Should the Permanent Fund bankroll a gas line?

E-mail Print

One of the most influential legislators in the state House says he's sick and tired of plans, studies, and spending, and wants some action on natural gas for in-state use -- and moreover, he thinks plenty of Alaskans feel the same way and wants those voters to have a say.



House Speaker Mike Chenault introduced a bill last week that would ask voters in the 2010 election for direction through an "advisory vote." Such a vote isn't binding by law, but it would give lawmakers a sense of Alaskans' perspectives.

The bill seems almost too simple. But Chenault, a Republican from Nikiski, said his question really is as straightforward as it sounds. Do voters want lawmakers to take money from the Permanent Fund's earnings -- after dividends, after protecting the main fund from inflation -- and use it to build an in-state natural gas pipeline?

There's a potential hangup, although the bill doesn't give many details. Annual dividends come from the earnings reserve account, but only half the account's total can be used for that payout. And while five months remain in the fiscal year, if dividends were paid today, the fund doesn't hold enough money to cover the full amounts.

Chenault said in such a case, there just wouldn't be money to shoot toward an in-state gas pipeline. Voters should still have a chance to direct their government, he said.

"This piece of legislation simply just gives the Legislature the opportunity to hear the voices of Alaskans when it comes to the energy needs of the state," Chenault said during a committee hearing on Wednesday. "With the energy crisis that will be looming upon us in the forthcoming years, we need to have Alaskans speaking ... If we run out of energy in this state by not trying to push something forward, it's shame on every one of us."

The bill doesn't discriminate among the several in-state pipeline proposals on the table. It also wouldn't give lawmakers any more authority than they already have to spend earnings off the main Permanent Fund investments on whatever they like, including energy. But the approach still enters sensitive territory, involving the fund that Alaskans hold sacred.

Traditionally, the earnings have been used to pay annual dividends to each Alaska resident, but some earnings are routed back into the main fund to protect against inflation. And at times, lawmakers have funneled earnings back into the sacrosanct body in order to add to the fund's base, which in turn can make for bigger dividends in good investment years.

This plan is not a raid on the actual Permanent Fund, Chenault emphasized.

"I think we've been smart over time that we've never cracked that egg," Chenault said. "I think most of us know it's political suicide."

The House Resources Committee moved the bill on after a hearing Wednesday, offering an amendment that drew a party-line vote. The committee's five Republicans voted to specify that the vote will be held in the August primary election; three Democrats wanted to delay the vote until the November general election. Another Democrat who caucuses with Republicans, Dillingham Rep. Bryce Edgmon, was absent.

Rep. Mark Neuman, R-Mat-Su, chaired the committee. He called for the primary election vote, saying Alaska can't afford to wait any longer.

Reps. David Guttenberg and Scott Kawasaki of Fairbanks and Chris Tuck of Anchorage, all Democrats, opposed the bill. Their concern? The bill isn't focused enough to provide voters with the information they need on projects, costs and returns, and it involves earnings on the Permanent Fund.

Chenault comes from Nikiski, where neighbors draw a living not so much out of offices but from hands-on labor on fishing boats, as oil field workers, or as small businessmen providing services to Alaska's oil industry. The lack of affordable, secure natural gas played a role in driving fertilizer manufacturer Agrium out of town, and along with it, jobs. His district is also likely to take a hit if the ConocoPhillips liquefied natural gas export facility shuts down when its export permit expires in March 2011 -- again, attributable in part to declining gas availability.

He likes to put it this way: In-state gas means jobs for Alaskans and a shot at an economic boost. Plus, constituents in his district are ready to roll with a pipeline, like welders who join sections of pipe. Give Alaska welders -- hardworking types who thrive on massive tasks -- a two-joint head start and turn on the gas valve, Chenault said.

Merrick Peirce, an Alaska Gasline Port Authority board member calling in from Fairbanks, said voters have already spoken. For lawmakers to refuse to fund the 2002 approval of an all-Alaska line and now to offer platitudes about seeking voters' direction is "hypocritical," he said.

"The voters of Alaska have already weighed in on what they want to do with a gas line," Peirce testified in opposition to HB 312.

Contact Rena Delbridge at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it


Discuss
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
Member Comments
Posted By: steveconn @ 02.09.2010 7:46 AM
Eighty percent plus of the voters weighed in in 1999 as opponents on the subject of using the Permanent Fund as a legislative piggy bank. Why do law makers need another vote? Short term memory loss is a health problem and these folks have good insurance.
Posted By: JM0099 @ 02.09.2010 11:05 AM
Maybe Alaska should actually go into the oil and gas production and transportation business as so many other owners have around the world; e.g. Nigeria, Iraq, Indonesia, etc. They hire companies with expertise to find, and/or produce the resource at a much lesser cost than gross value minus 12 1/2% royalty and a 25% net profits tax Alaska pays. These companies bid on the job with the low bidder getting the contract. A while back EXXON/Mobile won a bid in Nigeria with Nigeria getting 90% of the value of the produced product. Indonesia typically gets 65 - 85%, and recently several companies have entered into long term contracts with Iraq to produce oil at less than $3 per barrel.

JM
Posted By: TRW @ 02.09.2010 11:17 AM
Lets say global warming results in the Arctic Ocean ice pack significantly melting back, what happens to all of the investments in any incomplete natural gas pipeline? Answer; all that money is lost, total finincial catostrophe. Energy investment in Alaska by the State of Alaska & the Feds should be for non-fossil fuel energy sources, i.e.; hydroelectric (not Susitna just yet, but Chakachamna hydo & geothermal), river hydro, other geothermal and many village wind turbines to fully electrify with the intent of building extensive means of storing excess wind energy for later use during calm wind periods. Alaska should go for long term dispersed renewables and watch the big corporations market our fossil oil & gas while taking a substantial but fair share of the value of those resources investing much of that for local renewables and their long term operation & maintenance.
Posted By: AKgasman @ 02.09.2010 12:22 PM
Chenault’s bill is at best disingenuous, no route, no amount of gas, no cost, no explanation of how he, Chenault, would justify shipping more than 0.5 bcfd of gas which is need to make any gasline viable, if there were the gas available, which there is not, without paying TransCanada triple damages. Chenault, Ramras, Wilson, Neuman, Olson, and Johnson all voted to pay TransCanada triple damages, in 2007, if they were to try to ship more than 0.5 bcfd of gas.

For those that still don’t get it like, Rena; Chenault, Ramras, Wilson, Neuman ,Olson, and Johnson all voted to make the gasline they now propose illegal and subject to paying TransCanada triple damages. They call that thinking ahead

As for Agrium not having gas, well, Agrium quietly sold off Agrium’s gas, and Chenault with Bill Popp and rest of the Kenai delegation never told their Kenai constituents what was happening to their future jobs. Now Rena there is an untold story deserving of your attention.

Chenault real intention is to obtain a constituency for degrading the value of Permanent Fund and opening up the Permanent Fund to the oil companies. Chenault and Ramras know what it is all about; the others just got sucked in.

It would be interesting if Rena would ask Parnell and Samuels whether or not they would vote for Chennault’s bill.

Samuels should also be asked, Parnell has already yes by his stance on Alcan Gasline, to confirm if he would have Exxon, BP , Conoco, TransCanada etc. ship Alaska’s oil to Saudi Arabia? That is Nuts isn't it! But that is what they stand for…

As Boone Pickens put it the US has become the Saudi Arabia of gas with over 2000 tcf and growing, more gas than any other nation in the world, so why do Samuels, the oil companies number one shill, and Parnell and Conoco/Exxon/Bp/ TransCanada want to ship Alaska’s gas to the Saudi Arabia of gas, the South 48 States?

If the oil companies and politicians will so brazenly lie about the feasibility of Alcan Gasline why wouldn’t the oil companies lie about other things like taxes and jobs?

I would like the oil companies to show me one person who has lost he job because of ACES.
Posted By: Craig_Richards @ 02.09.2010 9:24 PM
Why would we tap Permanent Fund earnings to finance a gas pipeline? Accepting TransCanada's recent estimates - and financing the construction of the pipeline from PTU to the GCP which is now humorlessly part of AGIA - a Valdez project is about $30 billion. Even without partners the State could cover the full equity contribution of about 20-25% of the total financing with $6 to $8 billion in cash. The State has that amount on hand without tapping the permanent fund. Chenault's idea is like getting into your 401(k) to buy a house when you can cover the down payment out of your checking account.

As fair disclosure I practice law with gubernatorial candidate William Walker. Nonetheless these comments are strictly my own.

Craig Richards
Posted By: AKgasman @ 02.11.2010 2:49 PM
TRW’s -- blind alley, Chakachamna hydro, has been downgraded with abandonment of the dam reduced Chakachamna to ‘a run of the river project’ with a ten mile tunnel. Chakachamna is on the Castel Mountain Earthquake Fault; less than five mile from an active volcano. Just plain Nuts! The oil companies abandon the Drift River oil terminal because it was twenty miles from an active volcano.
Chakachamna hydro adversely affects the fish in two lakes and two rivers. Although the dam has been omitted they still peddle the power output as if the dam were still in consideration when it is not .
They will use up the available appropriation even though Chakachamna is known, and was known from the beginning to be unfeasible as the original study had shown. Chakachamna was too fraught too many unsolvable problems and further study was abandoned.
Representative Harry Crawford should have known or may have known but foisted Chakachamna on the legislature anyway in hopes receiving campaign contributions.

You have to ask Crawford why he foisted that pure piece of useless pork on Alaskans.

My guess is they will keep Chakachamna under wraps to keep for disclosing before Crawford’s election how really stupid and wasteful the study funding of the Chakachamna study was and continues to be.

Crawford was a recipient of VECO funding because of his back door shilling for the oil companies. You will have to ask Crawford why he took Bill Allen’s money. I think Crawford may have foisted the Chakachamna Blind Alley on Alaskans for the oil companies because the big winners in Crawford’s Chakachamna ruse are Conoco/ Marathon/Chevron / Enstar. For without Susitna they continue to sell, gas we are supposedly short, another ruse; to the gas fired power plants. Follow the money!

The opponents of Susitna peddle Susitna as too large by deceiving the public into thinking the total power output as if it were one dam rather than the power output of two dams, the Devil Canyon Dam, 600 MW, a concrete shell dam and the Watana Dam 1000 MW, a rock and gravel fill dam; . Obviously the dams can and will be constructed one at a time; thus the construction Devil Canyon can be delayed if there were to be an oversupply hydro power. However, there is nothing to indicate that all of the power will not be fully absorbed and subscribed as soon as it becomes available.
Second , the opponents further confuse the public about the Susitna Hydroelectric Project by peddling the installed capacity as the firm power producing capacity as if Susitna were a coal or gas fired power plant when it is not. Hydroelectric is different from coal or gas fired power generation in that hydro power peak capacity is list not it sustainable power. The firm power capacity of Susitna is only 600 or 700 MW with both dams. Thus one can see that the power output of Watana is fully absorbable and just backs out some of the most inefficient gas fired power plants. Which cuts Conoco/ Marathon/ Chevron/ Enstar’s sale of gas to the gas fired power plants and makes more gas available to the Cook Inlet home and business owner.

When the Devil Canyon Dam comes on line there should be enough power to back out rest of the Railbelt gas fired power plants and free up even more gas for the home and business owner.
Susitna is need to backup the intermittent power of windmills and tidal power so that they can be fully developed.
Had the it not been for Harry Crawford’s Chakachamna ruse, the legislature could have ask the Army Corps of Engineers to restudy the finances of the Susitna Hydroelectric for free, instead of the millions spent Chakachamna, and resubmitted the finances of Susitna to FERC for FERC’s reapproval and the Corps could restart Susitna’s design.

While the Susitna Hydroelectric Project is bondable and does not need supplemental funding, Susitna would have been eligible for stimulus funding which would have reduced the cost of power below $0.05 /KW, the projected cost of Susitna power.

Representative Harry Crawford’s Chakachamna ruse has cost the Railbelt and the State of Alaska billion dollars and hundreds of jobs. Jobs, which could be on the Street now. Jobs, which would reassure Fairbanks, MatSu and Anchorage of an expanding economy rather than the current uncertain future.
Billions of dollars and jobs lost to Crawford’s blind alley Chakachamna.

busy