Solar panels at the Cold Climate Housing Research Center campus in Fairbanks are seen on June 5, 2025. The Cold Climate House Research Center, which became part of the National Renewable Energy Labortory system in 2020, is focused on designing sustainable and energy efficient housing that is resilient to climate change in the far north. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)
The federal government research organization that has been devoted for half a century to renewable energy development has had the word “renewable” stripped from its name.
The Trump administration, which broadly opposes renewable energy projects, changed the name of the Colorado-based National Renewable Energy Laboratory to “National Laboratory of the Rockies.”
The U.S. Department of Energy announced the name change on Monday, effective immediately.
“The energy crisis we face today is unlike the crisis that gave rise to NREL,” Assistant Secretary of Energy Audrey Robertson said in a statement. “We are no longer picking and choosing energy sources. Our highest priority is to invest in the scientific capabilities that will restore American manufacturing, drive down costs, and help this country meet its soaring energy demand. The National Laboratory of the Rockies will play a vital role in those efforts.”
NREL has a prominent presence in Alaska. The agency in 2020 joined into a partnership with the Cold Climate Housing Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The UAF facility is one of four NREL centers; two campuses are in Colorado and there is an office in Washington, D.C.
Jud Virden, the laboratory’s director, said the new name “embraces a broader applied energy mission entrusted to us by the Department of Energy to deliver a more affordable and secure energy future for all,” according to the statement.
However, the name change is a troubling sign to one Alaska organization involved in projects promoting renewable energy and energy affordability.
“Removing ‘Renewable’ and ‘Energy’ from NREL’s name raises concerns. Renewables are key to affordable, secure energy and deliver long-term economic benefits, especially for rural communities,” Bridget Shaughnessy Smith, communications director for the Alaska Public Interest Research Group, a non-profit consumer advocacy group, said by email.
“While it’s not yet clear if this name change signals a broad mission shift, any refocus cannot come at the expense of renewable energy or by prioritizing already well-funded fossil fuel industries. Remote microgrid communities in Alaska are working with NREL to innovate toward affordable, reliable energy, and this name change must not disrupt that critical work,” Shaughnessy Smith continued.
NREL’s history started in 1974, when the organization was established as the Solar Energy Research Institute. In 1991, President George H.W. Bush elevated it to national lab status and changed the name to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
The Cold Climate Housing Research Center was established in 1999 with a mission of improving housing and building conditions in Alaska’s extreme climate. The center has focused on renewable energy, along with energy efficiency, structural integrity for buildings on permafrost, indoor air quality and designs that are sustainable in the far north. The center headquarters is the world’s farthest-north building with a platinum rating, the highest possible, bestowed by the U.S. Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.
The NREL-Cold Climate Housing Research Center partnership has participated in numerous recent energy and environmental innovations, including the development of non-plastic housing insulation made from a fungi-wood pulp blend.
The NREL name change adds to a list of government agencies and geographic sites changed by the Trump administration this year to align with the president’s agenda.
On the day he was inaugurated for his second term, President Trump issued an executive order directing that the Gulf of Mexico be renamed “Gulf of America” and that Denali, North America’s tallest peak, revert to its previous federal name, Mount McKinley.
The Denali name comes from the traditional name for the Alaska peak used by the Koyukon people, the region’s Indigenous residents. The name, which translates to “the high one,” has been the official state of Alaska name since the 1970s. The McKinley name, for former president and Ohioan William McKinley, has been widely panned in Alaska, and state lawmakers passed a resolution asking for the Denali name to be restored for federal government use.
In September, Trump issued an executive order directing that the U.S Department of Defense be renamed “Department of War.” That resurrected a department name that was dropped in 1947.
Sweetheart Lake, Photo courtesy of Juneau Hydropower
NOTN- The City and Borough of Juneau Planning Commission on Tuesday night heard public testimony and reviewed a Conditional Use Permit request from Juneau Hydropower, Inc. for a proposed hydroelectric project at Sweetheart Lake, south of Juneau.
The Juneau Borough Planning Commission has approved that conditional use permit.
Deputy Mayor Greg Smith confirmed Wednesday morning that the commission approved the project with two conditions: establishing a landform barrier to control sound and light emissions, and requiring a flood zone development permit before construction begins.
“The Planning Commission met to decide on a conditional use permit for the Sweetheart Lake hydropower project. The planning commission for the conditional use permit is a review to say, does this project meet adopted city plans? Does it meet land use and zoning code? and it did.” Said Smith, “They and the director make a recommendation, and they recommended approval with conditions.”
The hydropower project, targeting commercial operations by 2028, is not designed to provide direct consumer electricity choice but will serve specific industrial needs. Smith noted the project cannot power cruise ships docked in the area due to service area limitations.
The Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric facility proposal calls for the construction of a 280-foot-wide, 111-foot-high dam and related infrastructure at the lake’s natural outlet. The project would also include extending transmission lines from the Lena Point Substation north to Cascade Point, Echo Cove, and the Kensington Mine in Berners Bay, to deliver hydroelectric power.
The Planning Commission evaluated the proposal for compliance with Juneau’s Land Use Code and took public comments from residents and stakeholders. The public comment period, which began Oct. 7, closed on Oct. 24, with all submitted testimony forwarded to commissioners for review ahead of the hearing.
Juneau Hydropower, Inc. was officially granted public utility status by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska in the summer.
According to Juneau Hydropower, Sweetheart Lake Hydroelectric Facility, is designed to produce 19.8 megawatts of renewable energy and generate an average of 116,000 megawatt-hours annually, a projected 25% increase over Juneau’s current electrical generation.
Juneau Hydropower says, the project is intended to help meet the city’s growing demand for electricity while reducing reliance on diesel-based generation. Hydropower, unlike fossil fuels, does not emit greenhouse gases during operation, and proponents argue that the facility will offer both economic and environmental benefits, including lower long-term energy costs and reduced pollution.
However there have been concerns about securing funds for the project before its construction, and building a reliable customer base.
Managing Director Duff Mitchell called the decision “a positive turning point for Juneau’s energy future,” as the project aims to replace diesel generation and expand sustainable power across the region.
The Kuskokwim River is seen in this image captured by scientists working on NASA’s Arctic Boreal Vulnerability Experiment, or ABoVE, which measured the elevation of rivers and lakes in Alaska and Canada to study how thawing permafrost affects hydrology. (Photo by Peter Griffith/NASA)
On Monday, the Alaska Department of Law asked the Supreme Court to reconsider a ruling from a three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the state’s existing two-tiered subsistence fishing system last month.
State attorneys have argued unsuccessfully since 2021 that federal law, as interpreted by recent rulings from the Supreme Court, means the state, not the federal government, has the power to regulate fishing in navigable waters on federal land.
A federal law, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, requires that rural Alaskans be given preferential treatment when hunting and fishing are regulated in Alaska. Simultaneously, the Alaska Constitution forbids that kind of preference.
For decades, the result has been a two-tiered system under which the federal government regulates hunting and fishing on federal land and water, and the state regulates it everywhere else.
Under the state framework, someone from Anchorage would have the same fishing rights on the Kuskokwim River as someone who lives a mile away. Under the current system, the local resident gets priority in parts of the river within federal land.
In 2021, a regulatory dispute on the Kuskokwim River during a salmon shortage resulted in the federal government filing a lawsuit against the state. The Alaska Federation of Natives, Association of Village Council Presidents and other Native groups from across the state joined the lawsuit on the side of the federal government.
In 2024, a U.S. District Court judge in Alaska ruled in favor of the federal government, but the state appealed that decision. Last month, three judges from the 9th Circuit again ruled in favor of the federal government. Rather than appeal the issue to the full 9th Circuit, the state is going directly to the Supreme Court.
The state’s filing on Monday was formally known as a “cert petition,” which asks the court to take up the case.
The court takes only about 1% of the cases it receives, though the acceptance rate is higher (about 5%) if the large number of cases involving prisoners representing themselves in court are excluded.
In a written statement announcing the filing, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy and Attorney General designee Stephen Cox said the state believes that federal law gives Alaska control of its navigable waters when it comes to fishing.
“Alaska is asking the Supreme Court to hold fast to the text, because fidelity to the law as written is the foundation of the rule of law,” Cox said in his statement.
Doug Vincent-Lang, commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, said he believes the 9th Circuit decision “deepens a fractured system that undermines conservation, creates confusion, and threatens equitable access for all Alaskans. Salmon don’t recognize federal and state boundaries — our management shouldn’t either. We remain committed to sustainable management and will continue fighting for a system that works for every Alaskan. The Court should decide this case and reverse the Ninth Circuit.”
Attorneys representing Alaska Native groups said on Monday that they expected an appeal to the Supreme Court, even if they didn’t know the exact timing.
Nathaniel Amdur-Clark, who has represented the Kuskokwim River Intertribal Fish Commission in the lawsuit to date, said by text message on Monday that his clients “are disappointed, but not surprised, to see the state’s cert petition. It is just a continuation of the state’s push to undermine subsistence protections for Alaska Natives and rural Alaskans.”
The Supreme Court does not have a set timeline for considering the state’s petition, which will be taken up in a closed-door judicial conference after both sides of the argument file written briefs on the issue.
Attorneys general (from left to right) Treg Taylor of Alaska, Marty Jackley of South Dakota, Kris Kobach of Kansas, J.B. McCuskey of West Virginia, and Liz Murrill of Louisiana participate in a panel discussion on Thursday, Aug. 28, 2025, at the Alaska Oil and Gas Association conference in Anchorage. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
During a pair of public panel discussions during the last week of August, attorneys general from five conservative Republican states said they see climate ‘superfund laws’ passed by Democratic states as major threats to the fossil fuel industries of their state.
“I think that the group of people that are on this panel are all united in making sure that all of the expertise in all of our offices are being utilized to make sure that this doesn’t keep going, because it’s very, very dangerous,” said J.B. McCuskey, attorney general of West Virginia, at the annual meeting of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association.
Alongside him were attorneys general Kris Kobach of Kansas, Liz Murrill of Louisiana, Marty Jackley of South Dakota, and then-attorney general of Alaska, Treg Taylor.
The attorneys general said they are also concerned by lawsuits from states and local governments that could result in financial penalties against fossil fuel companies for disasters attributed to climate change.
Vermont made history in 2024 when it enacted a law that allows the state to hold fossil fuel companies financially liable for the negative impacts of climate change on that state. New York followed suit with a similar law later in the year.
Under both laws, fines levied by the states and paid by fossil fuel companies would go into a large fund that would be spent on projects that could mitigate natural disasters or subsidize clean energy projects.
“Now that we have a friendly EPA and a friendly administration, the blue states are deciding that they’re now going to be the EPA,” McCuskey said, speaking at a different panel hosted by the Republican Women of Anchorage.
The attorneys general, plus Ken Paxton of Texas, who was not present at the industry panel, nodded along as McCuskey spoke.
“Their argument is that every single permitted operation that happened in Alaska caused $75 billion worth of damage to the people of New York. It’s completely outrageous. And the problem isn’t just that it’s New York, it’s that Illinois has one. California is going to have one. Vermont’s going to have one. Massachusetts is going to have one. You name a place that has radical environmentalists running their government, and then it becomes an amount of money that’s not withstandable,” McCuskey said.
Taylor, who has since resigned as Alaska’s attorney general and is expected to run for governor, said he believes that in states with budget holes, “it’s pretty convenient just to raise taxes on oil and gas, right? And those states that don’t have oil and gas, that’s their way of dealing with their budget shortfalls, is to take it out of oil and gas through these types of acts.”
Republican attorneys general from five states speak at an event hosted by the Anchorage Republican Women on Thursday, Aug. 28, 2025, in Anchorage. (Photo by James Brooks/Alaska Beacon)
Fossil fuel businesses and trade groups, including the American Petroleum Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, filed suit last year against the Vermont law.
A group of Republican attorneys general, led by McCuskey, sued New York in February. Another McCuskey-led suit, filed in May, targets Vermont.
Those suits say companies should be financially liable for harm caused by climate change.
Speaking at the Alaska oil panel, Kobach said he’s concerned about climate lawsuits filed by cities and counties and believes they’re being encouraged by national environmental law firms and groups.
“The reason I’m so energized about fighting back against that is Ford County, Kansas, which you probably never heard of, where Dodge City is — little tiny county, rural county, very low population — somehow, they were convinced by some very well-heeled attorneys in California to be a plaintiff in one of these lawsuits. And so we’re chasing them around. My office is chasing them around, trying to get them kicked out of court because they don’t speak for the people of Kansas,” he said.
Taylor said he sees the same issue.
“We’re seeing those opportunistic plaintiffs’ attorneys convince municipalities and boroughs and cities to take on litigation that’s really not in their best interest and really puts money into their own pockets,” he said during the panel discussion.
McCuskey, of West Virginia, said his state is considering a law that would restrict the ability of local governments to sue.
Nationally, the fossil fuel industry is lobbying Congress to pass a liability shield law akin to the one passed in 2005 to protect the gun industry against lawsuits attempting to hold gun manufacturers responsible for gun crimes.
In June, McCuskey and other attorneys general wrote a letter to the U.S. Attorney General to offer support for a national liability shield to protect fossil fuel companies.
McCuskey, speaking at the oil panel, got a laugh from the audience when he asked attendees what they thought West Virginians would say if New York tried to collect a fine from the state of West Virginia.
“Our big joke is that the people in New York are literally looking down on us from the skyscrapers that were built with coal from West Virginia,” McCuskey said at the oil and gas association panel. “So they’re not just looking down on us figuratively, but both literally and figuratively, and they just have no contemplation of why their economies were built by the people who do the work that’s happening here.”
May 14, 2018 – Wind turbines in Kodiak, Alaska. (Photo by Dennis Schroeder / NREL)
For years, urban Alaska utilities have been studying large-scale wind farms that could help break the state’s dependence on natural gas power — encouraged by the potential for hundreds of millions of dollars in tax credits from the federal government.
Next summer, however, those tax credits will largely disappear for projects that haven’t started construction, a consequence of the tax bill that President Donald Trump signed in July.
Clean energy advocates, and U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, had said they hoped that Alaska wind projects could still advance in time to qualify.
But in recent weeks, board members and executives at the cooperatively owned utilities have acknowledged that the timeline now appears too short — which means any large-scale projects will now have to be built without the generous federal subsidies, or wait to see if Congress reestablishes a more favorable tax regime.
Critics say the absence of major new renewable projects will leave the state dependent on imported, liquefied natural gas and could make consumers vulnerable to price spikes.
“There’s an argument to be made that these electric cooperatives, whose boards have a fiduciary responsibility to the member-owners, have really frittered away one of the greatest opportunities they’ve ever had to deliver hundreds of millions of dollars of value to their members,” said Phil Wight, an energy historian and professor at University of Alaska Fairbanks. “At the highest level, I think that’s a fair argument.”
Since Congress approved expanded tax credits in 2022, Alaska has seen no large-scale wind or solar projects begin construction, while other states like Wyoming and Texas have received billions of dollars in clean energy investment.
At a recent meeting, board members at Golden Valley Electric Association, the utility that generates power for Fairbanks area residents and mines, rejected a developer’s bid to advance a large-scale wind farm on a schedule driven by the expiring tax credits. Utility officials said there was still too much uncertainty about final pricing and whether the project could capture the credits.
Meanwhile, officials at Anchorage-based Chugach Electric Association, the state’s largest power utility, say that another large wind project they’ve been studying with the same developer also won’t be ready to start construction in time to qualify for the credits.
Jim Nordlund, a Chugach Electric Association board member, said that if the Anchorage-area project had captured the credits, it was still far from clear that it could have provided power more cheaply than his utility’s existing natural gas plants.
That’s even assuming prices will rise when local fuel supplies dry up and utilities begin importing liquefied natural gas in the next few years, added Nordlund, a self-described clean energy advocate.
The price of renewable power generally, he said, “is really high.”
Alaskans who are frustrated about the pace of wind and solar development shouldn’t blame the urban utilities, Nordlund added. Private companies, not the utilities themselves, have been advancing projects that failed to materialize, he said, and politics also played a big role.
“If you want to blame anybody for this, it would be that big bad bill. That’s what Trump wanted to do, and it worked,” Nordlund said. “It shut down, at least for the time being, our projects.”
But renewable energy boosters say that the urban utilities deserve at least some share of the blame for not advancing projects more urgently while the tax credits were in place.
The utilities could have developed large wind developments themselves, those advocates argue — or they could have done more to create a stable and attractive market for private developers.
“The utilities are uniquely bureaucratic and expensive in their own self-development. And they’re uniquely bureaucratic and obstinate and slow if a private company is developing,” said Ethan Schutt, who formerly managed the energy assets of an Indigenous-owned regional corporation.
Advocates say utility leaders have also failed to endorse, and in some cases outright opposed, legislation proposed multiple times in recent years to establish renewable energy quotas — which they say could have encouraged more private developers to work in the state.
Large-scale power projects “need to be thoughtfully implemented,” Natalie Kiley-Bergen, energy lead at an advocacy organization called Alaska Public Interest Research Group, said in an email.
“Had more progress been made in the last five years — even the last 15 years — to create a competitive market environment with regulatory and economic certainty for these projects, we could have seen responsible project commitments regardless of federal changes,” Kiley-Bergen said. “Not capitalizing on these tax credits is a product of years of moving slowly on the tremendous opportunities to diversify our energy generation.”
A risk of price spikes?
After its initial discovery in the 1950s, Cook Inlet, the offshore and onshore petroleum basin southwest of Anchorage, produced huge quantities of natural gas.
There was enough fuel to generate not just the vast majority of the region’s electric power, but also to supply plants that produced fertilizer and exported gas in liquefied form to Asia.
But those plants have now closed amid Cook Inlet production declines. And for more than a decade, the urban electric utilities have been contending with risk that gas supply won’t be adequate to meet demand.
Generous state tax credits temporarily approved by lawmakers in 2010 helped stimulate new drilling, but only temporarily, and they were subsequently repealed. Three years ago, Cook Inlet’s dominant producer, Hilcorp, warned utilities that they should not expect new long-term commitments of gas when their existing contracts expire in the coming years.
Clean energy advocates say that Alaskans’ dependence on gas-fired power — Chugach Electric Association generates 87% of its power from the fuel — makes residents vulnerable to both supply disruptions and fluctuations in price.
The utilities have responded to the looming local gas shortfall with plans for new infrastructure that could offload imported liquefied natural gas, known as LNG, shipped from Canada or the Gulf of Mexico.
But unlike gas from Cook Inlet, which producers have long sold at a fixed cost, utilities would likely have to buy LNG at rates that swing with the market, similar to the price of oil, according to Antony Scott, an analyst at the Renewable Energy Alaska Project advocacy group who once studied petroleum pricing for Alaska’s state government.
Given the risk of price spikes that could translate into higher electricity prices for consumers, diversifying with new wind and solar development should be a “no-brainer,” Scott said.
“It’s just like an investment portfolio. Do you want to invest only in Tesla?” Scott said. “A rational, prudent investor would have a diversified portfolio.”
Scott’s advocacy group, and others in Alaska, have pushed the utilities to diversify, in part through lobbying for the creation of the renewable energy quotas.
They cite analyses like a study released last year by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which found that new renewables would be cheaper than burning gas in existing plants and, by 2040, could meet up to 80% of demand.
“Ratepayers in Alaska have been saying, for a long time, that we need renewable energy projects here at home, and we need to be capturing energy here at home,” said Alex Petkanas, clean energy and climate program manager at the Alaska Center conservation group. “This is not something that is a surprise — that our local natural gas supply is ending, and we need to replace that with new generation.”
A rejected agreement
Utility staff and board members agree that they need to diversify away from gas, with the chief executive of Matanuska Electric Association saying in 2022 that it was “untenable” to continue generating 85% of power from one type of fuel.
Chugach Electric Association aims to cut its carbon emissions in half by 2040, which would likely require sharp reduction in its use of natural gas. And a Golden Valley Electric Association strategic plan approved last year calls for the utility to finalize agreements with private developers to bring on “large-scale wind resources” at prices that will lower members’ power costs.
None of those utilities have moved to build major wind or solar farms themselves; instead, they’ve looked to private companies to do the construction and sell the power onto the grid.
Just one firm, Longroad Energy, has advanced large-scale wind projects on a timeline that could have qualified for the expiring tax credits. One is outside Anchorage in Chugach Electric Association’s region, and one is outside Fairbanks, in Golden Valley Electric Association’s region.
The Fairbanks area project, known as Shovel Creek Wind, could produce one-third of the power consumed by Golden Valley’s members — and even generate more than 100% of their demand at certain times, depending on the size of the development, said Golden Valley’s chief executive, Travis Million.
But at a July board meeting, Golden Valley’s board members rejected an agreement that Longroad had proposed to keep the project on a timeline to qualify for the credits.
Golden Valley, said Million, still needed more time to finish a study of how much it would have to spend on infrastructure upgrades and its existing fossil fuel plants in order to accommodate power from the new wind project. Utilities must balance swings in power production that stem from the natural variability of wind.
“Without having that step done, there’s just so much uncertainty about the cost. And not knowing what that end result would be to our members, we just could not commit,” Million said in a recent interview. The details of the proposed agreement — including Longroad’s estimated pricing — are confidential under a non-disclosure agreement.
There was additional uncertainty, Million added, about whether the Trump administration, which has been hostile to wind power, would grant the credits even if Shovel Creek advanced on the required timeline.
But Million also acknowledged that the utility could have done more work earlier to speed up the process.
“We should have done a lot of these studies on the front end, to really understand sizing and needs on Golden Valley’s system, before we really started going down this path with trying to find developers,” Million said.
Longroad, through an Anchorage-based consultant, declined to comment. Million said that Golden Valley plans to finish its study and hasn’t ruled out advancing Shovel Creek on a slower timeline than Longroad’s proposal.
The utility is also studying a substantial, if smaller, wind project that could still qualify for the tax credits.
“We have to take control”
In Anchorage, meanwhile, officials with Chugach Electric Association said that Longroad’s work on the nearby Little Mount Susitna wind project slowed as the company focused on advancing Shovel Creek.
The developer, said Chugach board member Nordlund, isn’t ready to make the initial investment in Little Mount Susitna and couldn’t do the continuous work required in order to take advantage of the tax credits — though the utility, he added, hasn’t given up on the project moving forward in the future.
Nordlund ran for the Chugach board in 2023 as an advocate for wind and solar, saying then that “the time to act on renewables is now.”
But he said in a recent interview that there’s “misinformation” circulating that utilities are dismissing proposed wind and solar developments that would generate power more cheaply than natural gas, when that’s not clearly the case.
Chugach has its own non-disclosure agreement with Longroad that Nordlund said bars him from getting specific about prices.
But speaking generally, he added, Alaska is a tough market for private developers, compared to the Lower 48 and foreign countries where they otherwise might invest.
Construction costs in Alaska are higher given the remote setting, harsh environment and lack of contractors competing for business, Nordlund said; the relatively small consumer base also means that developers can’t capture economies of scale.
“I think we need to create a better climate for independent power producers to do business in Alaska,” Nordlund said. The stalled legislation to establish renewable energy quotas could have helped, he added, by giving those private developers more certainty that the utilities were “serious” about bringing on wind and solar projects.
“More could have been done,” he said.
Nonetheless, Nordlund said he thinks the inherently “conservative” culture of Alaska’s utilities is changing, with executives increasingly open to accommodating wind and solar power.
Chugach officials say the utility is still pursuing renewables and remains open to proposals from developers — though they are now refocusing on more modest projects that they can advance in-house, at least in the early stages. Viable projects could then, potentially, be handed off to private developers.
At meetings in recent weeks, board and staff members have discussed a small-scale solar farm that Chugach is studying at the site of one of its existing gas power plants on the far side of Cook Inlet.
They’ve also heard a presentation from a consultant who is examining potential sites for new hydroelectric development, though those projects would face a lengthy permitting process.
“We now have to take control and get in the lead,” Dustin Highers, Chugach’s vice president for corporate programs, said at a recent board meeting.
But some experts like Wight, the energy historian, remain skeptical that those efforts will end up displacing very much gas, with the exception of the smaller wind project in the Fairbanks area that he said could still “make a real difference.”
Pursuing smaller projects with better coordination between regions could be a better strategy, Wight said. But failing that, he said he expects utilities to largely continue their dependence on natural gas — whether through imported LNG, or through a proposed pipeline project from Alaska’s North Slope that’s struggled to secure commitments from investors.
“They’re going to dabble a little bit in renewables here and there, and then they’re just going to hope for cheap gas,” Wight said. “As a state, we’ve been so oil- and gas-dependent for so long that I do think there’s a cultural barrier there, to bring in the new folks who want to think differently.”
Nathaniel Herz welcomes tips at natherz@gmail.com or (907) 793-0312. This article was originally published in Northern Journal, a newsletter from Herz. Subscribe at this link.
