Category: Alaska News

Wednesday night, generally clear skies. Low 48F. Winds SW at 5 to 10 mph. Thursday, except for a few afternoon clouds, mainly sunny. High 63F. Winds W at 5 to 10 mph.

This story was originally reported by Jenae Barnes, Climate Reporter of The 19th. Meet Jenae and read more of their reporting on gender, politics and policy.

Anti-abortion advocates, including Republican lawmakers and state officials, want the EPA to review mifepristone as a water contaminant. Scientists say there’s no evidence it harms the environment or people.

While there is no scientific evidence that abortion medication is contaminating Americans’ water supply, it has nonetheless become a central claim by the anti-abortion movement. Activists, Instagram influencers and Republican Party officials — including state and federal lawmakers — are doubling down on what experts describe as a disinformation campaign that mixes environmental policy and reproductive rights, and risks exploiting legitimate concerns about clean water.

“What if I were to tell you that every time you fill up a glass of water at your kitchen sink from the tap, you were actually *drinking* someone else’s abortion,” influencer Isabel Brown wrote in an Instagram post in May. In the accompanying video, the Gen Z conservative content creator, who has more than 1 million followers on her platform, talks to Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, a national anti-abortion organization, and contends that anti-abortion medication is “poisoning” the water.

The claim isn’t new. For decades, anti-abortion advocates have argued that abortion medications, primarily mifepristone, pollute the environment and put pregnant people’s health at risk. But the argument has now become part of a widespread and often coordinated effort to create federal and state policy that further suppresses abortion access.

On June 5, 14 Republican state attorneys general and 19 GOP lawmakers in Congress urged the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to classify and regulate mifepristone as a water contaminant. In two concurrent letters, officials argued that the abortion medication, part of a safe and effective two-drug regimen to terminate pregnancies, is “a growing threat to the country’s waterways” and violates the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Alaska attorney general among those urging EPA to classify mifepristone as water contaminant

One letter was signed by attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas. The other letter, led by Republican Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey, made similar claims and was signed by 18 other GOP lawmakers.

Environmental health experts have consistently said there is no scientific evidence that abortion medication causes harm to the environment — or to humans. Both reproductive rights advocates and environmental scientists have said that the argument co-opts environmental policy as a pathway to weaponize and stigmatize health care.

“This is really part of a broader effort to restrict access to medication abortion,” said Anna Bernstein, principal federal policy adviser at the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports reproductive rights. She said anti-abortion activists are increasingly turning to “every lever they can” as medication abortion has become the largest share of abortion care nationwide. Medication abortion accounted for 63 percent of all abortions in the United States in 2023, according to Guttmacher Institute data.

Does oral abortion medication really end up in drinking water?

Anti-abortion advocates contend that over 50 tons of medical waste “including blood, placental tissue, and human remains” are flushed into water systems each year as a result of these drugs. They argue high concentration of the elements of mifepristone in water, specifically a hormone called progesterone, disrupts and reduces fertility in women. They also say that previous results of federal testing of mifepristone’s environmental impact are outdated.

Environmental health experts dismiss these claims. These experts consistently point out that there is no scientific basis for treating mifepristone or other abortion medication as a water contaminant. Nathan Donley, the environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, pointed out that mifepristone is used by a small fraction of the population and is typically taken as a one-time dose. By comparison, many pharmaceuticals taken daily by tens of millions of Americans enter wastewater systems in far greater quantities. He also noted that mifepristone was not included among nearly 700 pharmaceutical compounds the EPA previously screened for potential water contamination concerns.

Instead, Donley described the effort as an attempt to use environmental concerns as a pretext for limiting reproductive rights. He noted that while proponents are seeking to add mifepristone to the EPA’s 6th Contaminant Candidate List (CCL6), a preliminary list of substances that could potentially be considered for future drinking water regulation, placement on the list would not itself regulate the drug but could begin a lengthy review process.

Donley added that focusing on mifepristone distracts from well-documented water quality threats, including PFAS — known as forever chemicals — pesticides, lead and nitrate contamination.

“There are legitimate water quality threats that we need to attack and rectify in a regulatory manner. And then there are things that are out in the left field that just distract people,” Donley said. 

Where did this argument come from and why is it gaining traction again now?

In 1996, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tested for the environmental effects of mifepristone and found “no significant impact.” In the June letter, lawmakers cite the FDA study, and urge “reconsideration” of potential harm to the environment.

Since the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion, opponents have increasingly focused on limiting access to abortion medication and prescribing it through telehealth, which has become a critical pathway for people living in states with abortion bans.

But anti-abortion groups have ramped up efforts during the second Trump administration to advocate for the official classification of mifepristone as a water contaminant.

Last November, Students for Life of America (SFLA), a national anti-abortion group, met with the EPA to advocate for adding mifepristone to the CCL6 as the agency carried out a routine update to a separate list of health benchmarks for pharmaceuticals that must be tracked in drinking water.

The coordinated letters in June were timed toward the EPA’s 60-day comment period, which began in April and allowed members of the public to submit their thoughts on draft proposals to be reviewed by the agency.

“SFLA asks that mifepristone be tracked, given the reasonable cause for concern that regular and ongoing exposure to a progesterone blocker is impacting public health, endangered species, and the environment,” the anti-abortion group said in a statement on their website, adding that the group plans to take on the issue in every state. “You don’t have to be pro-life to want clean drinking water. You don’t have to be pro-life to be concerned that we are being ‘microdosed’ by progesterone blockers, which are a factor in rising infertility.”

The SFLA said it collected over 1,700 public comments to send to the EPA, and helped spearhead the 14-state campaign of letters from attorneys general to the EPA ahead of its public comment period for the CCL6.

The draft for the CCL6 received nearly 22,000 public comments before closing on June 5, public records show.

How are lawmakers trying to change environmental abortion policies?

In 2025, anti-abortion policymakers introduced nine bills in seven states tying medication abortion to water pollution, according to the Guttmacher Institute. That same year, 25 members of Congress sent a similar letter asking the EPA to monitor for environmental harms of mifepristone. This March, U.S. Rep Mary Miller, a Republican from Illinois, introduced a Clean Water for All Life Act, citing similar claims of environmental degradation from abortion medication.

According to Bernstein and Guttmacher state policy adviser Kimya Forouzan, some proposals would require state agencies to test wastewater for abortion medications. Others would require patients to use so-called “catch kits” and medical waste bags to collect and return pregnancy tissue after taking abortion medication. Some bills would create liability for drug manufacturers if abortion medications were detected in wastewater.

While the bills vary, abortion rights advocates say they share a common goal: creating additional barriers to medication abortion access.

“The CCL is one part of a broad regulatory process. This draft list is then used to inform another list, which determines which contaminants are monitored and regulated, but the surveillance really does happen at a municipality and then state level,” Bernstein said, adding: “So this would be setting federal benchmarks for localities to monitor in their wastewater.”

To date, neither President Donald Trump nor EPA chief Lee Zeldin have explicitly spoken to any health risks of mifepristone in water. But the president and leading administration officials’ decision to stay silent on the issue may increase pressure from anti-abortion advocates, according to Bernstein.

“We anticipate that disinformation campaigns surrounding mifepristone, including these false claims on the environmental impact, will continue to escalate — particularly as abortion opponents are frustrated at a perceived lack of action by the Trump administration,” Bernstein told The 19th. “We know, however, that restricting access to abortion is politically unfavorable, and candidates may be hesitant to focus on these efforts before the midterm elections.

What are the stakes for pregnant people?

As abortion rights and access have shrunk, Forouzan said that medication abortion has become a “lifeline” for many people seeking care after Dobbs, particularly through telehealth providers operating under shield laws, which are state-by-state legal protections to safeguard practitioners from being sued by states with abortion bans. As a result, anti-abortion officials at the state and federal level have increasingly focused on restricting the remaining ways people can access abortion care.

Forouzan said the push to monitor abortion medication in wastewater contributes to a broader “culture of surveillance” surrounding abortion. She said proposals to test wastewater for mifepristone raise concerns about how such monitoring data could eventually be used and whether it could increase scrutiny of people who obtain medication abortions.

Do these claims have the potential to impact federal policy?

The potential of environmental harms continues to shape policy for abortion and anti-abortion advocates. On the anniversary of Dobbs, Rep. Brittany Pettersen, a Democrat from Colorado, submitted a resolution to address the disinformation campaign, saying that water systems should “not be weaponized for the purposes of surveilling, tracking, or detecting use of, stigmatizing, and further restricting access to medication abortion care.”

Advocates also point to what they see as a contradiction in the campaign. Many of the same advocates and elected officials who support mifepristone monitoring have opposed other environmental hazard regulations. For example, in Indiana, where the state’s attorney general co-signed the letter, state lawmakers recently passed legislation to deregulate the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, an agency in charge of limiting pollution in the state’s air, water and soil.

The EPA has already taken action to recommend states begin testing drinking water for abortion medications. In April, the agency released a list of 374 drugs that states should monitor. While it does not include mifepristone, it does include other medications used in abortions such as misoprostol and methotrexate, commonly used in daily birth control and the NuvaRing contraceptive. It’s the first time the agency has designated pharmaceuticals as a contaminant group, according to an April press release.

The EPA did not respond to The 19th’s request for comment.

The EPA’s comment period allowed 60 days for the public to weigh in on the list before agency staff began reviewing the feedback and finalizing. Now that the June comment period has closed, whether the agency will ultimately add the medication to the list remains uncertain. However, when federal regulators previously reviewed environmental concerns related to mifepristone, they found no evidence warranting restrictions, according to Bernstein.

Bernstein and Forouzan said that anti-abortion states and lawmakers often learn from each other in order to pass bills in their respective states. Forouzan added these efforts work “parallel” to federal bill proposals, both with the same goal: to restrict further access.

“Its really just to restrict access to mifepristone and specifically to roll back requirements to force in-person dispensation, which would really limit access to a lot of folks.”

Four years after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, reproductive advocates say the evolution of anti-abortion campaigns continue to “severely restrict” access to care across the country. Thirteen states currently enforce total bans, and 6 explicitly prohibit telehealth use to provide abortion pills, according to Guttmacher Institute.

“It’s contributing to this culture of surveillance around medication abortion at a time when that is already increasing, and folks, especially in banned states, are facing increasing fear of criminalization,” Bernstein said. “There are concerns whether it will be eventually used for the criminalization of patients, in addition to creating a broader restriction of mifepristone and perpetuating these myths.”

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX.

Content warning: This story contains references to sexual violence and abuse of children.

A new statewide initiative aims to prevent and reduce Alaska’s pervasively high rates of child sexual abuse.

The statewide prevention plan is led by the Alaska Children’s Trust, a non-profit advocacy group focused on supporting children and families and preventing child abuse and neglect. 

Trevor Storrs, the president and CEO of the Alaska Children’s Trust, said a coordinated effort among state and community groups, service providers, schools, caregivers and youth is needed to make serious strides in intervening and preventing abuse. 

“We should not expect children to fight off these predators. We want them equipped with the tools, but it’s our job, not just as adults, but as a community and society, to make sure kids are safe,” he said. 

The plan was developed last year with a variety of statewide groups, including representatives from Child Advocacy Centers, the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, the Office of Children’s Services, which runs the state’s foster care system, law enforcement, Tribes, health care providers, lived experience experts, faith communities, and the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. 

Storrs said the plan focuses on education and raising awareness, as well as preventing harm by developing and strengthening institutions so that questionable behavior is identified and stopped. 

“If we don’t keep strong boundaries established, that’s when we start opening the door and predators see their opportunity,” he said. “If we keep those strong and not have those potential openings, it actually prevents the predators from ever accessing, or anybody who’s had even a slight inclination —  they’re not being tempted to even try — and that is what our job is.”

The group launched the plan earlier this month and is providing an initial $100,000 in grant funding for prevention work in the three priority areas outlined by the initiative. Nonprofit organizations, tribes, local or state governments, schools and regional attendance areas are invited to apply by July 17. 

Alaska has some of the highest rates of sexual violence and rates of child abuse, neglect, and child sexual abuse, in the nation. Many victims delay or never report abuse. A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Child Maltreatment report published this year noted reports of child abuse and neglect have declined somewhat since 2020, but Alaska rates in 2024 were 80% above the nationwide average.

Nationwide, American Indian and Alaska Native children have the highest rates of victimization, and in Alaska national data from the maltreatment report shows rates of abuse among American Indian or Alaska Native children are nearly three times higher than the overall statewide average.

The Alaska Children’s Trust cites a national survey by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 2013 to 2015 that showed on average one in five Alaska children experience sexual abuse. A 2023 report from the Alaska Children’s Justice Act Task Force showed that an estimated one in seven children will experience an allegation of sexual abuse before their 12th birthday.

“The majority of child abuse and neglect cases that are substantiated are neglect, then it’s physical, and then it’s a small fraction of child sexual abuse,” Storrs said. But sexual abuse can have severe impacts on a child’s development, according to the CDC, with short and long term effects, including chronic health conditions, mental health issues and even post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. 

Child sexual abuse is defined as any sexual activity between a child and adult or a child and another child that the child does not fully understand, does not consent to or is not developmentally prepared for and therefore cannot consent to. In Alaska, lawmakers this year changed the law to raise the age of consent to 18 years old.  

An estimated 90% of child sexual abuse is perpetrated by someone known to the child or the child’s family, according to the CDC. 

Perpetrators can exploit what Storrs calls “natural trust” to get close to a child, including people in positions like a coach, teacher, religious leader or friend of the family, in a pattern of behavior called grooming.

“Grooming is developing that relationship, developing a trust with the family that the child can be left alone with them,” Storrs said. “The trust with the child where their interactions may feel awkward, but are okay. The trust that it’s okay to keep secrets. They really build that trust and build that relationship that then allows them to abuse the child, to do what they do. And you see that in story after story when you talk to a survivor of child sexual abuse, they talk about the relationship.” 

Storrs says addressing the stigma to intervene when behavior is inappropriate, also means implementing proper protocols for adults interacting with kids. He said for example, coaches should not text youth individually, but include parents in all communications. 

That extends to online safety, he said. Nationally, there are increasing rates of predatory behavior and “sextortion,” a form of blackmail where perpetrators threaten to disclose information or images unless the victims make specific demands. Storrs said caregivers should talk with children and youth about what is and isn’t appropriate, in person and online.  

“It’s also making sure that your child understands what the expectations and rules are, as well, of what it’s like to interact with an adult, and what are those boundaries,” he said. 

Storrs said in raising awareness of potentially predatory behavior, it’s also important to trust children when they disclose inappropriate behavior. 

“A lot of kids don’t disclose that X is happening, what they start disclosing is, ‘I don’t feel comfortable, I don’t want to go. I don’t like hanging out with this person anymore.’ They don’t feel connected,” he said. “That’s a sign.”

The statewide prevention plan likens preventing child sexual abuse to wildfire prevention. That means reducing risks, setting safety codes, educating communities and monitoring high risk situations — to prevent harm. 

Three approaches to prevention

The statewide prevention plan has a three-pronged approach: educate and mobilize, cultivate safer environments and act early to prevent harm.

Storrs says all three involve children, families, and community-wide efforts, and the plan calls for local advocacy groups, service providers, schools and governments to gather community input and develop their own child sexual abuse prevention programs and resources best fit around cultural values. The initiative calls for local communities to develop and strengthen systems for children to safely report harm without fear of punishment and family disruption. 

The first prong focuses on education: increasing awareness and reducing stigma, and increasing the number of people able to take action proactively. That means training for youth-focused employees like teachers and coaches, and building in protocols for reporting and addressing inappropriate behavior. It also involves providing educational resources for parents and caregivers on healthy boundaries, warning signs, and how to respond to concerns. 

The plan calls for education and resources for children and youth on what’s appropriate. Storrs says the plan suggests children receive human development education, not necessarily sex education, so that children develop an understanding of consent, their body anatomy and healthy relationships. 

“When you talk to a child about something, it does not give a child permission to engage in something or to act inappropriately,” he said, adding that teaching kids about sex does not give them permission to have it in the same way that teaching kids about car accidents doesn’t give them permission to drive recklessly. 

Education is aimed at empowering children to identify when physical boundaries have been violated, Storrs said. “So when a kid needs to talk about any of their private areas or someone is trying to talk about it or touch it, they’re able to know what’s appropriate and what’s not appropriate,” he said. 

Similarly, reducing shame and stigma can empower children to talk with an adult or caregiver when they’ve experienced or seen adults behaving inappropriately. Children should know that adults should never ask them to keep secrets, Storrs said, and when inappropriate behavior has occurred they can get help to stop it from continuing. 

The second prong, “cultivating safer environments,” calls for state and local governments, Tribes and service organizations to support programs and policies that help families meet essential basic needs to address conditions that put children at risk for sexual abuse.

Storrs noted that children and families with unstable housing, inadequate child care or health care can create circumstances that put children at higher risk. 

“Our safety net plays a critical part in keeping kids safe, not just of child sexual abuse, but child abuse in general,” he said. “We know when families have stable housing, food security, all those things, it puts less stress on the family.”

The plan calls for increasing safety of physical and digital spaces where youth spend time, and local community organizations to hold listening sessions in communities to identify risk factors and best prevention strategies.

The third prong aims to prevent harm by increasing access to resources to respond to harmful sexual attitudes or behaviors. That includes addressing people who have harmed or are at risk of harming children.

“I truly believe there’s more gray in our world ever than there is black and white,” Storrs said. “And there are definitely individuals who are 100% predators, and it’s very clear. Then you have individuals that may have some thoughts, but don’t act on it, or it’s controlled internally by themselves and by within the society they are.”

The approach includes responding to harmful and problematic sexual behavior among youth. Storrs said with youth having access to graphic sexual material online, problematic behaviors and attitudes may arise. The plan aims to expand treatment and support services for youth to address harmful behaviors.  

“We’re seeing that kids are sexually maturing faster or becoming more hypersexual at a much younger age without the knowledge, skills, supports and resources to then deal with it or understand it,” Storrs said. “And if kids do not have an adult to talk to, or have learned this information, it starts creating hyper sexual experiences, which then can lead to this harmful sexual behavior.”

Alaska has unique challenges with rural and remote communities having less access to services, Storrs said, as well as grappling with legacies of trauma and adversity. He said the initiative aims to push a statewide focus and investment in policies and programs that support children and families that can help prevent harm. The plan is a collaborative effort, he said, and in the first year advocates with the Alaska Children’s Trust will visit communities to discuss the plan, help raise awareness, identify gaps and strengthen protocols and safer environments to prevent abuse.

“What we want to create that’s very clear in our community, in our state, that we as a community are watching and will not stand for any type of inappropriate behavior with our kids,” Storrs said. “And we will say something, we will step in, and you won’t be allowed.”

SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

A couple years ago, shortly after Governor Dunleavy began his second term, I was killing time in the Juneau airport waiting for a flight when one of his staff called and said, “You might want to sit down before I tell you this.” The Governor had just thrown out a bold challenge: find a path to 10-cent per kilowatt electricity on the Railbelt. My knee-jerk response was, “That’s impossible.” 

But my second thought was different: that’s a moonshot.

A goal like that forces you to throw out the playbook. We are not going to achieve 10-cent electricity by continuing down the path we are already on. It requires thinking beyond conventional assumptions and asking where the biggest opportunities lie given the direction federal policy, technology and energy markets are heading.

I still find myself returning to that question. And after nearly three decades working on Alaska energy issues, I have become increasingly convinced that natural gas is not a path to low-cost electricity – whether that means imported LNG or a North Slope gasline. 

Should we be cheering for the Alaska LNG project? Absolutely. As an LNG export project, it has the potential to create jobs, generate state revenue and monetize a resource that has sat largely stranded for decades. But as a low-cost source for domestic power? Not so much. 

The reason is simple. When fuel is a significant component of the cost of generating electricity, that cost doesn’t disappear once the plant is built – it continues for as long as the plant operates. Over time, fuel prices tend to rise, even if only with inflation, and history has shown they can also spike unexpectedly in response to global events. 

Hydroelectric dams and nuclear plants follow a fundamentally different economic model. They require much larger up-front investments, but once built, fuel costs are low, predictable and far less exposed to global commodity markets. As those capital investments are paid off, the cost of producing electricity tends to trend downward. That is why historically, many of the places with the world’s lowest-cost electricity have achieved it through long-lived investments in hydroelectricity or nuclear power.

That does not mean electricity from these sorts of projects will be inexpensive on day one. Bradley Lake is a good example. When the hydroelectric project came online in the 1980s, it was one of the Railbelt’s most expensive sources of electricity because its construction costs had to be recovered. Today, with those capital costs largely paid off, it is one of the cheapest. 

I recently wrote about the Susitna Hydroelectric Project because I think it’s worth taking another look. The state has already invested heavily in the studies required to develop it, and with today’s generous federal incentives – which could offset as much as 50 percent of capital costs if construction begins before 2033 – the project’s economics could look a lot more attractive. 

But hydropower isn’t the only infrastructure-based technology Alaska could be looking at. Advanced nuclear qualifies for many of the same incentive programs and offers a few additional advantages. It can also co-generate heat – a major advantage in Alaska’s climate. And unlike hydropower, billions of dollars are currently flowing into the sector from both the federal government and private industry. That investment is accelerating innovation, driving down costs, and creating intense competition – not only among reactor developers, but also among prospective customers hoping to secure future reactor deployments and the energy they will produce. 

The race to criticality

Last year, President Trump launched an energy moonshot of his own. Through four executive orders issued in rapid succession, he sought to jump-start a new era of nuclear energy in the United States. The orders established several ambitious targets, including rebuilding the nuclear supply chain and workforce, having ten large reactors under construction by 2030 and quadrupling U.S. nuclear generating capacity by 2050. But the most immediate goal was to have at least three advanced reactors achieve criticality by July 4, 2026. 

Achieving criticality might sound alarming. However, in the world of nuclear energy, criticality is a good thing. It means a reactor is operating as intended, with each fission event, on average, causing one more fission event. When this happens, the chain reaction becomes self-sustaining and the reactor is officially “alive” and capable of producing power. 

This goal was specifically focused on advanced reactors – a new generation of nuclear technologies designed to be smaller, safer, more standardized and easier to build than today’s conventional plants. Dozens of companies are pursuing these designs and billions of dollars have already been invested. Yet despite all of that activity, no advanced reactor has entered commercial operation in the United States. 

That is what makes the President’s deadline so interesting. It cuts through the hype and provides a simple litmus test of industry readiness. Either three advanced reactors will achieve criticality by this week – or they won’t.

Field trip to INL’s National Reactor Innovation Center

I recently invited a group of utility executives and senior engineers from Alaska’s electric power industry to Idaho Falls. The trip was an opportunity to learn about the technology firsthand from leading experts. But I also wanted them to experience something more intangible: the sense of momentum building around advanced nuclear energy. The feeling that it may finally be approaching an inflection point – a transition from a technology of the future to one they can begin actively planning around.

If advanced reactors are going to meet the President’s deadline, Idaho National Laboratory is where that effort will ultimately be put to the test. Many of the technologies that defined the first nuclear age were invented, tested or demonstrated in the Idaho desert. But that was another era. More than half a century has passed since a new reactor achieved criticality there. 

Yet even as construction of new nuclear power plants largely stalled in the United States after the early 1990s, INL maintained the expertise, facilities, and institutional knowledge that made it the nation’s premier nuclear research laboratory. After all, nuclear energy never disappeared. Existing reactors still generate roughly 20 percent of America’s electricity and the nuclear Navy remains a cornerstone of our national defense. 

But there is a noticeably different energy around the lab these days. Activity has ramped up dramatically and employees proudly wear shirts emblazoned with the number “53” – a reminder that the next reactor to achieve criticality at Idaho National Laboratory will be the 53rd in its history. 

Over the course of two long days, we visited some of the laboratory’s most important facilities. One place we were not allowed to enter, however, was DOME – a repurposed containment structure that has been transformed into the nation’s premier test facility for advanced nuclear microreactors. 

I had visited the facility before, but access has become much more restricted since Radiant Nuclear moved its Kaleidos reactor there earlier this year. Designed to produce just one megawatt (MW) of electricity, Kaleidos is tiny compared to any existing commercial reactor in the U.S. – literally three orders of magnitude smaller in terms of power output. Its compact design allows it to be transported in shipping containers and deployed in locations that would be impractical for conventional nuclear plants. While still several years away from commercial production, a reactor of this scale could eventually provide an alternative to diesel generation for remote power needs, including in Alaska.

But we also learned about larger reactor designs known as small modular reactors, or SMRs. Unlike microreactors, which are intended to serve relatively small loads, SMRs are designed for more mainstream electricity generation. Rather than building a custom-designed reactor on site, most SMR concepts rely on standardized reactor modules that can be manufactured in factories and then transported to their final destination. Utilities can install a single module or add additional modules over time as electricity demand grows. 

Many SMRs incorporate passive safety systems that rely on the laws of physics – rather than pumps or operator actions – to safely shut down and cool the reactor if something goes wrong. Because of these features and because many do not require water for cooling, these reactors have a much smaller footprint than conventional nuclear plants. This means there is a lot more flexibility in where they can be sited, including right next to the loads they are intended to serve. 

And those loads are not just electrical. The ability of nuclear energy to provide high-temperature process heat is one reason there is so much interest in these systems. Industrial facilities such as chemical plants, refineries, steel mills and ammonia producers require large amounts of high-temperature heat, and those loads have proven particularly difficult to decarbonize. 

We also took a slight detour through the desert to drive by the site where Oklo is beginning construction on its 75 MW Aurora reactor commercial demonstration plant. For now, it is little more than a large hole in the ground. But eventually, the reactor will be installed entirely underground, while the powerhouse will sit above it in an elegant A-frame building designed to look something like a ski chalet. They definitely have the marketing down. 

Oklo already has customers lined up if this pilot proves successful. The company is pursuing a business model that many other developers are also adopting. Rather than selling reactors, they envision retaining ownership and selling electricity and heat under long-term contracts. In other words, the power purchaser would not be buying a nuclear reactor – it would be buying energy at a pre-agreed price, significantly reducing the risk for the customer whether it is a utility, military installation or industrial end-user. 

Oklo was a familiar name to many of the tour participants, particularly those from Golden Valley Electric Association. It’s the same company that was selected by the U.S. Air Force to supply the 5 MW microreactor planned for Eielson Air Force Base near Fairbanks. What struck me, however, was how much of the company’s attention now appears focused on its larger 75 MW Aurora reactor. Company representatives assured us that the Eielson project remains important, but the Aurora seems to be emerging as Oklo’s standard commercial offering, with future deployments intended to be built in multiples of that basic unit size.

That got me wondering: could there eventually be an opportunity to do both? Build the 5 MW microreactor at Eielson to serve the Air Force mission and then, if the technology proves successful, follow it with a larger 75 MW reactor at the same location supplying power to the GVEA’s grid? A project of that scale would go a long way toward reducing the Interior’s unhealthy reliance on liquid fuels to meet peak demand. It is at least a conversation worth having. 

Nuclear at the tipping point

On June 4th, exactly one month ahead of President Trump’s target date, Antares Nuclear’s Mark-0 microreactor achieved criticality at INL. During our visit to the lab, we had walked right past the very nondescript building that houses the reactor. Then, less than two weeks later, Valar Atomics’ Ward 250 followed. I would not be surprised if one or two other vendors make the deadline as well – we will know the final tally within a few days.

In the grand scheme of things, these criticality demonstrations are partly symbolic. None of these reactors will immediately begin producing commercial electricity; achieving criticality is simply one step on the road to full commercialization. But they may also represent a tipping point – the moment when the slope is no longer uphill. After decades of slow progress, advanced nuclear may finally have accumulated enough technical, financial and political momentum that deployment begins to accelerate much faster than many of us expect. 

I am writing this article while visiting Richland, Washington – home of the Hanford site and, along with INL, one of the deepest concentrations of nuclear expertise in the country. For years, many assumed this region would host X-energy’s first commercial reactors. The local utility Energy Northwest had partnered with the nuclear vendor to develop four Xe-100 reactors totaling 320 MW, with plans to eventually expand to as many as twelve units. Amazon had also signed on to support the project and purchase power, making Richland seem like the obvious frontrunner. 

Instead, X-Energy’s  first commercial units will be installed at Dow Chemical’s Seadrift facility in Texas. Unlike a data center, Dow could make use of both the electricity and the high-temperature process heat produced by the reactors, improving the overall economics of the project. The Richland project is still moving forward, but it got bumped to second place. 

There is a lesson here for Alaska. States do not lead by waiting for certainty. They lead by skating to where the puck is going – making strategic investments, building partnerships and positioning themselves for the opportunities of tomorrow. By the time a technology is fully proven, the first wave of deployments may already be spoken for. If Alaska waits until advanced nuclear is a sure thing, we may find ourselves at the back of a very long line.

Getting ahead of that curve does not require Alaska to commit to building a reactor. It just requires preparing for the possibility. That effort could take many forms. It might begin with issuing a Request for Information (RFI) to better understand which reactor designs are the best fit for Alaska’s unique needs. It could include evaluating potential Railbelt sites and pursuing a Nuclear Regulatory Commission Early Site Permit to preserve future siting options. Or it might involve exploring with the Air Force whether the Eielson microreactor pilot project could create opportunities for future expansion or shared infrastructure. It should also include bringing together the state, utilities, local governments and other stakeholders to consider when and where nuclear could make sense in light of all our energy options. 

None of these actions commits anyone to building a reactor. They simply preserve options, shorten future lead times and position the state to move quickly if – or when – the technology proves itself. Many states are already taking exactly these kinds of preparatory steps. 

When Governor Dunleavy challenged us to pursue the moonshot goal of 10-cent electricity on the Railbelt, former Senator Click Bishop responded by covering a whiteboard in his Juneau office with proposed energy projects. Whenever someone came in with a new idea, he added it to the board. Over time, it grew to include virtually every major energy-related opportunity in Alaska, all placed on a more or less level playing field. The goal was not to pick winners and losers. It was to keep as many viable options moving forward and let economics, technology readiness and execution determine which ones ultimately succeed. The vision was an Alaska with abundant, affordable energy capable of supporting new industries, attracting investment and creating opportunities that simply do not exist in a high-cost energy economy.

That is exactly how we should still be thinking today.

Alaska needs leadership and a coordinated effort to keep multiple opportunities moving forward. We cannot afford to pin all of our hopes on a single outcome. If we are serious about building an affordable energy future, we need to think beyond conventional assumptions and invest in the opportunities most likely to shape tomorrow’s energy landscape.

Whether advanced nuclear ultimately becomes part of Alaska’s energy future remains to be seen. But I would hate to see that decision made for us because we failed to prepare while the opportunity was still within reach. Preparing today does not commit Alaska to nuclear energy. It simply preserves our ability to choose tomorrow. 

SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX.

Last winter’s first big storm came in December. Then came another. And another. By New Year’s Day, four feet of fresh snow blanketed the city of Juneau.

For many locals, it was a crisis: Roofs collapsed; boats sank in the harbor.

For Juneau’s fervent alpine skiers and snowboarders, it could have been a godsend.

Except they had nowhere to ski.

During one of Juneau’s snowiest months on record, the city’s only ski area, a beloved, municipally-run mountain called Eaglecrest, was barely operating.

It’s one of Alaska’s biggest ski areas and a reminder that Juneau, a city defined largely by cruise tourism and the state Capitol, is a mountain town, too.

But just after the season started last December, mechanical issues forced a closure of Eaglecrest’s main chairlift. And a water line broke, leaving its two lodges without running water. Aside from a few beginner slopes, the mountain was closed.

“Pretty much anything that could have gone wrong went wrong,” the chair of the ski area’s public board, Hannah Shively, said at a meeting in early January.

The infrastructure failures came after years of deferred maintenance, staff turnover and accusations of mismanagement and underinvestment. And, though the ski area was fully opened by mid-January, its early-season woes may have been an omen: The next time it snows 80 inches in a month in Juneau, Eaglecrest might not exist at all.

The mountain has operated in the red each of the past four years, with losses totaling some $3 million. Now, it’s at the center of a fierce debate over local government spending, with implications not only for the future of skiing in Juneau, but for the town’s identity.

Some residents say the ski area provides a crucial outlet for outdoor recreation during Juneau’s notoriously gloomy winters, and deserves public funding. Others say the government has effectively run the place into the ground and that the mountain should be privatized.

The Juneau Assembly, which oversees Eaglecrest’s budget, voted this spring to keep the ski area open next season. But it’s allocating $1 million less than what Eaglecrest’s management requested, forcing layoffs and sustaining operations at an “absolute minimum.”

That decision came right after a long-term plan to turn around the mountain’s finances fell through.

Four years ago, the city bought a used gondola, aiming to install it at Eaglecrest to boost summer tourism and generate enough new revenue to make the mountain profitable.

But after construction delays and a staggering cost increase, officials abandoned the project in May, setting the municipality back millions of dollars. They have yet to present an alternative path forward for the mountain, and there’s no certainty that Eaglecrest will stay open beyond next year.

It’s at the most precarious point in its 50-year history.

“We’re definitely at a threshold, or a turning point,” said Jim Calvin, a longtime Juneau skier and member of Eaglecrest’s board. “It’s an existential issue.”

What “separates” Juneau

One reason Alaska skiers love Eaglecrest is that it’s not a typical ski resort. In fact, it’s not a resort at all, but more like a public park.

Nearly all the big ski areas in North America are for-profit businesses. Some — Vail, Whistler, Park City — are owned by the same big, publicly traded corporation. Others, like Steamboat and Mammoth, are owned by private equity and investment firms.

Eaglecrest, meanwhile, is owned by the City and Borough of Juneau, meaning local taxpayers have been contributing about $1 million to operations annually. That’s about 0.6% of the city’s general operating budget.

This helps the mountain keep prices low: An adult season pass last winter cost $802, or $630 if bought before July. At Alyeska, the state’s largest ski area, in Girdwood, prices were nearly double that: $1,599 for a regular season pass, or $1,049 with an early-bird discount.

Public ownership also has helped Eaglecrest stay oriented around recreation and community rather than luxury hotels and real estate development. There is no Four Seasons on the mountain — nor any hotel, for that matter.

“It’s the one nice thing we have that separates us,” said Sandy Hussain, a Juneau resident who frequents the ski area with her husband and son. “Most cities have libraries. They have pools. They don’t have Eaglecrest.”

Eaglecrest is perched at the top of a dead-end road in the mountains of Douglas Island, a 20-minute drive from downtown Juneau. It was established by Juneau’s ski club in the mid-1970s. Over the years, local taxpayers have approved spending on mountain infrastructure projects through sales tax increases and bonds.

Spread across 640 acres, Eaglecrest has three operating chairlifts and two day lodges. From the parking lot, where skiers tailgate on sunny days, you can ride a lift named Ptarmigan through a spruce-and-hemlock forest to an alpine hut with ocean views. There are groomed runs for beginners, and there’s tree skiing for more advanced skiers. Cliff-lined backcountry areas beckon for experts.

While it’s small, with fewer trails and only half the vertical drop of Alyeska, Eaglecrest is known for its powder days (albeit rain days, too), ocean views and diverse terrain, including “tons of pillows and little spine features,” said Ryland Bell, a professional snowboarder based in Haines, a small town up Lynn Canal from Juneau.

Eaglecrest’s terrain and community vibes stand out internationally, said Bell, who has snowboarded all over the world.

“You’re looking down at the ocean, on all sides, and then all the peaks and fjords and canals. It’s an incredible place,” Bell said. “The town absolutely needs it.”

Juneau residents describe the ski area as a favorite winter gathering spot. People bump into friends in the parking lot; parents catch up at the base lodges while kids take ski lessons.

“There was nothing like that in Juneau that we had found yet,” said Hussain, who moved to the town three years ago in part because of Eaglecrest. “It felt like a very welcoming space, even if you’re not the best skier in the world.”

Her family would move away if the mountain were to close, Hussain said. “That would not be a question.”

Eaglecrest’s woes

Ask Juneau residents about the cause of Eaglecrest’s woes, and you’ll get a range of answers, some entirely contradictory.

One local skier said the dysfunction is mostly the fault of the ski area’s former general manager.

Another said the same general manager was one of the greatest things ever to happen to Eaglecrest and said the ski area declined after his firing.

A third skier: “Everyone in town thinks they’re the general manager of Eaglecrest.”

There is, however, broad agreement on a key cause of the ski area’s struggles: economics. There just aren’t enough skiers in Juneau, with a population of about 30,000, to cover all of the mountain’s costs through lift ticket sales and concessions.

And those costs are going up. Officials have substantially boosted employee pay, which was below Alaska’s minimum wage a few years ago. Plus, maintenance needs are growing as Eaglecrest’s infrastructure ages. Management decommissioned one of the main chairlifts, Black Bear, last year; the other, Ptarmigan, is the one that broke down in December.

“It’s an old ski area, and there are a lot of gremlins in there,” said Bruce Griggs, a longtime Juneau skier.

To offset rising costs, Eaglecrest officials hatched a plan four years ago: The city would buy a used gondola from a resort in the Austrian Alps, ship it to Juneau and set it up on the mountain.

Summer cruise tourists — numbering more than 1 million in Juneau each summer — could ride the gondola to the summit to soak in views or launch hikes.

Ticket sales, in turn, would generate new revenue for Eaglecrest. Goldbelt, the Alaska Native-owned corporation for Juneau and a major player in the local tourism industry, would loan the city $10 million in return for a share of the revenue.

The Juneau Assembly, in a 5-4 vote, approved a plan to buy the gondola for $2 million. Projections at the time showed it would generate enough cash to make Eaglecrest profitable. Supporters said the ski area’s future depended on it.

“This is going to be a true game-changer,” Eaglecrest’s general manager, Dave Scanlan, said in 2023.

Then the plan imploded.

Budget debate, identity crisis 

Earlier this year, Jim Calvin, the Eaglecrest board member, made a bombshell announcement at a public meeting: Installing the gondola would cost $27 million, pushing the overall price tag to some $37 million, more than triple early estimates.

“That’s a pretty big gulp factor,” Calvin said at the meeting.

Construction would be more expensive than expected. The gondola needed more parts. And the city would have to pay tariffs on some of those parts, since they’d be coming from Austria.

In response to the cost increase, city officials had to decide whether to scrap the project or find new investors to cover the higher price tag.

At the same time, they were looking for ways to slash spending.

Last fall, Juneau voters passed two ballot initiatives to cut taxes, producing an estimated shortfall of $10 to $12 million — a roughly 8% reduction in the city’s general fund revenue, according to officials.

Among dozens of budget cuts under consideration by the Juneau Assembly this spring was money for public pools, a field house, an ice rink, the city’s library and Eaglecrest.

“We’re trying to make all these big decisions on the city budget, and it makes it really difficult to have the bandwidth to think rationally about the longer term of what we do with Eaglecrest,” Juneau Assembly member Neil Steininger, a former state budget director, said in a May interview.

Without the funds to pay for the gondola project at its new price, officials decided to abandon it. The city now must repay Goldbelt’s original loan, plus interest, costing taxpayers some $9 million.

The project’s failure was “a hit in the public eye” for Eaglecrest and has made it harder for Juneau officials to justify further investment in the ski area, said Christine Woll, a Juneau Assembly member and chair of its finance committee.

A growing contingent of Juneau residents now think the solution is to hand the mountain over to a private investor who, in theory, could spend tens of millions of dollars to upgrade ailing infrastructure and develop summer tourism.

Among those residents is Dave Hanna, a local skier and longtime Eaglecrest supporter. He has lost faith in city ownership because critical maintenance on the mountain has lagged recently, he said — and officials, in his view, botched the gondola project.

“It’s been steadily going downhill the last couple years,” Hanna said.

He thinks boosting summer tourism — by developing a gondola and other attractions — is likely “the only thing that’s going to sustain Eaglecrest.”

Hanna supports privatizing Eaglecrest, but only if it can remain affordable for local residents, he said.

“I think there’s a lot of folks that have always believed the city could afford to maintain the area,” Hanna added. “And, finally, they’re waking up and smelling the coffee.”

Hanna is affiliated with the group, Affordable Juneau Coalition, that pushed the tax cuts last year, and he’s been on the opposite side of the broader fiscal debate from Juneau Assembly members like Woll.

He thinks the Assembly is looking in the wrong places to cut spending. Eaglecrest’s future, in his view, is contingent less on the city’s current budget than on its management of the mountain.

For Woll, though, the budget issue has created a real challenge for Eaglecrest.

In her ideal world, the city would keep funding the ski area along with other services facing cuts, she said.

But given the city’s fiscal realities, it’s “hard to justify” spending on Eaglecrest at the level it needs right now, in contrast with “essential services” like housing, Woll said.

Woll isn’t sure about a long-term solution. “I want the answer very badly,” she said.

While officials try to figure out a path forward, the ski area is raising lift ticket prices to help offset losses. A season pass will be about 10% more expensive next year, but still considerably less than at many other U.S. ski resorts.

Calvin, the Eaglecrest board member, said ski area officials will be looking for investors but will continue to ask city leaders for funding until Eaglecrest can “wean” itself off municipal support.

“It will just take time,” he said.

In the meantime — for another year, at least — Juneau’s skiers will still have a place in winter to zoom downhill and hang out with friends. Assuming, of course, nothing breaks before the next big storm.

The latest news and information from your Alaska news station.

The latest news and information from your Alaska news station.

(The Center Square) – Republican incumbents won their primaries Tuesday for Colorado’s 3rd, 5th and 8th congressional districts.