An invitation for input as we look ahead
May 3, 2026
A recent letter to the editor in the Anchorage Daily News raised an important and timely concern: Southcentral Alaska faces a real risk of natural gas shortages in the coming years, particularly during periods of extreme cold. It’s the first letter and worth a read, and I encourage others to start there as part of this broader conversation.
Over the past several months, the Alaska House Energy Special Committee has spent time examining aspects of this issue, including a recent hearing with Regulatory Commission of Alaska leadership on LNG import proposals and their oversight role. Those discussions have been useful—but they’ve also reinforced a concern I’ve had for some time: our approach to natural gas planning is fragmented.
We are making decisions across multiple silos—utilities, producers, regulators, and policymakers—without a clearly integrated framework that ensures reliability and affordability for Alaskans.
A Near-Term Risk, A Long-Term Problem
As we approach next winter, I remain concerned that we have not clearly identified or advanced the specific actions needed to strengthen confidence in gas contracting and storage capacity. We are seeing similar warning signs elsewhere. The challenges around bulk fuel and energy delivery in Western Alaska this year are a reminder of how quickly supply uncertainty can escalate into crisis and real consequences for communities.
The situation in Cook Inlet may be different in scale and structure, but the lesson is the same: reliability doesn’t happen by accident. It requires coordination, planning, and clear accountability.
At present, much of the public discussion is focused on large-scale projects, tax policy, and long-term positioning—Cook Inlet gas basin development, LNG imports, new gas storage, and pipeline proposals. Those are important. But they are not, by themselves, a plan for ensuring reliable and affordable energy in the near term, and in the jockeying for control and political pressure for a gas line I’m not convinced it’s a plan for ultimately the most affordable mix of energy for the rail-belt, or the maximum benefit result for Alaskans across the entire state as our constitution requires.
Just as importantly, we are not spending enough time on demand-side solutions or on practical steps that can reduce risk over the next several winters.
Who Is Responsible?
One of the most important questions raised by the call for contingency planning is simple: who is responsible for making sure that plan exists—and that it works?
Right now, the answer is not clear.
We have capable institutions, including the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority, individual utilities, producers, and Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Each plays an important role. But no single entity is clearly tasked with integrating planning, aligning actions, and ensuring that the gas energy system as a whole is prepared.
That gap matters.
Lessons from the Railbelt
We’ve faced a similar challenge before in the Railbelt electric system. Fragmentation across utilities created inefficiencies and reliability concerns. In response, we worked toward more coordinated structures, including the Railbelt Reliability Council and the development of a Railbelt transmission organization.
Those efforts are still evolving, but they reflect an important principle:
complex, interdependent energy systems require coordinated governance and shared planning frameworks.
Natural gas in Cook Inlet—supplying both heating and power generation—is no less critical, and arguably more so.
What Comes Next
With the legislative session wrapping up and the House Energy Committee’s work largely complete for now, I don’t see a pathway for major policy changes in the immediate term. That said, I will continue looking for opportunities to raise this issue—potentially through legislative intent language tied to energy-related bills currently moving, including those addressing rural energy supply challenges.
More importantly, this is an issue I intend to elevate during the interim.
There are two tracks of work that seem necessary:
- Near-term: Improve visibility into supply risks, contracting, and storage capacity, and ensure contingency planning is in place for the next several winters.
- Long-term: Develop a more integrated and durable structure for gas planning, coordination, and decision-making.
An Invitation for Input
This is where I’m asking for your help.
What have we learned—from the Railbelt, from rural energy challenges, or from other regions—that could inform a better approach to managing Cook Inlet gas supply?
- What kind of organizational structure would provide effective coordination without adding unnecessary bureaucracy?
- Do organizational solutions require change to existing organizations or creating new organizations as was done with the electrical grid?
- Are our state agency  energy efforts also fragmented when it comes to natural resource development, rural and urban needs, investments in energy projects, assistance for public and private energy costs, community and economic development, and financial planning? Should we restructure to have an office of energy or perhaps a department of energy to unify our development and planning priorities and policies?
- How do we balance market-driven solutions with the need for reliability and public accountability?
- What demand-side strategies should we be taking more seriously?
- And what should we be doing now—this year—to reduce risk for the winters immediately ahead?
I don’t pretend to have a complete picture. In fact, one of my concerns is that if those of us engaged in this work don’t have a clear, shared understanding of the plan for gas, that likely means one doesn’t yet exist.
We have time to address this—but not unlimited time.
I will be using the interim to get ahead of the problem, rather than react to it and develop recommendations and draft policy that can be ready for those in the next session. I’d appreciate your help. Contact me now or after the session if you’ve got ideas or want to meet and discuss this.
Ky