Thanks to Dermot Cole and Dr. Gwen Holdman (UAF) for a timely article today — https://www.dermotcole.com/reportingfromalaska/2026/4/16/4jyions3bzh1xrryz0gyokxyk3jsb6 Mr. Cole opens with this statement:

“There are many ways to look at the energy problem facing the Golden Valley Electric Association, which has turned into an urgent matter because of the disappearance of relatively cheap gas-fired power from Southcentral via the intertie. The column below by Gwen Holdman, reprinted from the Alaska Beacon, features her analysis of how and why GVEA is in this situation.

I’d like to get more discussion going on this topic. We haven’t seen the leadership we need from Gov. Mike Dunleavy and the Legislature to get solutions implemented. Telling everyone that the gas line is coming is not the answer because there is a good chance the gas line is not coming.” Dermot Cole April 17, 2026

There are many layers to this energy onion, and it’s clear we’re no longer talking about a distant risk — this is showing up now in people’s bills and daily lives, and its long been a drag on our economy and investable opportunities.

(BTW – Don’t forget about the Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference in May… Someone has scheduled it on top of the legislative session so none of the policy makers or their staff can attend… that was helpful… but I hope to hear what peoples learn from the gathering. https://alaskasustainableenergy.com )

Next week we’ll have two Energy Committee hearings that will be important. One will look at the RCA i-docket on LNG import projects — essentially asking whether we can bring some coordination to multiple, potentially duplicative efforts, and align utilities in a way that benefits ratepayers, as well as individual utility energy security… or at least better understand the barriers that are getting in the way.

The second hearing focuses on the growing energy challenges in rural Alaska tied to bulk fuel needed in 2026 and interrupted by the war— but it also raises broader concerns about supply interruptions that could affect the Railbelt natural gas for heating and power as well.

Like Mr. Cole, I’d welcome input on questions for both hearings.

Stepping back, the article reinforces something many of us have been wrestling with: the gasline has become as much a constraint as a solution in Alaska’s energy and fiscal planning. Decades of stop-and-go momentum, combined with external uncertainty, have left us hesitating at key decision points. In the last 10 years the prospects of a gas line have blocked or undermined otherwise important decisions on developing Cook Inlet gas, a large hydro power project, new wind projects, or even an import solution. Yes, I do also give the current administration credit for also being more of a disruption than help with Alaska energy projects.

But this moment also presents an opportunity.

We are approaching real milestones with the Railbelt Reliability Council’s IRP and transmission (OATT) work. That sets the table for the next legislature to seriously consider structural changes — whether that’s an ISO, a G&T model, or another form of integration, perhaps enabled by discussions of a major energy agenda and general obligation bond.

I continue to believe that moving toward a more integrated system is essential — not just for efficiency, but to unlock better investment decisions and ensure we’re actually dispatching the lowest-cost power across the grid. Right now, as the article highlights, we’re still operating in a fragmented, “prisoner’s dilemma” structure that leaves everyone worse off with documented additional costs for their power.

Looking forward, there are a couple of forks in the road beyond the obvious question of a gas line project moving forward in my life time. (I’ve been waiting almost 50 years since the 1977 planning.)

• Do we continue managing around localized constraints — project by project, utility by utility — or
• Do we shift toward integrated planning, economic dispatch, and system-wide prioritization?

And alongside that:

• Do we keep subsidizing legacy rural energy systems designed for a very different Alaska, or
• Do we accelerate building the next generation of energy solutions — especially for rural and off-Railbelt communities — that can actually reduce long-term costs and support economic growth rather than offer slowly distributed crumbs of hope that only prop up current costs and limited capacity.

In the end, this isn’t just about infrastructure — it’s about structure and incentives.

We have an opportunity to move from a system that rewards isolated decision-making to one that drives coordination, lowers costs, and opens the door to innovation.

That kind of shift won’t happen on its own. It requires leadership willing to look beyond managing today’s constraints and instead build a framework that breaks them… we are at another fork in the road, will we take it? 

Ky