Ky Holland May 31, 2026

There’s no question Alaska’s resource potential is drawing renewed attention. Projects like Willow and Pikka represent major investments, real jobs, and an important source of state revenue. After years of hearing mostly about decline, it’s understandable why people are excited to see global investors looking north again.

And frankly, Alaska should be part of any serious national conversation about energy security and domestic production, including strategic supplies of LNG in the North Pacific for domestic and ally energy needs.

But I also think we need to be careful about confusing momentum with strategy.

A temporary surge of outside interest is not the same thing as having a durable long-term economic plan for Alaska. We’ve seen versions of this cycle before. Commodity prices rise, investment floods in, optimism grows, and then we discover we built our fiscal assumptions around conditions we don’t actually control.

The deeper question is whether we are using periods of resource strength to build long-term resilience — or simply extending our dependence on a system that has repeatedly left Alaska vulnerable to boom-and-bust cycles.

That doesn’t mean saying “no” to development. It means thinking seriously about governance, public trust, infrastructure, workforce development, energy reliability, and how we convert finite resource wealth into lasting economic capacity.

In engineering terms, throughput matters. But system stability matters too.

If Alaska becomes attractive again for investment, we should absolutely welcome that opportunity. But investors also look for something broader than short-term enthusiasm. They look for competent institutions, fiscal stability, predictable policy, reliable infrastructure, and a workforce pipeline that can sustain projects over decades.

That’s part of why I keep coming back to education, energy affordability, housing, transportation, and public safety. Those aren’t separate conversations from resource development. They are the foundation that determines whether Alaska can actually capture the long-term value of these projects or simply experience another extraction cycle with limited downstream benefit.

I also think we should resist framing every policy discussion around avoiding any change whatsoever because industry dislikes uncertainty. Good governance requires both predictability and accountability. Those things are not opposites and the current demand by industry that we a change our long established and stable tax policy shows the nuance in the industry priority normally resisting tax policy changes.

Strong states can support development while still asking hard questions:
Are Alaskans receiving durable long-term value?
Are we preparing for future market shifts?
Are we building fiscal resilience?
Are we developing local talent and local industry capacity?

Are we creating the conditions for Alaskans to STAY and future generations to call this home?

Are we investing in durable resilient infrastructure that can stand up to the impacts of climate change?
Are communities seeing meaningful benefits beyond construction phases?

Those are stewardship questions, not anti-development questions.

The opportunity in front of Alaska is real. But the real test is whether we use this moment to build a stronger and more diversified future economy — one that can still support thriving communities long after individual fields decline.

That’s the part of the conversation I think deserves just as much attention as the headlines.

Ky