Our bad bill of the week is the Senate Resources committee substitute for SB 280 –  “An Act relating to the taxation of certain natural gas pipeline property; relating to municipal taxation limitations; establishing an alternative volumetric tax on natural gas throughput; relating to the allocation of revenue from the alternative volumetric tax; and providing for an effective date.”

We should all agree on the goal: getting the Alaska LNG project built.

Not because it’s easy. Not because it’s quick. But because it is, quite simply, a game-changer for Alaska’s future—on three fronts that matter to every family and every community in this state:

Jobs. Energy security. Long-term revenue.

Proponents of the committee substitute for SB280 claim to support the project, Yet listening  to committee hearings, hours of testimony, one thing has  become clear: the conversation has drifted. The focus has shifted almost entirely to hypothetical downsides—what might go wrong if we build this project—while losing sight of what is guaranteed if we don’t.

So let’s reset the conversation.

This project unlocks stranded North Slope gas—an asset that has sat dormant for decades—and turns it into thousands of jobs and billions in economic activity.

It delivers reliable, affordable energy to Alaskans, helping stabilize costs and prevent the very real supply challenges looming in Southcentral.

And it generates long-term state revenue—without raising taxes—by finally putting a resource we already own to work.

Beyond that, it positions Alaska as a strategic energy supplier to Asia, strengthens U.S. energy leadership, and lays the groundwork for future industrial development.

Bottom line: this isn’t just a pipeline.

It’s Alaska’s best shot at turning resource potential into real, durable economic security.

And we are not alone in recognizing that.

Just days ago, the U.S. Secretary of Energy, acknowledging the hurdles it must overcome,  called this his top infrastructure priority. Earlier this week, President Trump invoked the Defense Production Act to accelerate investment in natural gas infrastructure, including LNG capacity.

The momentum is real.

But momentum alone doesn’t build projects.

Policy does—or stops them.

And that brings us to the version of the bill in front of the Senate Resources committee – our bad bill of the week.

Because despite all the stated support for Alaska LNG, this version does not move the project forward.

It moves it backward.

The original proposal understood a basic truth: this project only happens if the economics work. That’s not speculation—that’s what the legislatures own  consultants have told them for over a decade.

So the original framework reduced early risk, aligned state revenue with project success, and gave the project a fighting chance to compete for global investment.

This Committee Substitute does the opposite.

It raises costs. It accelerates taxes. It adds constraints. And it injects uncertainty.

In the LNG world, that’s not a policy tweak.

It’s a deal breaker.

Let’s be clear about what changed:

• The ramp up period was eliminated —meaning taxes begin before the project is even generating revenue. That directly undermines the most financially fragile phase of development.
• The committee didn’t just increase the tax —they multiplied it. From six cents per Mcf to potentially fifty-five cents when stacked across the system. That puts Alaska at a clear competitive disadvantage globally.
• They added more than $800 million in upfront construction costs—before a single dollar of revenue is earned.
• They imposed price caps that limit the project’s ability to respond to global markets—on this project alone, even after hearing from the President of Enstar that this is the ONLY project that will lower energy costs.
• They compressed the timeline for construction and operations, increasing financing risk on one of the most complex energy projects in the world.
• They layered on mandates that increase costs and reduce flexibility.
• And they  added additional political and regulatory hurdles—the very uncertainty that drives investors away.

Step back and look at that full picture.

Less flexibility. Higher costs. More risk. Lower potential return.

That is not how you attract capital.

That is how you lose it.

And if we lose the investment, we lose everything that comes with it—jobs, energy stability, long-term revenue.

That’s the part that’s getting lost in this conversation.

If this project doesn’t get built, there are no benefits to debate.

No revenue to allocate.

No energy relief for Alaskans.

No economic boost.

Just another missed opportunity.

That’s why we urge the committee to reconsider these changes and return to a structure that actually makes this project buildable.

If Alaska is serious about getting this project built, then the policy framework needs to reflect that seriousness.

Right now, it doesn’t.

And until it does, the biggest risk isn’t what happens if we build the project.

It’s what happens if we don’t.