Over the past four years, Alaska’s economic potential has been stifled by the Biden Administration’s full-scale assault on the state’s vast resources. With President Trump back in office, there is a tangible shift in direction. In just his first few weeks, the administration acted decisively— signing an executive order designed to unlock Alaska’s “extraordinary resource potential” and appointing an Alaskan environmental commissioner to a pivotal EPA role. Notably, Japan is already considering backing the $44 billion LNG pipeline from the North Slope to Nikiski, according to industry reports.
During my tenure as U.S. Secretary of Energy in President Trump’s first term, I witnessed firsthand an unwavering commitment to advancing Alaska’s prosperity. Alaska’s success is a linchpin for national energy independence, and if decisive action is taken now, the impact could be transformative.
A top priority must be addressing Alaska’s domestic natural gas shortage. The reality is stark: without prompt intervention, there is a near-certain risk of higher energy prices and perhaps even rolling blackouts. The Dunleavy administration is working on long-term strategies to harness Alaska’s natural gas resources, while recognizing the urgent need for immediate measures. In the near term, importing LNG to cover production shortfalls—particularly from Cook Inlet—is not merely a stopgap; it is a critical, strategic move that fortifies Alaska’s energy future. Data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) supports the view that timely LNG imports can stabilize market fluctuations and ensure reliability.
Beyond these immediate supply concerns lies a broader market challenge. In Southcentral Alaska, Enstar Alaska—a Canadian-owned utility—is leveraging its market power to pursue legal actions that could lock consumers into inflated energy rates while hoarding scarce gas supplies. This is particularly concerning given that, two years ago, Enstar’s gas storage failed during one of the coldest winters on record, as documented by state energy reports.
It is essential to confront these challenges head-on, prioritizing robust, collaborative solutions over parochial self-interests. Supporting projects that provide immediate relief while laying the groundwork for long-term energy security is imperative. Investments in domestic production, strategic LNG imports, and ongoing innovation are not mutually exclusive; together, they form the backbone of a resilient energy strategy.
Additionally, the influence of extreme environmental groups in Alaska poses a tangible threat to progress. Although their clout in Washington, DC is diminishing, these groups are expected to intensify their efforts at the state level. Recent proposals for higher taxes on oil and gas producers serve as a warning—while the legislature wisely rejected those tax hikes, similar future attempts could derail key projects through litigation and lobbying.
President Trump’s second term represents a historic turning point—not just for Alaska, but for the U.S. as a whole. Alaska’s role in reshaping U.S. energy policy is undeniable. Unlocking the state’s full potential will ignite unprecedented innovation and pave the way for a more secure national energy future. The time to act is now.
The Honorable Dan R. Brouillette is a distinguished leader in energy, finance, and government policy, having served as 15th U.S. Secretary of Energy, 19th Deputy Secretary of Energy, President of Sempra Infrastructure, and CEO of Edison Electric Institute. With a career spanning public service and corporate leadership, he has played a pivotal role in shaping global energy strategy, advancing technological innovation, and managing large-scale infrastructure investments.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think the issue is changing federal law, not just regulations. Although with compliant judges, some regulations get treated as if they were law.
As long as investors can anticipate another Democrat regime, there will be a great deal of uncertainty on long term projects.
Good observation.
But that is all democrats have. Their party is wholly consumed with the religion of “Saving the Earth”, whatever that means.
Bottom line, what it means to me is less opportunity and services, all at higher prices.
Remember, people who want to lower your standard of living are not your friends.
Another biased Trump Cheerleader with glorious predictions and no data.
US oil production and oil exports set records under Biden in 2023, and again in 2024. At about $70 per barrel there is no need for drill baby drill, which is a childish political slogan
Alaska’s oil production has decreased since 1976
In 2023, Alaska’s oil production was the lowest it’s been in 47 years. In 1988 Alaska oil production was the highest of any state.
Nearly 100% of Alaska’s oil reaches the rest of the United States by ship, as the oil is transported via pipeline to the port of Valdez in Alaska, where it is then loaded onto tankers to be shipped to refineries in the lower 48 states.
In 2023, the United States imported roughly 3.9 million barrels (19% of total oil consumption) of crude oil from Canada each day. This was the highest amount of crude oil imported from Canada in the last few years.
In 2023, the United States consumed an average of 20.25 million barrels of petroleum per day.
A shame you could not have posted this information without the compulsive need to insult.
I have no clue to the validity of your posted data as you provide no means to independently verify any of it.
In addition, your data addresses non sequitur points irrelevant to the content of the article.
Given Dan Brouillette’s long career in government and industry, I find his insights much more credible than yours.
I provided data about the Alaska oil industry and about the competition from Canada.
I clearly identified the author as an obvious Trump cheerleader who presented biased predictions and ZERO data.
You hide behind a moniker and responded by flapping your gums with an appeal to authority logical fallacy — the author was once a big shot in government — but NO attempt to refute anything I wrote.
Yet you always fall back the authority logical fallacy.
Richard, you left out some data on Alaska’s oil industry.
Santos will add 80k of liquids to the Taps from there soon-to-be-producing Pikka field.
COP will add 150k or so to the pipeline from their Willow field.
Pantheon is developing the Kodiak and Ahpun fields that will add in time 200+k to the pipeline.
Alaska is on tap to double the flow in the TAPS.
The economics of the LNG project are laid out in detail by MacWoods in a report that is available from the State.
Awww – do you need to hug a pink pony?
You keep saying this, but US production has gone up despite Biden. The reason US production is up is due to increases in oil and gas production from private land. Oil production on Federal land was around 30% and is now down to just over 20% of all US oil production. Natural gas is even worse, it again used to be close to 30% from Federal land and is now hovering around 10%. Not sure why you keep peddling this lie…
And start the investigation of the wrongdoing over the Pebble Mine permit application.
The original Pebble permit denial by Army Corps of Engineers was 11/2020 while 45 was still in office. The issue was potential damage to the significant Bristol Bay salmon fishery. Is complicated. Pebble appealed, and lost the appeal in 2024. Not sure there was any wrongdoing.
After auditing the government agencies. One could send the IRS to audit many NGO’s. I’m sure they’ll find lots of payments using taxpayer money having nothing to do with environmental protection. The regulation of 501-C3’s should be tightened, or they should be taxed just like other corporations.
As shown by Trump’s view on Ukraine, this is irrelevant.
Alaska was once occupied by Russia. Therefore it should go back to Russia.
Trump has shown that he is willing to give away everything to Putin. And he doesn’t respect the fighting spirit of defending nations…
Greenland is not required for defending the USA. Trump has shown he will run away. He bottled tariffs on Mexico, let alone a nuclear power.
Your borders are not going to be so extended.
They sold it to us.
Russia sold Alaska to the United States in 1867 to help its economy recover after the Crimean War (which they lost) and to offset the growing power of Great Britain in North America.
We can’t just drill our way out of energy dependence and high energy prices.
Oh wait, we can.
And besides, tweaking the noses of the anti-science, backwards thinking anti-fossil fuel luddites is fun.