They said an in-state line is feasible as soon as 2018, assuming the state is willing to invest a significant chunk of its savings, and assuming they can get some big industrial users to commit to the line.
“It's really good news, needs to be refined, but it's very very positive,” said Dan Fauske, Alaska Gasline Development Corp. President. “We've given I think a great document that's going to help legislators and the governor's office.”
The response back from lawmakers was measured. Some are clearly pleased with the findings, eager to move forward as soon as possible, but others are skeptical of this in-state line.
They feel it undermines the ongoing efforts under the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) to help TransCanada build a separate, much larger gasline to the lower 48.
“The big line that exports gas brings us the cheapest gas and produces revenue. Just an in-state line produces us no revenue, so no money for roads, no money for schools, no money for savings,” said Rep. Les Gara (D-Anchorage).
“I'm here to look at that report and see if it makes sense. If it makes sense then we need to move forward with it. We need to make sure that we take care of Alaskans,” said House Speaker Mike Chenault (R-Nikiski).
Gov. Sean Parnell said the findings need to be questioned, refined, and moved on.
U.S. Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) said the report was a “welcome development,” but that the state should not lose sight of the large AGIA gasline.
And a group called the Alaska Gasline Port Authority, which includes among its members former candidate for governor, Bill Walker; who campaigned on a platform of building an in-state line, said it does not support the report's recommendations because they think the project needs to be bigger.
According to Speaker Chenault, lawmakers could start holding hearings as soon as next week, but other than funding decisions, they'll largely be onlookers. The goal when they set up the in-state gasline process was to keep politics at arm’s length and let planners do their jobs.
