy on a long-term secure basis? Well, Alaska's secure, there's no doubt about it, but Alaska always also costs more. So what this PILT is going to do is help us reduce the cost of financing so we can be competitive with other projects that are now being financed. If we don't do that, If we continue to pretend that Alaska is right next to Texas, that it's as cheap as Texas, that it's as easy to build as Texas, that it doesn't have a wilderness to put a pipeline through, that it doesn't have cold, long winters, that the whole cost structure is equal to Texas, if we keep fooling ourselves into believing that, we may not get this pipeline done.

However, as I mentioned earlier, The proximity of Alaska to Asia and the fact that we've demonstrated we can do big projects. We were the pioneers in LNG export to Japan starting in the late '60s on planet Earth, not just in North America. We were the first, period, that produced, created an operation that sent gas consistently for 50 years to Japan. We are the home of the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline. Built in the '70s with '70s technology that is still carrying oil through our, uh, from the North Slope to our consumers worldwide.

And so we can do it. We've shown we can build it, but we're in a very, very competitive world right now. And so this PILT is crucial, whether it's Glenfarm, whether it's any other outfit that does gas and, and, uh, builds gas pipelines and operates gas pipeline. It's really about us. We need to revisit this, in which the legislature is, and I'm grateful for that, and I'm thankful for that.

But we got about 3 weeks left in the session, and as you know, things go oftentimes in a legislature, not just ours or in Congress, any, any elective body, people want to try to make it a perfect bill, and that's not going to happen. Uh, really does make— that really does happen because when you have 60 individuals trying to decide what a bill is going to look like. It's not always going to look like the bill that the guy next to them want it to look like. But the key is we have to make this bill financeable and passable. This bill has got to be, uh, we got to be able to construct a bill that doesn't tax investors just on property that sits there, which the current property tax would do, as opposed to when gas is flowing.

So by making this, again, this property tax bill into a PILT, turning this into a PILT and making it more competitive, we have a real opportunity to make it financeable. And if we have that opportunity to make it financeable, which I think we will with the changes to the PILT, uh, we got a gas line. Why do I say that? The demand for gas, uh, worldwide was spiking before the Persian Gulf War. Now they're going to be looking for places that are secure.

And this is what this bill does. And so we have 3 weeks left. Some in the legislature said there's not enough time, but they've been saying that back in January. Uh, some of the legislators say we can do this, we can make this happen. But I can tell you this, the window is not going to stay open for Alaska forever.

The Asian allies and others are looking for gas worldwide. They're going to look— they're looking for gas everywhere. They're looking for gas in which they could be assured they're going to get the gas. This PILT is passed, that's one huge step forward for Alaska to confirm that Alaska can assure we can get a pipeline built and be shipping gas overseas. Now, we're going to talk here in a moment about what's happening in the state of Alaska, and this is really to me what is fascinating.

For those that are arguing that, uh, maybe we need to take more time on this PILT, or this, this project may not work, What is their alternative?

What's the alternative to get energy to Alaska? We're running out of gas. Really, the only viable alternative we have right now is to import gas. And once you start importing gas on a large scale over the long term, that then becomes your only option. But there's a problem with that.

You might go from $10 a unit gas in the Lower 48 or Canada quickly to $12, $14, $15, $16, $18 gas. And what does that mean? You're looking at 35 to 45 cents a kilowatt hour 5 to 10 years from now on the rail belt, especially in places like Fairbanks, Alaska. That makes the state uncompetitive. Uh, it makes it non-competitive for people that want to move here.

It's going to really damper a business environment for businesses to move here. And you're probably going to see an outflow of people. And people will say, well, Don Levy, you're painting a grim picture. I'm painting reality.

We are running out of gas right out the window here in Cook Inlet. We've known this since at least the mid-2000s. We had brownout commercials with the mayors in 2010. We've been talking about this for years. And now we have an opportunity.

So what does this gas line— what would this gas line produce besides 3.2 billion cubic feet per day or 20 million tons of gas per day? It would produce an amazing amount of ancillary benefits. Cheap long-term gas in the mid-teens, most likely for Alaska. Our gas is not on Henry Hub, so we could have long-term stable contracts. You're going to attract businesses here like Data Farms, reopen the fertilizer plant, other types of potential, uh, petrochemical, uh, businesses here, especially what's happening in the Gulf.

This is a safe, calm part of the world right now. Here in the North Pacific, in Alaska. You're going to create thousands and thousands and thousands of good-paying jobs. You're going to lower the gas— the price of energy for schools, for hospitals, for institutions that are here already. The list goes on.

That you're, you're gonna, you're gonna be able to collect royalties and severance tax for our, uh, Treasury to the tune of $900 to maybe $1 billion that we don't have now. But if we don't have a gas line, you've got none of those things. As a matter of fact, by some calculations, without a gas line and importing gas, the legislature is going to have to work on an urban power cost equalization program in the tune of $2 to $5 billion to build renewables and batteries and wind and solar and to import gas. That's not a recipe for growing— a growing state. That's not a recipe for a growing economy.

That's a disaster. So we have this one moment in time that if we can get the legislature to come together for the people of Alaska, for the state of Alaska, you could have a gas line that creates thousands of jobs, that creates royalties and severance tax for the treasury. That would not necessitate the legislature creating an urban PCE for Anchorage and Fairbanks and the Mat-Su and the Kenai. That could open up the agrium plant in, in, in Kenai, creating more fertilizer, more jobs. Data farms could come here.

Our school utility rates would drop dramatically. Our hospital utility rates would drop dramatically. So If you were to say to me, Dunleavy, what's the most important thing that can happen in this session? It's this PILT by far, bar none. This would be the largest project in Alaska history, probably the largest in the Arctic, in the Pacific.

The impacts on Alaska would be almost immeasurable going out decades and decades and decades. And we have, we are this close. To securing this with this PILT. So I asked the legislature to continue to work as hard as possible over the next 3 weeks to get this—. Come to agreement on this PILT so we can take this— Len Farn can take it to Wall Street, finance this project, order pipe, sign contracts, and get things going.

But it's going to be crucial in order for us to finance this project. And so That's the main part of this, uh, discussion. But at this point, I want to talk about PCE for a moment because there was just an interesting, an interesting decision made by the RCA, Regulatory Commission of Alaska, on May 1st, which I think illustrates where we're headed if we don't get a gas line going here. And I'm going to ask Andrew Jensen to come up and just talk for a moment about what that decision was how that decision impacts rural Alaska— excuse me, urban Alaska— but how it also impacts rural Alaska. So Andrew, come on over.

Thank you, Governor. Andrew Jensen, policy advisor for the administration. And yes, I want to talk just briefly about the mechanics of the PCE program. I think everybody listening and in the room knows what it is and what it's intended to do in terms of equalizing the cost between the urban population and the rural population. Now this is based on a formula that is set out in statute.

It's AS42.45.110(c)(2) is the relevant section of this. And so this is a weighted average based on the power electricity rates in Juneau, Fairbanks, and Anchorage. And the way this is weighted, about 80% of the rate is driven by the rates in Anchorage and Fairbanks. And so what happens is every year the RCA sets the base rate, and that's based on these averages of power costs. And so last Friday on May 1st, the RCA raised the PCE rate by nearly 10% from 20.38 cents to 22.11 cents per kilowatt hour.

So what does this mean? I mean, that not only shows that we have an increase in costs on the rail belt, but every time the rail belt rate increases, the rural power rate increases. And we know that this is at a time when fuel costs are skyrocketing here in town and especially in rural Alaska. And now according to the Alaska Energy Authority, who manages and administers the PCE program, every 1 penny change in this urban rate is a $1.5 million impact in PCE communities. So this, you know, approximately 2-cent increase, that's $3 million less in support for PCE communities for power rates.

And so what are the big drivers here? We, we saw, so Fairbanks, uh, is now at 31.6 cents per kilowatt hour. 31.6 Per kilowatt. Uh, why is that? Well, they're no longer getting gas from Southcentral.

Um, they used to get 30% of their power from Southcentral Gas. Now they get zero. So right now in this current quarter, they're getting about 54% of their power from oil and they're paying these prices for diesel. So obviously that's not sustainable. Um, back when they were getting some gas from NStar just a couple years ago, they were getting 21% and 29% of their power from oil.

Now it's 54% in the, in, in the current quarter. Uh, so then we look at MEA. MEA is now at 24.5 cents per kilowatt hour. Why is that? Well, there's lots of reasons, but they also just agreed to an increase in their price with Hillcorp just to get one more year of firm gas supply.

So they just had a 15% increase in their cost of gas, a $1.30 increase for MEA ratepayers. And then look at Chugach. So Chugach is now at 23.4 cents per kilowatt hour. Why is that? Chugach has less sales with declining population and a lack of economic development.

When you have the same fixed cost but fewer sales, everybody pays more. So Chugach's increase is more than 2 cents per kilowatt from one year to the next, And they're about 64% of the weighted average on kilowatt sales. So they're the largest cost driver. They had the largest increase. So as you can see, what happens on the rail belt, um, impacts rural Alaska, because when the rates go up on the rail belt, they go up in rural.

And the same is also true the other direction. You drive rates down in urban Alaska, you will drive, uh, rates down in rural Alaska. And so with that, I think I'll just give it back to the governor here and explain what the impacts of that are. Yeah, so, so we, we've once again, we've been seeing these impacts since the mid-2000s. The closure of the, the Agrium plant, the export plant, um, the, um, the scramble to get more gas out of the inlet.

You know, I mean, I want to thank Hilcorp, I want to thank Hex and others that are trying to get more gas out of the inlet, but it's a very, very mature, uh, basin. And the hope that, you you know, we're gonna stumble upon something large there, according to our people, is slim. And so we're gonna squeeze a little more out of it, but in the end, um, we're gonna start to feel the crunch here in Alaska. And what, what happens then to Enstar, for example? We haven't even discussed that.

So Enstar has a system of piping, Enstar has a system of customers. Well, what happens if the price of gas reaches a certain point— $18, $17, $18, $19 a unit— and you're saying, ah, it'll never happen? Right now there's a contract signed with taking gas off the slope and trucking it to Fairbanks for almost $25 a unit. So it's already happening. So what happens is over time either people leave and the NSTAR system becomes stressed, meaning fewer and fewer people are going to be required to carry the load, and then you start to get to a point where renewables make sense.

It makes sense when you start to hit gas in the teens, high teens. Just to cost them. I know, I've got 50 solar panels, so I, I have a personal, uh, understanding of how this works. Day like today, it doesn't work that great. Midwinter, it doesn't work that great.

So you're really looking at problems for the residents, but again, it basically forfeits any opportunity for businesses coming. So again, I would ask that those in the legislature that are Him and Hawing, and, and again, there are many working hard on this bill to make it happen, and I want to thank them. We got to get something done here soon. This moment in time is not going to happen. You're not going to get the President of the United States behind a project like this.

This is one of his signature major huge projects for the country and for Alaska. You're not going to get a Persian Gulf happening every day. You're not going to get any diminishing, diminishing, uh, uh, oil base or gas base in here. And lest we forget, We set records in March in Anchorage for cold. We set records in Fairbanks for consecutive days below freezing.

So the draw on what limited gas we have, it was tremendous this year, but we have an opportunity. All right, so I'm going to go to something here, uh, pretty quick. Um, uh, SB 64, the election bill, there was an override, uh, vote today that failed. I also have a pension bill sitting on my desk. And here's what I would like to say to the legislature is there's a real opportunity to get a number of things done if we work together.

I've said that before. I've said that probably a dozen times. Um, sending a bill to me after it goes through the process as opposed to sitting down right before it comes out of rules to the floor for a vote, it's probably not the greatest idea, but we have 3 weeks left. To work on this PILT and get a gas line, but we also have 3 weeks left to work on other things, uh, that may be near and dear to certain legislators. And so I just want to make sure that people understand that this is the most important thing.

I don't think anyone can argue getting a gas line for Alaska, getting energy for Alaska, is the most important thing. Uh, while other things can wait till next year, this can't. And so some of the things that people want to move in the legislature, I get it, and I'm willing to look at them. I'm willing to ponder it, but I'm—. I think we need to work together to make sure that we can get a lot of these things across the finish line the next 3 weeks.

And so, um, I'll be going to Juneau tonight. I'll be there probably for the remainder of the session. Look forward to working with the legislature. Look forward— look forward to working with the legislature to get a PILT done and potentially some of these other items and issues that the legislature feels are very important for the state of Alaska. So with that, Brent?

We're going to start with reporters on the teleconference. Uh, first we have Becky Bohr with the Associated Press. Becky, if you're on, go ahead and ask your question.

Hi, Governor. Thank you. Um, do you at this point have a preference between the, uh, the status of bills in either the, uh, the Senate or House? I'm wondering, when you talk about looking forward to working with the legislature, how— where you might be willing to, to move, um, related to the original bill that you introduced? Well, again, um, we, we have to rely on our experts.

We have to continue the conversation with, uh, the legislature. We have to ask that the various municipalities that will be impacted, um, come together with us to ensure we get a gas line first and then make sure that those communities, the state of Alaska, gets its fair share. There is no fair share though if there's no gas line. I mean, I can't emphasize that any stronger. There's no— we can debate theoreticals and hypotheticals, but without a gas line, there's no fair share.

There's no tax. There's no anything. There's no gas. There's no energy. There may be no future for the state of Alaska.

So Becky, the best answer I can give you is we got, we've got, my administration's got several people working literally 15-hour days on this with legislators as we speak. You have a difference of opinion within each body, in each caucus. Uh, you have a difference of opinion, you know, in the House, the House version of the bill which is still being worked on, the Senate version of the bill which is still being worked on. But the goal should be to create a bill that makes sense, is going to work, and work means get it financeable, uh, by investors. You can create a bill that, you know, is your dream bill, but if investors don't want to go near it, you don't have a project.

So it's very important that we create a bill. And remind— remember, contrary to what some people may be saying, this is not giving our resources away or giving our, our, our taxing authority away. This is helping finance a massive, massive project, a massive pipe in order to get gas to Alaska. This has no negative— there's no negative impact on royalty if this bill passes. As a matter of fact, there's a positive impact.

You get royalty. Severance tax, the same thing. And then all the ancillary businesses that could be taxed that come up here will more than make up, in many respects, to what is being— what some people feel we're foregoing. But again, you don't forego something you don't have. So the legislature's, uh, a number of folks are working together.

There's two, two different bill versions, but whatever comes out has to make sense, has to have a tax structure. You know, we're looking at a throughput structure that is going to give the state money in taxes but not tax ourselves out of a project. So we're going to continue to work on that. Again, it's very hard to determine what that bill will look like at the end, but it's got to be a bill that works.

Next we have Eric Stone with Alaska Public Media.

Uh, Governor, I'm going to follow up on Becky's question because, you know, as you know, the House and Senate bills both include that payment of Llewellyn taxes that you're asking for to replace the property tax. They both—. The bills both appear to be moving. Like, the House bill is scheduled to advance to the House Finance Committee by the end of this week. The difference between those two is the rate.

Yours is 6 cents per MCF, the House's is 20, the Senate's is higher. So the question basically is like, what are you asking for? Is 6 cents per MCF the only financeable tax rate? Are you saying that there is some other rate that is You know, I guess I'm just asking you to nail down the specifics of what you're asking for. Yeah, you know, I would say that you go above 10 cents, ideally you're within the 6 cents range.

If you go above, much above that, you're probably not going to get a project that's financeable. Somebody comes in with a 20-cent throughput tax, it's not going to be financeable. And we're having those discussions. You're not privy to all of those discussions. There are many, you know, a lot of it is happening in the public.

A lot of it is work sessions behind the scenes. But nonetheless, it's got to be a range that makes sense. And anything, anything of 6 cents we put in there because we felt that that was going to be the sweet spot to make this bill happen. But again, if it goes much above that, I don't know how you— I don't— I'm not sure if it's financeable. And again, I'm working for the state of Alaska.

I'm not working for Glen Farn or whoever's going to do this project. But what has been brought to light by these outfits is the, the way this is structured now, this property tax, simply just too high. It doesn't work. It's higher than Texas. It's higher than so many other states.

It's one of the highest there is, if not the highest in the country. It just won't work because of the extra costs up here in Alaska. The extra costs, again, are— and this is just an extra cost— is, is making it difficult. So it's got to be, it's got to be in the neighborhood of that 6 cents or just won't work. Next we have James Brooks with the Alaska Beacon.

Hi there, pardon for any echo, I'm in one of the Capitol phone booths. So you had mentioned earlier the, some study that reflected a $2 to $5 billion cost to meet, and I'm paraphrasing here because I don't recall the wording exactly, some kind of backup of what it would cost to meet demand if the pipeline isn't built. I have to admit I'm not familiar with that. Yeah, yeah. I'm wondering if we could get a copy of that.

Yeah, no, let me clarify that. Yeah, let me— I don't mean to interrupt you, but let me clarify that. It wasn't a study. It was inputs into a number of AI, like ChatGPT and Grok and a whole bunch of others, just to ask the question, If there is no gas line, how would we be able to deliver energy to the rail belt and at what cost? And so it was really going to the research aspects of those models and asking them.

It was not a research piece done by a think tank.

Okay. Then my question is, you had said that the goal on this is to get the state money but not tax ourselves out of the project. Um, how do you have a sense of what the deliverable cost of gas will be from this pipeline? Like, how much will gas cost from this pipeline, and how much will the pipeline cost to build? So I think what you said is the goal was to get state money.

Is that what you said?

No, you had said, um, get the state money but not tax ourselves out of the project. Yeah, the goal is to get gas. Finding the balancing point. The goal is to get gas. The goal is to get long-term gas.

The goal is to do exactly what the Asian allies and others are doing right now in the world. How do we get gas at the lowest price possible over the long term? That's the goal first. Then, then there's opportunities for the state to tax the resource and tax the movement of gas. But the goal is to get gas first, because if you don't have gas, you don't have anything else.

What was the second part of the question? Oh yeah, sure. I was trying to understand what the deliverable cost of gas is, assuming the pipeline is built. The deliverable cost, um, the deliverable cost going over Asia, um, and that, that, you know, that changes over time, but it's my understanding it's, it's anywhere between $9 and $12. But I'm not an expert on that.

That's hap— that's being worked on by folks that this is their business, but in-state, uh, we would hope to get the gas for half that or less, less than half that. So let's say, for example, we get gas at $5 a unit as opposed to $15 or $18. You can see where that's a significant, significant savings and impact on Alaska one way or the other. So I would hope that minus the shipping and minus all that, that Alaska is going to see gas somewhere in that range.

Next we have Jeff Landfield with the Alaska Landmine.

Um, hi Governor, I want to ask about a separate topic just very quickly. Uh, last year, uh, the chair of the Human Rights Commission went to Switzerland with the executive director, which cost the state $20,000. I pointed that out and, uh, she's filed a frivolous defamation lawsuit against me. Um, so I guess There's a travel ban. They went to Switzerland for a week, 20,000.

A lot of resources are being used for this frivolous defamation lawsuit. I'm curious why she's still the chair of the Human Rights Commission. Yeah, you know, Jeff, obviously I wasn't ready for that question since this was more of an energy question, but that's something I'll look into. And whatever, you know, if there is something I could share publicly, I'll do that. But again, generally speaking, we don't talk about personnel issues, but since you brought that up, I'll have folks look into it.

All right, next we have Ashley O'Hara with KDLL.

Yeah, hi, Governor. I'm down here in Kenai. I'm looking at this statement that the White House had sent out in favor of the legislation that you've sponsored. As state lawmakers are considering which iteration, if any, of this bill, this legislation to pass, do you think that they should be giving more weight to the White House's opinion over, say, the perspectives and opinions of local boroughs? I, of course, am thinking of the Kenai Peninsula Borough.

Thank you. [SPEAKING NATIVE LANGUAGE] Yeah, that's not how I interpret that letter. I interpret that letter as they're following this project and they encourage us to do whatever we can to make it financeable so we get a gas line. Federal government has a vested interest in the success of Alaska, obviously, because a healthy Alaska, successful Alaska, a great economy, less— means less burden on the federal government for transfers, receipt transfers. But it also means that our bases get gas.

And so basically, I interpret that letter as the same thing the President of the United States has been doing, and that is keeping an eye on the project, encouraging us to get it across the finish line with regard to this PILT. And working on it so that this thing is built for Alaskans and is a great thing for Alaska and the United States. They're not talking about a specific, you know, iteration of this tax bill. They're just saying, you know, we encourage you guys to keep working through whatever you're working through and get to the finish line. All right, next we have Will Courtney with Alaska's News Source.

Yeah, thanks for taking my question, Governor. You mentioned earlier in this press conference that there are lawmakers and people looking to make this bill into a perfect bill. I want to kind of ask you, if this bill is not something that you see as perfect, are you ready to veto that? And then what would a non-perfect bill look like? Well, a non-perfect bill is a bill that when experts look at it, they say you're not going to get financing on this.

The whole goal is, is to, to change the property tax, only the property tax, not royalty, not severance, not any other potential tax down the road. Just the property tax on this massive megaproject, one of a kind, uh, probably never been done on this scale. Um, the idea is, is to, to make sure it's financeable. So if experts, uh, somebody come— if this bill ends up with a, you know, 20 cents a throughput unit and the experts just shake their head and say good luck, well, it's not going to work. Um, it's not going to work.

You got to remember, I'm gonna, you know, a place like Texas Even California is getting more and more business activity, data farms, et cetera. We don't even have— there's no cranes out the window except for the port. There's not a lot of activity happening here. And part of the reason is we're too expensive. So if you create a bill that's too expensive, you're not going to get financing and you're gonna end up with a lot of what we got going on out here.

And that is not a lot happening because it's expensive to do business here. So again, uh, there's a lot of experts weighing in on what the bill should look like, but everyone agrees that if you're going to have a pipeline, it's got to be financeable. Nobody's going to invest in a pipeline to lose money. People are going to invest in a pipeline to get, uh, to make money. But for the state of Alaska, we're not going to make any money if there's no pipeline, and we're going to lose money actually because we're going to have to underwrite the energy of the rail belt and the rest of Alaska without low-cost long-term energy.

And so It's really about the final product, and we'll keep working it and working it and working it and working it. And I'll be, you know, some people have asked me, and I've even been encouraged by legislators to ponder the possibility of special sessions to get it right. That's special sessions to punish legislature, legislators, or punish myself or punish the people of Alaska. But it's too important. It can't It, it, it can't be, uh, it can't be left to next year.

We got a moment in time. We can do it. We can get it right. We can get it within the parameters that experts feel could then make this financeable. We can then get on the, uh, join the rest of the states that are growing and keeping their people.

So, uh, I, I have faith that this legislature can do it if they want to do it. We're going to encourage them to do it. Next up, if you get a bill that you don't like, the bill doesn't work, it's not going to work. If the bill doesn't work, it's not going to work. And if the question is, will the bill be vetoed if it doesn't work, why would I put a bill into law if it doesn't work?

Why would I pass a bill if we have experts saying that's not going to work, that doesn't make any sense at all? We're going to work to get a bill that works. Moving to the room now, I have Alex Smarman with Anchorage Daily News. Hi, thanks. Given the short timeline here, um, how quickly do you plan to call a special session if they give you a flawed bill or if you, uh, get no bill at all?

We got, we got 3 weeks left. My understanding is that they probably will go right up to the end to try and get this right. It'll be at that point that we'll make the decision when that special session would be. I'm hoping we don't need one. But we've got to use every tool we possibly can.

I can't— I don't think any legislator can go home and say, you know what, we're going to do it next year. Given what we just heard on PCE, we all know you just got to look at your bills, what's happening. So I think that, you know, I think we're going to get something that works. I'm hopeful. But if we don't, we're going to use every tool we can possibly get or use or employ to make sure that the people of Alaska can turn their lights on and turn their heat on.

We had record cold last year. This is not 1960. This is record cold we had last year in Fairbanks, in Anchorage, in Matsusuu. We're out of gas. The bases need gas.

The bells are going off. The Persian Gulf's in shambles. It's all ringing right now to get this done. So we're going to do whatever we got to do when we got to do it.

Hmm. How do you plan to advocate for the bill in Juneau? I, I'm there having discussions with people. I put the bill together out of my office. We introduced the bill.

I have people in my office working constantly with the legislature nonstop. We've contracted people to work with the legislature nonstop. So we've got people all over. This is the most important bill we're doing. It's the most important thing for the people of Alaska, period.

That answer your question? I hope so. Okay, so the ball's in the legislative court.

Legislature by Constitution is the first body. They decide on laws. They send the laws to me. If the laws work, the laws would go into law. Uh, they're either passed or signed into law.

The Constitution allows me to look at a bill, and if it doesn't work, then it's either vetoed or we send it back, hopefully in a future discussion, to fix a bill, which we can do with a number of these bills. This bill is too important. This concept is too important. This is not a resolution on Tall People's Day. This is not, uh, um, setting up a tax for lemonade stand down here in the corner by the hot dog stand.

It's the biggest project on the planet. In 2026 with the world in chaos over energy, with the discussions going back as far as 2005, if not earlier, that we're running out of oil and gas, or gas in the inlet here, that you just heard that the RCA has said that we need to increase the, uh, the charge, the rail belts, that the rail belts can charge. For energy, electricity, but it's going to impact rural Alaska. This is not going to get better. And I ask the question, and I don't know if you guys have asked the question, Alex and others, have you asked the question, what's your alternative to the gas line?

Have you asked the question? Have you asked the question? Is it, is it, is it something you guys have brought up in the press conferences over and over? What is your alternative? Has anyone come up and said Well, our alternative is a bunch of, uh, stationary bikes with generators on them, or, or jumping jacks, or burn barrels with wood in them, or coal, or anything.

Have they come up with something?

Okay, so where's the plan that's an alternative to this? And why wouldn't this be taken seriously when all of the benefits are easily documented? I asked the legislature to work hard to get this over the finish line, to do what's right for the people of Alaska, to put aside all kinds of differences for this one gigantic, incredible project that will transform the state of Alaska along the lines of the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline. Imagine if back then in the early '70s they said Nah, we don't need it. What would this state look like?

Wouldn't look like it is today, I can guarantee you that. So the people of Alaska are going to ask when this session is over, what did you do to ensure long-term affordable energy? What did you do to afford long-term jobs? And a lot of jobs during construction. What did you do to ensure that other businesses and industries will come to Alaska?

What did you do to ensure that my kids and my grandkids don't have to go to Texas to be able to make a living? What do you tell the bases in terms of national security— Army, Air Force, you name it— we decided to punt? I don't think the legislature wants to do that. I don't think the people of Alaska want the legislature to do that, to be honest with you. But let's not get, you know, balled up in some of the inside game down in Juneau, which can happen.

This thing is too important. It's too important. We got to get it done. So with that, I want to thank you.

Say that again.

Hurt my path? It hurt my path. This is not my— well, I'm gonna, I'm gonna— the premise, the question for the people that didn't hear it is, does the veto of bills not associated with gas or the project hurt the path forward? Only if certain legislators want to hurt the path forward. Only if certain— look at, I've got bills in the legislature that aren't moving, okay?

I've got great bills in the legislature that would then prove things for Alaskans. My great bills pale in comparison to this bill.

And so my answer to you would be, once again, we got 3 weeks left. If people want to talk to, have a discussion with me about bills that were vetoed, uh, in terms of how they could be made better to move forward, that's the real potential. This thing is the key. And I just find it hard to believe that somebody in the near future is going to say, yeah, I was one of those guys that, uh, voted not to have a gas line because, uh, my bill here that could have potentially waited till next year, or my bill here that probably could have passed if we work with the governor over the next couple weeks, happened. So there's always opportunity, there's always hope.

But to put this secondary to certain bills, to me, is an absolute convolution of priorities for the state of Alaska. I've had nobody say to me whose energy costs are going up whose food costs are going to start going up because of this Persian Gulf thing say, hey, you know what, forget that energy bill. This other bill is much more important. Uh, I don't care about paying another 10, 15, 25 cents or sending my kids off to Texas to find a living. This is the most important thing.

This is the most important thing. All right, I'll keep updating you guys as we come down to the finish line, but we could have the biggest project in the world here in Alaska, providing the cheapest energy you could possibly imagine for a place this far north and creating jobs and opportunity like we've never seen before. It's in the hands of the legislature.