HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe-Alaska-Standard 2023The Alaska Standard
Inaugural Sustainability Report
Table of Contents
Message from the Governor ....................................................................................................1
Alaska’s Economic History Since Statehood ...................................................................2
A Legacy of Responsible Resource Development
How Alaska is Aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals .........................4
Environmental Stewardship ...................................................................................................6
Alaska’s Approach to Energy Solutions & Innovation
Responsible Resource Development
Social Impact through Resource Development ..........................................................10
Role of Alaska Natives in the State’s Resource Development
Red Dog Mine & NANA Corporation
Advancing Access to Education for Alaska Natives: ANSEP Program
The Voice of the Arctic: Balancing Resource Development with Traditional Native Practices
Alleviating Poverty Through Economic Equity ............................................................18
Permanent Fund Dividend
Supporting Domestic and Global Sustainability Goals ............................................20
The Alaska LNG Project
“North to the Future” ...............................................................................................................25
Appendix .......................................................................................................................................27
The following report was prepared in partnership with Bridge House Advisors, an ESG & Sustainability consulting firm,
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Founded in 2017, Bridge House’s workforce is comprised of 50+ technical experts from
varied backgrounds with extensive environmental and sustainability experience. All facts and conclusions outlined in this
report were tracked to public sources at the time of this report. Bridge House did not independently verify the information
provided by these public sources referenced throughout the report.
Message from the Governor
Dear Reader,
As the Governor of Alaska, my first responsibility is to fulfill my solemn oath to uphold our
state and federal constitutions. Compared to my fellow governors who swear this same oath,
my job is a little different here in Alaska. In Alaska, our resources collectively belong to the
people in an arrangement unlike any other state, and as Governor, I am required under our
constitution to ensure these resources are developed for the maximum benefit of our people.
Our state constitution also guarantees the right to education and to provide for the
promotion and protection of public health and welfare. Providing for these rights has gone
hand-in-hand with resource development since the discovery of the Prudhoe Bay oil field
in 1968, the passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in 1971, and the creation
of the Permanent Fund by the people in 1976. The voters who created the Permanent Fund
wisely recognized they had an obligation not just to themselves, but to future generations, to
protect and utilize our shared resources.
Alaska is a vast, diverse, and young state with a population smaller than many counties. We
have made tremendous progress over the past several decades in building infrastructure,
improving health and quality of life outcomes, and creating good-paying jobs for our people.
This progress has happened in no small part thanks to the development of our resources, but
we still have much work to do. Like it has for the past 50 years, continuing to build our state
for the next 50 years will depend on our ability to sustainably develop the resources owned by
our people.
The purpose of this report is not to declare that Alaska is formally adopting what are now known
as ESG standards or policies. Rather, the purpose of this report is to demonstrate that the
principles enshrined by our people in our constitution in 1959 have created an Alaska where the
environment is protected, where the benefits of resource development are distributed to the
people, and where the public interest is guarded. The purpose of this report is to share our story
with the people who believe in these same Alaskan principles whether they are making policy or
investment decisions that can impact our ability to develop our resources.
The State of Alaska does not use ESG standards when making our investment decisions, nor
does it prohibit doing business with companies who use ESG standards. State fiduciaries are
instead bound by the Alaska Constitutional mandate to manage all resources – financial or
natural – for the maximum benefit of our people, as well as statutory mandates to manage
funds in the sole best interest of beneficiaries. Our focus is pecuniary in nature – if it makes
money and benefits Alaskans, then we will look to invest in it or develop it.
We want the world to know that if you care about environmental and social justice, protecting
the public interest, and enriching people over dictators and other bad actors, there is no
better place than Alaska to help achieve these goals.
On the other hand, preventing Alaskans from developing our resources doesn’t just hurt
the people I serve and rob them of the opportunities available to their fellow Americans.
Preventing development of resources in Alaska works in opposition to the very ESG principles
that are being widely adopted by private companies or in some cases being required through
government mandates.
My hope is for you to read this report with an open mind and that you may learn something
new about resource development of all kinds in Alaska. Our Alaskan principles that long
predate the current ESG movement will continue to guide every decision we make.
Sincerely,
Mike Dunleavy
Governor
The Alaska Standard | Inaugural Sustainability Report | 1
2 | The Alaska Standard | Inaugural Sustainability Report
Alaska’s Economic History Since Statehood
The state of Alaska is a vast, resource-rich land spanning 663,267
square miles in the northwest corner of North America.
Its geography comprises more total area than the next three largest
states—Texas, California, and Montana—combined. Despite its
size, Alaska’s total population barely surpasses 730,000 residents,
making it the third-least populous with just more than one person
per square mile. As the 49th state to join the United States of
America in 1959, the State has just recently exceeded 60 years
of age. These unique traits – young, vast, resource rich, sparsely
populated – offer innovative opportunities and unique challenges
to bring economic and social benefits to Alaskans, fellow Americans,
and our trading partners for generations to come.
For thousands of years, the indigenous peoples of Alaska
harnessed the State’s rich natural resources, from water and land,
to support themselves and their communities. Alaska Natives’
small population, coupled with extreme weather conditions and
harsh terrain, over time, equipped the tribes with expert knowledge
in subsistence practices and resource management long before
Alaska’s statehood. The State’s founding documents – the
Statehood Compact and the Alaska Constitution – integrated
these early learnings and set the foundation for establishing
itself as a resource development state and incorporating this
as a core tenet to its statehood. 1 For example, the “sustained
yield principle,” the practice of managing the harvesting or
consumption of a natural resource to sustain and enhance its use
for future generations, is explicitly outlined in Article 8, Section
4 of the Alaska Constitution. The codification of this principle into
Alaska’s founding documents is one of many examples that the
concept of sustainability and responsible resource development
has long been embedded into the practices of Alaskans.
Alaska’s population prior to statehood was less than a quarter-
million people, and many in Congress at the time doubted the State
could support itself without a large tax base and would require
substantial federal support. However, Alaskan statehood was built on
the premise that the state would have access to its own sustainable
and long-term resource developments to achieve economic
independence rather than reliance on the federal government. This
tenant was further propelled by the discovery of oil reserves on the
Kenai Peninsula at Swanson River in 1957. This discovery convinced
skeptics in Congress that Alaska would be able to support itself by
developing its natural resources, which were collectively allocated to
the state to be managed for the benefit of its people.
For Alaskans, another driving motivation for statehood was a desire
to manage their own resources. Under federal territorial control
prior to statehood, the practices of foreign fishing fleets offshore
and in-river salmon fish traps were leading to overfishing; on the
North Slope, after the Navy conducted oil exploration at Umiat
in the 1950s, it dug a large hole near the Colville River and then
dumped a large volume of 55-gallon drums filled with unknown
pollutants that have been revealed through subsequent erosion. 2
To this day, “legacy wells” on the North Slope drilled by the federal
government have yet to be remediated or are out of compliance
with state regulations; 3 separately, the State of Alaska filed a
lawsuit in July 2022 in an attempt to compel the Department of
Interior to clean up thousands of other polluted sites on lands
conveyed to Alaska Native Corporations. 4
The additional discovery of the Prudhoe Bay oil field on Alaska’s
North Slope in 1968 pushed the state into new territory by
establishing itself as a potential world-class oil and gas province.
Since discovery, Alaska’s North Slope has produced more than 18
billion barrels of oil. 5 With this output, Alaska’s oil industry now
accounts for one-quarter of the state’s employment (approximately
78,000 direct and indirect jobs) and $4.8 billion in Alaska wages. 6
Tax and royalty income from the oil and gas industry has
accounted for up to 90 percent of the state’s Unrestricted General
Fund revenues in most years prior to the use of Permanent
Fund earnings starting in Fiscal Year 2019, and has totaled over
$155 billion in state revenue since statehood. 7 Payments of
Permanent Fund Dividends to Alaskans funded through royalty
and investment income have totaled $29.4 billion 8 in distributions
since 1982. Much like today, there was significant opposition to
developing Prudhoe Bay and building the Trans Alaska Pipeline
System (TAPS), but Alaska has proven that resource development
can coexist with our environment. The Central Arctic Caribou Herd,
whose range is bisected by TAPS, increased from fewer than 3,000
animals in 1976, to a peak of 68,000 in 2010. The herd decreased
since to about 30,000 in 2020, but is considered healthy and
slightly increasing in population. 9
Alaska’s geologic and economic potential has been and continues
to be immense. Responsible resource development is a driver
of economic and social benefits, but also offers Alaska and its
strategic partners opportunities for achieving broader energy goals
by playing a critical role in what will be a decades-long energy
transition towards a cleaner, and greener economy.
“ The legislature shall provide for the utilization,
development, and conservation of all natural
resources belonging to the State, including land and
water, for the maximum benefit of its people.”
Article 8, Section 2 of the Alaskan Constitution
The Alaska Standard | Inaugural Sustainability Report | 3
A LEGACY OF RESPONSIBLE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
Beginning in 1957 with the historic oil discoveries at Swanson
River, and the Prudhoe Bay discovery following shortly thereafter
in 1968, Alaska established itself as the petrostate it is known for
today. Alaska has managed its resource development processes
responsibly through strict environmental regulations and the
proactive implementation of anti-waste statutes prohibiting
natural gas flaring or venting during full-scale operations. These
practices contribute to the State of Alaska being ranked the lowest
in carbon emissions from a petrostate and ranking as the 10th
lowest US state in carbon emissions from human activities. 10
However, despite the petrostate label, which many might equate
to Alaska being a dominant global producer of oil and gas and a
secure and affordable source of energy for its citizens, the realities
are actually quite different. While Alaska’s proven crude oil reserves
of 2.4 billion barrels are the fourth largest of any U.S. state, oil
production averaged only 448,000 barrels per day in 2020, down
from a peak of 2.1 million barrels per day in 1988, when Alaska
accounted for 20 percent of U.S. production. 11 Further, while the
State’s total energy consumption may be one of the lowest across
the United States, its per capita energy consumption is one of the
highest, which is in large part due to its harsh terrain, extreme
weather, and disparate population. The energy infrastructure that
exists in the lower 48 states simply does not exist in Alaska. As a
result, many rural communities must still rely on diesel fuel for the
local generation of electricity. 12
While the State has been successful in harnessing its natural
resources for the economic and social benefit of its people,
the subsistence lifestyle of many Alaskans across the State
is being impacted. The impacts of global climate change are
evident - average temperatures across Alaska have increased by
approximately 3 degrees Fahrenheit over the past 60 years, twice
than that of the rest of the United States. 13 Alaska is now faced with
changing ecosystems through the thawing of permafrost, sustained
warmth, and reductions in Arctic sea ice, all of which are creating
new challenges for Alaska Natives who have historically relied upon
Alaska’s natural resources to support their subsistence lifestyles. 14
In light of these realities, Alaska recognizes that the status quo of
resource development that began in the late ‘50s must continue
to evolve. Presented throughout this report, Alaska’s regional and
global vision for the energy transition, from Bradley Lake to the
Alaska LNG Project, offer lower-carbon opportunities to not only
reduce its reliance on diesel generated power in rural communities,
but deliver more affordable energy solutions across the State with
the goal of improving the quality of life for all Alaskans. As public
and private investments increase around low or no carbon energy
sources, Alaska is well positioned to be a global leader and proving
ground for renewables, new forms of power, hydrogen, carbon
capture, and more.
This commitment is reinforced by current Governor Mike
Dunleavy’s recent decision to implement a dedicated Office of
Energy Innovation, which is chartered to build a holistic approach
to its energy solutions. 15, 16 To this end, the State is expanding
established renewable energy sources like wind and solar both in
urban and rural Alaska, as well as supporting emerging sources
of energy generation such as tidal, geothermal and micronuclear,
which all have the potential to further reduce reliance on
natural gas and diesel for power generation. Further, to support
the electrification of our economy, critical minerals including
copper, cobalt, lithium, and rare earth elements are an essential
component, of which Alaska has an abundance, from Red Dog
Mine, to the Ambler Mining District for cobalt and copper, to the
Graphite Creek deposit north of Nome and rare earth deposits
on Prince of Wales Island. 17 Alaska is enriched with the minerals
needed to support the global transition to clean energy and
electrification both for the United States and globally.
However, modern day crises, such as the Russian invasion of
Ukraine and subsequent sanctions on Russian energy exports, and
barriers to accessing critical minerals to support the development
of clean energy technologies, 18 have forced the world to rethink
not only of the pace of the energy transition, but also the
consideration of the sourcing of traditional fuels like oil and gas.
Major players in the oil and gas industry, such as Alaska, play a
fundamental role in ensuring continued access to resilient and
secure energy for both its residents and internationally while the
transition towards a low-carbon economy progresses.
Alaska’s unique proximity to Asia also enables it to play a
role in supporting not only its own, but other countries’
sustainability goals. One such example is the Alaska Liquified
Natural Gas Project, Alaska’s priority energy infrastructure project
that will supply low-cost energy and improve air quality in-state,
convert a portion of stranded natural gas to liquified natural gas for
commercialization in international markets, and which will support
nations in reaching their reduced carbon emissions goals during
the energy transition. The State is in the process of advancing
this project by soliciting private sector partners and customers to
reach a final investment decision.
With Alaska’s abundance of natural gas, critical minerals, and
access to oil that can be produced with a lower carbon footprint
given its prohibitions on flaring, Alaska is positioned to continue
producing traditional sources of energy, while decreasing its carbon
footprint through innovative technologies, and simultaneously
supporting global sustainability goals through carbon dioxide
sequestration, as well as hydrogen and ammonia development
opportunities. Alaska represents not only a secure, stable, and
tightly regulated market for the world’s energy solutions, but
a frontier of untapped opportunities for renewable energy and
energy innovation.
“ Alaska stands ready to lead the energy transition.”
Governor Mike Dunleavy, 2022 Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference
4 | The Alaska Standard | Inaugural Sustainability Report
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), created by the United
Nations, offer a shared blueprint for peace, prosperity, people,
and the planet. The SDG framework is built upon 17 goals that
emphasize the interconnectedness of ending poverty, improving
health and education, reducing inequality, and tackling climate
change to preserve the earth as we know it for future generations.
The State of Alaska aligns with the SDGs across its array of
environmental programs, social impacts, and governance practices,
which are reflected below:
How Alaska is Aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals
The Alaska Standard | Inaugural Sustainability Report | 5
Alaska’s environmental regulatory requirements, investments
in alternative forms of energy, and unique social landscape
demonstrate environmental, social, and governance (ESG)
considerations for entities operating in the resource development
sector. While these practices are not new to Alaska, the formal
explanation of how these practices align with GRI and the UN
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is important to enhance
communication between our key stakeholders and demonstrate
that Alaska meets or exceeds the standards now being applied
to investment decisions involving resource development and
management. Some of the key issues that are relevant for the
State, but not limited to, include:
This report was informed by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), one of
the most widely adopted sustainability reporting standards in the world,
representing global best practices for reporting publicly on a range of
economic, environmental, and social impacts. 19
ENVIRONMENTAL
y Regulatory and Compliance
Oversight
y Greenhouse Gas (GHG) and
Other Air Emissions
y Safety
y Waste Management
y Water Management
y Biodiversity
What this looks like: Alaska has strict regulations and extensive
oversight for the protection of its environment around
methane emissions – demonstrated by the banning of natural
gas venting and restricted flaring during operations and strict
environmental permitting standards – as well as spill prevention
and response, dam safety, contaminated site cleanup, and fish
habitat protections.
SOCIAL
y Employment Practices
y Community Engagement
y Community Health &
Wellness
y Economic Development
y Education
What this looks like: Alaska’s approach to regulation aims to
protect Alaskan residents at the local level and focus on their
priorities. Through a multitude of channels, the state maintains
constant communication with local authorities and its residents
to ensure public involvement and engagement. While the state
recognizes inequalities persist, particularly for more isolated
regions across Alaska, the state seeks to provide abundant social
benefits from resource development including job creation, support
for social programs and charities, infrastructure development, and
support for education.
GOVERNANCE
y Fair & Ethical
Governing Bodies
y Transparency
y Compliance
y Stakeholder
Communication
What this looks like: Any company operating in Alaska is expected
to meet all regulatory requirements and demonstrate transparency,
accountability, and opportunity for public input. This includes
embracing practices that respect and protect subsistence rights
of Alaska Natives, and proactively working in good faith with local
stakeholders. Many of Alaska’s resource development projects are on
lands owned by Alaska Native Corporations, which require support
and participation in resource development to ensure environmental
and subsistence protections. These developments provide benefits
to Native shareholders through jobs, services and revenues.
6 | The Alaska Standard | Inaugural Sustainability Report
Environmental Stewardship
ALASKA’S APPROACH TO ENERGY SOLUTIONS & INNOVATION
Alaska acknowledges the impacts of global climate change and
embraces the energy transition, harnessing its natural resources to
reduce energy costs while simultaneously reducing environmental
impacts. As a commitment to this, in May 2022, Governor Mike
Dunleavy hosted the first Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference,
bringing together energy experts, researchers, policymakers, and
investors to explore sustainable technologies and sustainable
energy development projects within the state. In September 2022,
Governor Dunleavy established the Office of Energy Innovation
to coordinate the pursuit of sustainable, affordable, and reliable
energy to capitalize on Alaska’s capacity for energy generation
while simultaneously driving economic growth and job creation.
Today, 30% of Alaska’s power is generated from utility-scale
wind, solar, and hydroelectric projects and the State is actively
expanding the scale and reach of these systems. At the same
time, the State has been supporting research and development of
emerging renewable energy sources, such as tidal and micronuclear
power, providing funding for these initiatives through the Renewable
Energy Fund, Power Project Fund, Bulk Fuel Upgrade Program, Diesel
Emission Reduction Act Program, and the Rural Power System
Upgrade Program, all of which are managed and administered
through the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA).
AEA was charted 46 years ago as a State-owned public corporation,
which oversees statewide energy policy and program development,
with the mission of reducing the cost of energy in Alaska. AEA
partners with communities and stakeholders to provide technical,
financial, and community assistance in support of the development
of energy technologies.
BRADLEY LAKE
Alaska’s largest source of renewable energy is hydroelectric power,
accounting for more than 27% of the State’s electrical energy
generation in an average year. 20 There are roughly 51 utility-scale
hydroelectric projects in the state, with 476 megawatts (MW) of
energy-generation capacity. 21 The Bradley Lake Hydroelectric
Project, owned by the AEA, is located on the Kenai Peninsula,
and is the largest hydroelectric facility in Alaska, at 120 MW of
capacity. 22 Bradley Lake supplies 10% of the total annual power
for the electrical grid along Alaska’s Railbelt, which stretches from
Fairbanks to the Kenai Peninsula, at only $0.04 per kilowatt-hour
(kWh), as compared to the average of $0.07 per kWh for natural
gas, and roughly $0.09 per kWh for wind energy.
In 2020, AEA completed the construction of the $47 million West
Fork Upper Battle Creek Diversion expansion, which increased Bradley
Lake’s annual energy production by 10%, providing an additional
37,000-megawatt hours (MWh) of renewable energy, annually—
enough to electrify approximately 5,000 homes. After the West Fork
project’s completion, the AEA announced the Dixon Diversion project,
which will be the largest renewable project in the state in the past 30
years. The Dixon Diversion will provide a 50% increase in the annual
energy production capacity of the Bradley Lake facility; enough to
electrify an additional 24,000 to 30,000 homes.
In May 2022, AEA in partnership with the Railbelt utilities
announced plans to upgrade the decades-old transmission line
serving Bradley Lake and the Railbelt region, in what will be the
most significant improvement to the Railbelt electrical grid in the
state’s history. In November 2022, AEA and the Railbelt utilities
closed on $166 million in bond financing to help improve the
efficiency and capacity of power from Bradley Lake. Improvements
include upgrading three transmission lines on the Kenai Peninsula
and installing a battery storage system to help stabilize power
fluctuations, which will allow increased levels of power to flow
along the transmission system more efficiently and reliably. These
upgrades will enhance the value of the Bradley Lake Project and
will enable the integration of future renewable energy projects
being considered along the Railbelt region. Additionally, these
The Alaska Standard | Inaugural Sustainability Report | 7
projects will bring jobs and economic development opportunities
to communities along the Railbelt. 23 In addition to the Bradley Lake
Project, the AEA manages 16 hydroelectric projects throughout the
State, the majority of which are located in the Aleutian Islands and
Southeast Alaska. 24
There are several additional large-scale hydroelectric projects
within the state, beyond the projects operated by the AEA.
Electricity for the City and Borough of Juneau is generated by the
Snettisham Hydroelectric Project, which is operated by Alaska
Electric Light and Power, and provides 78.2 MW of nameplate
power capacity. 25 Additionally, Juneau Hydropower and J-POWER
plan to begin construction on the Sweetheart Lake hydroelectric
facility in 2023, which will provide an additional 19.8 MW of low-
cost hydropower to Juneau. 26
RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND
Alaska’s Renewable Energy Fund (REF) is managed by AEA and
provides financial assistance to renewable energy projects in all
regions of the state. Since 2008, REF has provided funding for over
100 operational projects, and 44 additional projects in development,
and has distributed approximately $300 million in grants. 27 The
most recent funding rounds (Rounds 13 and 14) awarded 38
grants totaling $19.75 million in support of projects developing
hydroelectric, wind, biomass, and solar energy, as well as heat
recovery and energy storage. Over 80% of REF projects are located
in rural Alaska, with a significant number located along the Railbelt. 28
Collectively, projects funded to date through the REF have
displaced 30 million gallons of diesel fuel usage annually. 29
POWER PROJECT FUND
Through the Power Project Fund (PPF), AEA provides affordable
loans for pre-construction and late-stage renewable energy and
diesel powerhouse upgrade projects. PPF has awarded $4.5 million
in loans to fund six urban and rural projects, including the Willow
Solar Farm, the state’s first utility-scale solar farm. The facility
was developed by Alaska-based Renewable IPP and has been
operational since 2019. The solar farm in Willow generates 1.2 MW
of electricity, enough to power roughly 200 homes. 30
In the summer of 2022, CleanCapital, a minority owner of
Renewable IPP, broke ground in Houston, Alaska, on what will
become the state’s largest solar farm. The project is expected to
be completed in the summer of 2023 and will generate 8.5 MW-DC
of electricity, or enough to power 1,400 homes, with potential
to add an additional 40-60 MW at a later date. Construction will
require minimal tree-clearing, as the development site was burned
during the 1996 Miller’s Reach Fire, and the project is expected to
generate 35 construction jobs and 15 part-time maintenance jobs.
The entirety of the energy generated at the site will be sold to the
Matanuska Electric Association via a Regulatory Commission of
Alaska approved Power Purchase Agreement beginning at $0.067
per kWh, with small price increases scheduled annually. 31
ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
In 2016, Volkswagen (VW) settled charges brought by the United
States and the State of California, alleging that the company’s
diesel cars contained emission control systems designed to provide
false responses to emissions tests, allowing the vehicles to emit
levels of nitrogen oxide (NOx) that were significantly above the
permissible threshold outlined under the Clean Air Act. 32 Following
the settlement, Alaska became the beneficiary of $8.125 million in
settlement funds through the VW Diesel Emissions Environmental
Mitigation Trust, which was established to fund mitigation projects
to reduce NOx emissions levels. The State allocated 15%, $1.25
million, of these funds to the development of electric vehicle (EV)
charging infrastructure. AEA served as the lead State agency in this
development project, which resulted in the installation of 15 Fast
Chargers and eight Level 2 chargers at nine sites across Alaska:
Homer, Soldotna, Cooper Landing, Seward, Anchorage, Chugiak,
Trapper Creek, Cantwell, and Healy. 33
The expansion of Alaska’s EV charging infrastructure is essential as EV
use increases across the State. However, cold temperatures negatively
impact the performance of the Lithium-Ion batteries used to power
EVs, resulting in up to a 20% decrease in range in winter conditions. 34
While the battery technology is improving rapidly, Alaska’s cold winters
and long distances between major population centers necessitate
increased charging infrastructure to support reduced range capacities
and ease range anxiety on the part of drivers.
As such, in addition to the VW funds, plans are underway to invest
$52 million in federal funds provided by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) through the Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) over the next five years
to further develop Alaska’s EV fast-charging network and expand
its urban and rural community-based charging sites. AEA is again
serving as the primary state agency in this project, partnering with
the DOT&PF who is the responsible recipient of FHWA Title 23 funds.
The project will focus on expanding the availability of EV charging
stations along the Alaska Highway System and Alaska Marine
Highway System. Charging stations will be spaced 50 miles apart
where applicable to account for the increased charging needs of
Alaska’s EV drivers during winter months. 35
476 mWh
generated by hydroelectric projects annually
1.2 MW
in existing solar capacity
8.5 MW
additional solar capacity coming online in 2023
$50 million
in federal funds allocated to improving
EV infrastructure
8 | The Alaska Standard | Inaugural Sustainability Report
ECOSYSTEM OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY AGENCIES
ADNR
The ADNR’s mission is to develop, conserve and maximize
the use of Alaska’s natural resources consistent with the
public interest. 36
ADEC
The ADEC's mission is conserving, improving and protecting
Alaska’s natural resources and environment to enhance
Alaskans’ health, safety, and economic and social well-being. 37
ADF&G
The ADF&G’s mission is to protect, maintain, and improve
the fish, game, and aquatic plant resources of the state, and
manage their use and development in the best interest of
the economy and the well-being of the people of the state,
consistent with the sustained yield principle. 38
AOGCC
The AOGCC’s mission is to protect the public interest in
exploration and development of Alaska’s valuable oil, gas, and
geothermal resources through the application of conservation
practices designed to ensure greater ultimate recovery and the
protection of health, safety, fresh ground waters and the rights
of all owners to recover their share of the resource. 39
In 1989, an oil tanker named Exxon Valdez, ran aground in the Prince
William Sound near the city of Valdez, spilling approximately 11
million gallons of oil. Human error and negligence were determined
to be the cause of the accident, with the captain being found
to have been drinking before helming the ship out of Valdez. 40
Nevertheless, the spill highlighted the need for greater oversight
in the industry; since 1989, both the Federal and State legislators
have enacted several new regulations and additional oversight to
prevent another major spill from occurring, such as the 1990 Oil
Pollution Act, which expanded the Federal government’s ability
to prevent and respond to oil spills by providing the necessary
money and resources, along with the creation of the Ship Escort/
Response Vessel System (SERVS) to help tankers navigate waters
and prevent future spills, additional training for tanker officers, tug
officers, and a marine safety committee, and upgraded information
systems on ships to avoid ice navigation hazards. 41, 42
STRICT OVERSIGHT
Another example of leading environmental regulations is the
AOGCC’s anti-flaring regulations. Flaring is described as the
burning of natural gas associated with oil and gas exploration and
production. 43 In 1971, Alaska became the first state to regulate and
prohibit natural gas flaring from operating oil and gas production
wells (e.g., Anti-Flaring Orders). Since 1971, Alaska has reduced
the amount of natural gas released through flaring from 34,808
thousand cubic feet (mcf) in 1970 to 15,966 mcf in 2021. 44
Once an oil and gas well is fully operational, the AOGCC requires
all oil and gas operators to maintain and submit monthly natural
gas disposition reports that provide information on the amount of
flare or venting events. If a flare event lasts longer than an hour,
operators are required to submit more detailed information on the
event including what caused the event, corrective actions, and
steps taken to minimize the flared volume. The AOGCC reviews
all flare events that last more than an hour to determine if the
natural gas waste is allowable. During oil and gas exploration and
development, natural gas can be flared for several reasons, such as
an unexpected pressure build up that needs to be relieved in order
to prevent equipment failure or planned maintenance that can’t be
performed unless pressure in the system is relieved first.
Additionally, while flaring events for wells in full operation are
heavily regulated by the State, Alaska does permit the flaring of gas
during the exploration phases of new oil and gas projects to test
its production capacity – a crucial step for ensuring the safety of
its employees and Alaskan residents. 45 Monthly project updates
are required by the oil and gas operator to the AOGCC to mitigate
flaring throughout the testing period. 46 While preliminary flaring
events can last approximately 6 – 9 months, Alaska still ranks the
lowest out of any state for natural gas flared during production. 47
Approximately 144 billion cubic feet (bcf) of natural gas are flared
globally annually; the same amount could provide energy to
approximately 999,000 homes for a full year. 48 From 2017 to 2020,
natural gas flaring rose in the United States by 64%. During the
same period, Alaska’s flaring decreased by 25%. 49
RESPONSIBLE RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
Alaska’s comprehensive set of environmental regulations, coupled with
supporting regulatory bodies including the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources (ADNR), the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), the
Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC), and the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), work to ensure proper
and responsible resource development across the state.
The Alaska Standard | Inaugural Sustainability Report | 9
REINJECTION IN PRACTICE IN ALASKA
After the Anti-Flaring orders became effective in 1972, oil and gas
companies operating in Alaska started to reinject natural gas into oil
reservoirs to maximize oil recovery and reuse. Reinjection of natural
gas maintains pressure in an oil reservoir and can also be used to
sweep oil to a production well, allowing greater ultimate recovery
of the oil. When natural gas is reinjected, it can extend oilfield life
through enhanced oil recovery all while keeping GHGs from being
emitted into the atmosphere. 50 Reinjection and capture practices
can be seen at the Cook Inlet oil field, a key resource of energy
for the state, where over 77 bcf is produced annually, 10.6 bcf is
injected into storage reservoirs, and 3.5 bcf is reinjected. The rest of
the natural gas not reinjected is sold to utilities or consumers. This
practice ensures beneficial reuse of natural gas, generates more
income, and extends gas availability.
The impacts of Alaska’s anti-flaring regulations span back to
Prudhoe Bay in 1977 when the famous oilfield was originally
estimated to have an ultimate recovery of nine billion barrels;
however, since the practices of reinjection began, Prudhoe’s
ultimate recovery is now estimated at fifteen billion barrels. 51
At Prudhoe, approximately 8 bcf of natural gas is produced daily, of
which 7.2 bcf is reinjected for pressure maintenance and miscible
injectant enhanced oil recovery (EOR) processes, for enhanced
recovery. 52 The remaining gas is used for fuel in the field or to
create Natural Gas Liquids (NGLs) or natural gas to be sold. Dry
natural gas is sold to Norgasco, the local utility provider, which
supplies gas to businesses in the Deadhorse area of Prudhoe.
NGLs are blended with crude oil and shipped via the Trans Alaska
Pipeline System (TAPS) to Valdez to sell.
GOING BEYOND FEDERAL REGULATIONS
The AOGCC is not the only regulatory agency that oversees Alaska’s
oil and gas industry. The ADEC has stringent regulations for spills
and releases from industrial activities for the State. The federal
Bureau of Ocean Energy and Management (BOEM) and Bureau of
Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) have spill prevention
and response procedures for federal waters. In federally regulated
waters, operators are only required to respond to spills and support
operations for a blowout or spill lasting 30 days. 53 In contrast, under
ADEC, operators working in state waters are required to have
prevention and contingency plans with specific procedures to
contain, control, or clean up spills within 72 hours. 54 Furthermore,
the ADEC has regulations for spill responses in Arctic conditions and
conducts unannounced oil spill drills.
ADEC goes beyond the federal Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure (SPCC) regulation for oil discharge contingency
plans. The federal oil discharge reporting requirement is described
as a “harmful quantity” if it violates state water quality standards,
more than 1,000 gallons of oil discharged into a single navigable
water system, or 42 gallons of oil into two navigable water
systems. 55 Under the stricter ADEC regulations, any amount of
oil that reaches water, no matter the quantity, must be reported
to ADEC. Furthermore, any release on land over 1 gallon of oil
must be recorded and reported to ADEC. These rigid reporting
requirements allow the ADEC to track any oil discharge.
Regulation ADEC Federal
Spill Control Times Within 72 hours Within 30 days
Spill Prevention Required spill prevention and contingency
plans, as well as unannounced spill drills
Conduct unannounced spill drills
Oil Discharge
Contingency Plan
Required for all oil storage facilities Only required for oil storage facilities with no secondary
containment system 56
Spill Reporting
Requirement in Water
Any amount 1,000 gallons in a single navigable water system or 42
gallons into two or more navigable water systems
Spill Reporting
Requirements on Land
1 gallon Do not need to report unless it reaches water
AIR QUALITY
The ADEC Division of Air Quality has four programs that regulate and manage non-point
mobile sources, stationary out-of-stack discharge, and field air monitoring. Alaska has
developed a State Implementation Plan (SIP) through the Clean Air Act to establish limits on
emissions and air pollutants and create standards to minimize emissions. The ADEC has also
instituted regulations beyond the SIP through the Alaska Administrative Code, Environmental
Conservation, Chapter 50. The ADEC has air quality permits that limit mining and oil & gas
construction and also addresses natural gas flaring in their standard permit conditions.
The enforcement of the environmental regulations described above
is one way in which Alaska has been able to responsibly manage and
utilize its natural resources.
10 | The Alaska Standard | Inaugural Sustainability Report
Howard Rock of Point Hope founded
the Tundra Times in 1962 to give a
voice to Alaska Native perspectives.
ROLE OF ALASKA NATIVES IN THE STATE’S RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
It is impossible to discuss the evolution of resource development
in Alaska without speaking to the critical voice Alaska Native
people play in this story. Compared to just 2.9 percent of the U.S.
population, Alaska Natives and American Indians make up 19.6
percent of the Alaska population, the highest rate of any state. 57
In Alaska’s year of statehood, 1959, the issues of Alaska Native land
claims that dated to the U.S. purchase of the state from Russia in
1867 had not yet been addressed - a pressing issue at the same
time, as there were more than 200 federally recognized Tribes
across the state. Recognizing the opportunity to come together
to address their aboriginal rights to their homelands, the Alaska
Federation of Natives (AFN) was formed in 1966 to bring a unified
voice for Alaska Native people. In order to unlock the oil discovery
at Prudhoe Bay made in 1968, an 800-mile pipeline through the
middle of the state would be necessary, but that would have
been impossible without settling Alaska Native land claims on the
proposed route. This intersection of interests—settling Native land
claims and responsible resource development—was the catalyst to
creating Alaska’s economic engine that still drives the state to this
day. This intersection of interests led to the passage of the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act in 1971.
The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, commonly referred
to as ANCSA, involved the creation of 12 distinct regional
corporations, the boundaries of which were based upon heritage
and shared interests, that would have ownership of the subsurface
land rights; and over 200 private, for-profit village corporations
that would own surface rights. With the passing of ANCSA, 44
million acres of land (about 10% of the state) was returned to the
Alaska Native people. Additionally, the newly formed Alaska Native
Corporations were compensated a total of $962.5 million ($7.3
billion in today's dollars) for land that could not be returned in the
settlement agreement. The ANCSA model extinguished aboriginal
land claims and, rather, put in place a for-profit structure with land
title under Native ownership, enabling greater opportunity of self-
determination for Alaska Native people. Similar to other for-profit
corporations, shareholders would be eligible for annual dividends;
the Alaska Native Corporations also use their revenues to provide
socially, culturally and economically for their shareholders,
descendants and communities.
The economic benefits of the ANCSA landscape in part are
measured by jobs, dividends, scholarships, elder dividends, burial
assistance, culture camps, language revitalization and more.
60,000+
individual scholarships awarded
$4 billion+
distributed to shareholders in dividends
since inception
35%
Percent of Regional Corporation employees
who are Alaska Native, as of 2016
$210 million+
Five-year average paid out in 7(i) distributions
Social Impact through Resource Development
ANCSA regional and village corporations, and their business
subsidiaries, comprise 18 of the top 20 Alaska-owned
businesses listed on the 2020 Top 49ers – an annual list
published each year by the Alaska Business Magazine that
ranks Alaska-owned companies by gross revenue.
The Alaska Standard | Inaugural Sustainability Report | 11
The constellation of entities representing and
serving Alaska Native people each play a pivotal role
in developing resources, protecting land, enhancing
the lives of their people, all while maintaining
cultural values that have existed for thousands of
years. These cultural practices have allowed Alaska
Native people to become experts in environmental
stewardship, and maximizing benefits for their
people, thereby being an important voice to the
ongoing resource development that occurs today.
Embedded in ANCSA was the recognition that some regions were
richer in natural resources than others, therefore giving greater
potential for economic development. The Section 7(i) and 7(j)
provisions of ANCSA are intended to balance the natural inequity
that would come from the disparity in natural resource wealth
between differing regions. These provisions that reflect the Alaska
Native culture of sharing resources, also referred to as the revenue
sharing program, would allow all the regional corporations to
benefit from this revenue, where 70% of profits would be shared
between the other regional corporations, and the remaining 30%
would be kept by the Alaska Native Corporation that developed the
natural resource. Section 7(j) takes the revenue sharing one step
further distributing 50% of the 7(i) revenues they receive to the
village corporations within their region.
Regional
Corporations
Village
Corporations
Regional
Nonprofits Tribes Statewide Native
Organizations
SECTION 7(I) AND 7(J)
This reallocation means that 70% of revenue would be
dispersed to other Alaska Native Regional Corporations
and the remaining 30% of the revenue would be kept by
the Alaska Native Regional Corporation that developed
the natural resource.
Willie Hensley was a co-chair of the first Alaska Federation of
Natives convention and his seminal paper on Native land rights
helped lead to the passage of ANCSA.
12 | The Alaska Standard | Inaugural Sustainability Report
RED DOG MINE & NANA CORPORATION
BACKGROUND
Located in the DeLong Mountains in the Northwest Arctic Borough
of Alaska, the Red Dog Mine is an illustration of the success that
stems from the delicate interplay of Alaska Native people and
resource development. Operated by Teck, and in partnership with
the NANA Regional Corporation (one of the 12 companies formed
under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act), Red Dog Mine
began its operations in 1989 and is known as the second largest
producer of zinc and the fourth largest producer of lead in the
world. The Mine now contributes 5% of total zinc production
and 3% of total lead production across the globe. The deposit is
so rich that Red Dog Creek was naturally toxic before the mine
was developed. Today, because of mine operations and discharge
controls, Red Dog Creek is healthy and supports aquatic life.
The region of the Northwest Arctic Borough sits more than
1,000 miles away from Juneau, a distance farther than that from
Washington D.C. to Oklahoma, and approximately 400 miles from
Alaska’s road system. 58 To further contextualize the remote nature
of the region, each of the 11 villages located in the Northwest Arctic
Borough is completely unconnected by roads, where all inbound
goods must be transferred by small planes or barge, causing a
significant inflation of prices for basic necessities such as groceries,
fuel, heating, and housing. Further, the largely subsistence lifestyle
of its residents requires additional cash for access to modernized
boats, snowmachines, and other equipment needed to uphold
the traditional practices of the subsistence lifestyle. For a variety
of reasons, the economy of northwest Alaska historically offered
limited opportunities for well-paying jobs, inhibiting socioeconomic
development of the region until the development of Red Dog Mine.
A UNIQUE PARTNERSHIP
While the agreement between NANA Regional Corporation and
Teck Cominco was not signed until 1982, the Iñupiat people had
long been aware of the natural resources that sat below them.
In 1979, a poll among NANA shareholders revealed the majority
believed the Mine could be developed in a way that would bring
both economic prosperity and responsibly protect the subsistence
lifestyle. In this 1982 agreement, the NANA Regional Corporation
allowed Teck access to its lands and, in return, Teck would share
its profits from mineral sales to the NANA people and further offer
jobs for NANA shareholders. The State-owned Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) also played a crucial
role in developing the mine by financing the 60-mile road from
the mine to the port backed through tolls paid by Teck. Since the
Mine became fully operational in 1989, the known success of this
engagement is demonstrated by the continued steady source of
jobs and flowing cash in a place that is otherwise difficult to find.
The NANA/Teck agreement included a provision that stated Teck
would preference the hiring of NANA shareholders to optimize
economic growth for individuals in its surrounding villages. As of
2021, 61% of the workforce were Alaska Native. Implementation
of the mine expanded greater knowledge of business expertise and
career development opportunities that may not have been there
without the mine such as DeLong Mountain Logistics, a partnership
between NANA Regional Corporation and Lynden, that operates
the fleet of trucks for transportation from the mine to the port
site, and NANA Management Services, the housekeeping and
catering firm. Approximately 90 percent of the Northwest Arctic
Borough’s budget is funded by revenue from the Red Dog Mine.
Further, following the NANA/Teck agreement was the development
of the Northwest Arctic Borough School District in 1986 to expand
education opportunities for the local residents. Additionally, the
mine advanced engagement from local universities, scholarship
offerings and advocacy work to provide local residents with
recruitment and retention of Alaska Native and NANA shareholder
hires. This agreement was particularly essential for residents of
the region where the cost of basic necessities, such as groceries
and gas, which can reach up to 26% higher than the national
average. 59 Economic development boosted average salary
up to approximately $99,000 for those working at the mine,
nearly twice the average annual private sector wage in Alaska
(about $50,340) or elsewhere in the Northwest Arctic Borough
($51,360). 60 The revenues reaped from Red Dog Mine operations
have enabled the region to invest in infrastructure development
and social programs, and bring job opportunities to increase access
to basic necessities among the NANA region. As a demonstration
of this, poverty rates for the region went from 75.5% in 1960
to 20.5% in 2020 for the Northwest Arctic Borough, relative to
10.5% for the State. 61 Simultaneously lifespan increased from
65 years old in 1980 to about 77 years old in 2014, 62 while the
population has increased over 225% since 1960. 63
The Alaska Standard | Inaugural Sustainability Report | 13
STAKEHOLDER AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
From a regulatory perspective, Red Dog Mine has more than 70
permits, and an additional 40 work plans and agreements to protect
the environment, including annual TRI reporting. Kivalina region,
a region 60 miles downstream from Red Dog, has previously been
negatively impacted by Red Dog operations. In 2006, Teck was
required to pay $8 million after Iñupiat Eskimo villages accused
the company of violating the Clean Water Act’s water discharge
standards, impacting the drinking water of the tribes among the
region. In addition to the $8 million, Teck agreed to pay penalties
of $625-$12,500 for any future violations of wastewater discharge
limits. 64 A Subsistence Advisory Committee, comprised of elders
from two neighboring communities, Noatak and Kivalina, was
created to provide a mechanism for employees and the broader
community to work out environmental impacts, wildlife concerns,
and subsistence issues related to the mine. Additionally, a
12-person committee comprised of NANA and Teck representatives
was created to oversee regional activities and operational decisions.
The Subsistence Advisory Committee provided input during the
design of the proposed Ambler Access Road, also being led by AIDEA,
a private industrial access road to the Ambler Mining District that
would facilitate mine development of deposits rich in copper, cobalt,
lead, zinc, and silver to provide critical minerals for the development
of renewable energy projects, battery storage, and transmission.
The incorporation of key learnings from Red Dog Mine included
requiring all drivers to halt driving during caribou migration, ensuring
the design does not impede upon access to subsistence resources,
enhancing operational accountability through the use of sealed
trailers and dust mitigation, and using state of the art fish passage
culverts that go beyond US Fish and Wildlife Service standards.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Mined metal production is predicted to jump 250% by 2030 to
satisfy the rise in demand for critical minerals to support the
development of lower carbon energy sources, thereby heightening
the importance of responsible extraction practices and waste
management. Red Dog Mine is annually listed on the Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI), an annual report published by Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA) that discloses the volume of certain toxic
chemicals that may pose a threat to the environment and human
health. 65 Currently, 770 individually listed chemicals are covered by
the TRI – while this is not an exhaustive list of all toxic chemicals,
the Mine is required to report to TRI given the natural high ore-grade
minerals that exist in the waste rock. Despite the Mine’s placement
on the EPAs TRI, Red Dog follows the stringent environmental
regulations set by the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC), which are discussed in additional detail in the Responsible
Resource Development section. In 2021, 99.96% of reported
releases remained on site, with a discharge rate of 0.04%.
Air quality performance is periodically monitored by Red Dog and
Teck – since 1989, Red Dog has invested more than $25 million
in its Fugitive Dust Management Program to reduce fugitive dust
emissions associated with its business operations, including the
following projects: 66
y Implementing a new fill station water source near the pit entrance
to allow greater effectiveness of the road watering truck
y Completing project planning to replace a concentrate storage
building’s roof at Red Dog’s port site to replace part of the
exterior ship loader conveyor enclosure system with more
robust and durable structures
y Evaluating and developing a protocol for delaying blasts during
windy conditions
y Procured a new haul truck fleet that eliminates potential for
leakage during transport
Treatment and discharge processes of the Mine meet the strict
requirements of the Department of Environmental Conservation
discharge permit. Finally, thawing permafrost linked to climate
change have pushed the Mine to invest in a new $20 million water
storage and discharge management system.
For additional detail on Teck’s efforts to mitigate its environmental
impacts, please visit their 2021 Sustainability Report.
60%
of workforce are NANA shareholders
$2.8+ million
in community investments & donations
~$75 million
in wages annually
$100,000
average annual salary
$160+ million
spent annually on Alaska goods and supplies
715
jobs in the Northwest Arctic Boroughconnected to Red Dog Mine
SHARED PROFITS AMONG 7(I) AND 7(J) PROVISIONS:
y Due to the 70/30 split outlined in the 7(i) and 7(j) provisions
of ANCSA, $93.5 million of the $143 million total revenue
received by NANA for Red Dog Mine was shared with the 11
other corporations across the State in 2013.
y Since inception, over $1 billion has been paid out to NANA,
of which $617 million has been shared with other regions as
of 2018.
14 | The Alaska Standard | Inaugural Sustainability Report
ADVANCING ACCESS TO EDUCATION FOR ALASKA NATIVES
Article 7, Section 1 of Alaska’s constitution guarantees the right
to public education for all children within the State, however,
Alaska lags behind nearly all other states in the quality of its K-12
education, ranking number 49 out of 50 in U.S. News and World
Report’s education ratings. 67
The Alaska Native student population in particular is falling behind
its peers. The State’s 2021 - 2022 education report card showed
that 64.86% of Alaska Native and American Indian students
received a score of “Needs Support” on the Alaska Science
Assessment, and 71.99% scored “Needs Support” on the Alaska
System of Academic Readiness Assessment. For both assessments,
these scores were the lowest of any demographic group in the
State. 68, 69
In an effort to address this gap, the Alaska Native Science &
Engineering Program (ANSEP) was established in 1995 at the
University of Alaska’s Anchorage (UAA) campus. ANSEP provides
educational resources to Alaska Native students in elementary,
middle, and high school, as well as college and graduate school, with
the goal of increasing representation of Alaska Natives studying and
working in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields.
ANSEP received initial funding from the Alyeska Pipeline Service
Company, which operates the Trans Alaska Pipeline System and
is owned by the North Slope producers, and today counts several
oil and gas companies among its donor base, alongside local,
national, and international businesses, foundations, nonprofits, and
individual private donors.
This funding allows ANSEP to offer multi-stage programs for
over three thousand students at no cost to the students or
their families. For students demonstrating financial need, ANSEP
provides tablets, laptops, and additional technical assistance to
ensure the program’s widespread accessibility. In the fifteen years
leading up to ANSEP’s founding, only three Alaska Natives had
graduated from UAA; however, from 2001 to May 2021, 1,300
minority students, including 829 Alaska Natives, have graduated
from the University.
PROGRAMS
For students in kindergarten through fifth grade, ANSEP’s primary
focus is on increasing awareness of STEM subjects by engaging in
hands-on projects and learning opportunities, both in person and
remotely. Students in sixth, seventh, and eighth grades are eligible
for seven- and five-day ANSEP opportunities at the UAA campus
led by industry professionals, UAA staff, and ANSEP staff. These
opportunities are designed to socialize students to the university
campus, inspire students to pursue STEM education by showing
students the possibilities for their lives, with a specific goal of
increasing the number of students who complete Algebra I by the
end of eighth grade.
Current and incoming high school students are eligible for multiple
ANSEP opportunities designed to foster success in STEM education
and prepare the students for college and future careers in STEM. In
the ANSEP Acceleration Academy high school, beginning in ninth
grade, students take college classes from university faculty on
university campuses around the state. Those students who live in
communities without access to a university campus can choose
to live in an ANSEP dorm on the UAA campus during the school
year or attend summer sessions. Participating students obtain
an average of 77 university credits that may be counted toward
baccalaureate degrees.
After high school graduation, students apply for the ANSEP
Summer Bridge opportunity. In Summer Bridge, students work
eight-week professional internships with the ANSEP partner
organizations around Alaska and the nation.
ANSEP also offers programs for university and graduate
students through its University Success and Graduate Success
opportunities. These opportunities provide students with
academic, personal, and professional development resources,
internship opportunities, scholarships, and fellowships.
The Alaska Standard | Inaugural Sustainability Report | 15
OUTCOMES
The success of ANSEP can be seen in the outcomes and success
of the programs’ graduates. According to the 2015 Urban Institute
evaluation of ANSEP, from 1998 to 2013, 98.7% of students who
participated in ANSEP’s Summer Bridge opportunity and applied
to the University of Alaska were admitted, and of those students,
76.7% enrolled in STEM majors. The Urban Institute evaluation
reported increased retention rates among ANSEP students
enrolled at UAA as compared to Alaska Native students who did
not participate in ANSEP programs. This was coupled with higher
average GPAs and lower time to graduation for University Success
students as compared to their peers, saving the students and their
families money in tuition and fees. Graduate Success students
were similarly successful, with 88.9% of students completing or
actively pursuing STEM degrees at the time of the report. 70
By reducing the time to receive a degree, ANSEP Acceleration
Academy high schools reduce the expected tuition costs to
government and families for a baccalaureate degree at UAA. This
opportunity also increases university enrollment and eliminates
the need for remediation after high school graduation.
Among Middle School Academy participants between 2010 and
2014, 77.2% successfully completed Algebra I by the end of eighth
grade, 71 as compared to only 13% of American Indian and Alaskan
Native students nation-wide. 72
While only the Middle School Academy maintains a gender-specific
recruitment goal, which requires that participants be equally
split between male and female participants, ANSEP strives to
ensure that female youth are well represented across all of its
opportunities. 73 In 2022, ANSEP students maintained a nearly even
split between male and female representation across all of the
organization’s different programs. Middle school participants were
54% female, Acceleration Academy students were 48% female,
Summer Bridge students were 63% female, and University Success
students were 51% female.
Middle
School
Acceleration
Academy
Summer
Bridge
University
Success
After graduation, ANSEP students enjoyed continued
success, with 98.5% of University Success full
participants reporting being employed within a year
of graduation, the majority of whom were enrolled
in STEM or STEM-related fields. The top employers
of ANSEP graduates include the Alyeska Pipeline
Service Company, multiple companies in the oil and
gas industry, and the Alaska Native Tribal Health
Consortium (ANTHC), and the vast majority of ANSEP
graduates remain and work in Alaska after graduation.
Additionally, ANSEP graduates enjoyed higher average
salaries within one year of graduation, with roughly
44% of students reporting making $60,000 or more
per year, as compared to the national average of
$43,257 for American Indian/Alaska Native and Native
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander college graduates within
one year of graduation across all STEM fields. 74
98.7%
of Summer Bridge Students were accepted to UAA
76.7%
of ANSEP students attending UAA enrolled in STEM Majors
77.2%
completed Algebra I by the end of eighth grade
(compared to 13% of AI/AN students nation-wide)
98.5%
employment within 1 year of graduation
16 | The Alaska Standard | Inaugural Sustainability Report
THE VOICE OF THE ARCTIC: BALANCING RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT WITH TRADITIONAL NATIVE PRACTICES
BACKGROUND
Since statehood, Alaska has made a conscious effort to
capitalize on its abundant natural resources to support the
economic and social development of its people. As a petrostate,
Alaska relies on oil and gas development for economic prosperity
and social benefits; however, the impacts of climate change are
challenging these efforts and the subsistence lifestyles for many
rural Alaskans. To ensure responsible resource development,
mitigate the impacts of climate change in the Arctic region, and
protect traditional native practices, the Arctic Slope communities
formed The Voice of the Arctic Iñupiat (The Voice) in 2015.
The Voice is comprised of the region’s Iñupiat leadership, who
collectively represent the Arctic Slope communities on issues
that impact them, such as regional resource development, and
subsistence hunting.
THE VOICE OF THE ARCTIC
Today, The Voice is comprised of twenty-four member entities
from communities across the Arctic Slope – including tribal
councils, municipal governments, and Alaska Native Corporations.
The Voice aims to ensure that traditional native practices are
protected, and that the development of the Arctic Slope’s natural
resources is conducted in a safe and responsible manner and
works with local authorities and regional, state, federal, and
international stakeholders to protect the interests of Arctic
Slope communities. 75 National and international regulations
accommodate traditional practices, and local resource
development projects need to be approved by local city, village,
and tribal leadership before breaking ground.
In a recent example, President Biden approved the Willow project, an
$8 billion plan to extract 600 million barrels of oil from federal land
up in Alaska’s North Slope. This oil field, with an anticipated project
life of 30 years, is expected to produce up to 180,000 barrels of oil
per day at peak production. 76 The decision was met with opposition
from environmental groups largely based outside of Alaska;
however, Alaska Native leaders, Alaska politicians, and business
groups lobbied for approval of the project, indicating that it would
provide much needed revenues to support North Slope villages and
help Alaska’s economy. The Voice stated that the project is critical
to Alaska Native self-determination, and that it will assist villages
in carrying on support for traditional activities, such as whaling.
Further, it will provide contracting opportunities for Native-owned
businesses, create local job opportunities, increase property tax
revenue to the North Slope by more than $1 billion, and add about
$2.5 billion to the NPR-A Impact Mitigation Fund. Fifty percent
of the royalty income from the Willow project will go into this
fund that is directed to the North Slope Borough and its seven
communities.
NATIONAL & INTERNATIONAL ACCOMMODATION
In the Arctic Slope region, hunting for bowhead whales has been
a tradition held among Alaska Natives for thousands of years, and
is a practice that is still relied upon today as part of its strong
subsistence culture. Customary and traditional uses of fish and
wildlife, including traditional subsistence hunting, are protected
under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the hunting of
traditional subsistence foods, such as the bowhead whale, is
allowed for registered members of the Alaska Eskimo Whaling
Commission (AEWC). The International Whaling Commission (IWC)
determines the number of strikes (whales that are successfully
struck but not landed) and the number of takes (whales that are
successfully landed) that can be shared between the 11 whaling
communities for a five-year period. The harvest quota is based
on the nutritional and cultural needs of Alaskan Natives in all 11
AEWC communities (i.e., Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Utqiaġvik, Wainwright,
Point Lay, Point Hope, Kivalina, Little Diomede, Wales, Savoonga,
and Gambell), and the size and growth of the bowhead whale
population. The harvest level is about 0.1%-0.5% of the bowhead
population, a sustainable allowance considering the bowhead
whale population is estimated to grow about 3% annually.
REGIONAL REPRESENTATION
Oil and gas developers engage with The Voice to ensure the
interests of Arctic Slope communities are represented during
the approval process for new projects and accommodated during
ongoing operations. Oil and gas operations have direct impacts
on the lifestyles of Arctic Slope communities, as the noises from
offshore operations have the potential to scare whales away from
hunting areas. To minimize this disruption, offshore oil and gas
operations on the Arctic Slope shut down certain vessel activities
during the whaling season, allowing for subsistence whaling.
Subsistence whaling is important to the way of life of the Arctic
Slope community, and a symbiotic relationship between the oil and
gas companies and local communities allows for mutual benefit.
In fact, after years of resource development in the Arctic Slope
region, resource development and the community’s subsistence
lifestyles are not mutually exclusive. Modern technologies,
such as snowmachines, four-wheelers, and boats, are utilized
to support subsistence hunting, and are increasingly necessary
with receding sea ice and eroding coastlines pushing more and
more communities inland. 77 Economic development and job
growth are two outcomes of the resource development projects
that provide continued access to the modern technology that
supports their subsistence whaling practices. Due in part to local
resource development, the per capita income in the North Slope
Borough was $47,585 in 2021, enabling people’s ability to afford
snowmachines and four-wheelers, which cost, on average, $13,500
and $7,000, respectively. 78
“ Passed from generation to generation
through repetition of observance and legend,
subsistence living has sustained our people
for thousands of years and we, in turn, have
sustained the resource.”
Eva Kinneeveauk, President, Native Village of Point Hope
The Alaska Standard | Inaugural Sustainability Report | 17
Bowhead Whale Seasonal
Migratory Patterns
Note the “quiet areas” along the Alaskan
coast. These quiet areas include seasonally
sensitive and/or hunting search areas
contiguous to Rural Native Alaskan villages.
Quiet areas extend 40 miles offshore to
accommodate subsistence hunting.
IMPACTS OF RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
Rural Alaska Natives in the Arctic Slope region have benefitted
from the resource development in their region through:
y Community & Infrastructure Development
–Enhanced the livability of the local region, providing jobs
and infrastructure that have helped to modernize the
communities, such as underground water and sewer lines,
electrical power, a regional hospital in Utqiagvik, roads, and
community buildings. 79
–The population of the North Slope increased by 16.9% from
2010 to 2020. 80
y Economic Development
–Poverty rates declined from 49.6% in 1960 to 12.4% in 2021. 81
–The median household income in the North Slope Borough
is over $14,000 higher than that of the U.S. 82
y Enhanced Education
–High school education or higher has reached 87.7%, nearly
as high as the U.S. overall at 88.9%. 83
y Improved Health
–Disability rates of people under 65 years is 1.5% lower than
that of the broader U.S. 84
–Lifespans increased from 65 in 1980 to 77 in 2014 85
The people of the Arctic Slope have learned to continually adapt
to the changes in their climate and their local ecosystems, and
The Voice has given them the ability to speak on issues that
affect their well-being, ensuring that their views on issues related
to the economic, ecological, and cultural sustainability of their
communities will be heard.
Source:
BCB bowhead population habitat –
Marine Mammal Research Unit (ubc.ca)
“ We need the economy on the North Slope to be
able to maintain the living conditions that we
currently have. We need to fight for that economy.
And that economy is based on, right now for the
entire state, resource development.”
Nagruk Harcharek, President, Voice of the Arctic Iñupiat
“ The world is changing around us and new activities
are coming to the Arctic. We are used to adapting
to the environment around us, but we need to
have the ability and authority to manage our own
resources.”
Harry Brower Jr, Mayor, North Slope Borough
Residents of the North Slope prepare a bowhead whale harvest for community distribution in 2022.
18 | The Alaska Standard | Inaugural Sustainability Report
PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND
HISTORY
Revenue from the oil and gas industry has funded up to 90 percent
of the state’s unrestricted General Fund revenues in most years
prior to the use of Permanent Fund earnings starting in Fiscal Year
2019, and has accounted for over $180 billion in total revenue
since statehood. 86 However, in 1976, voters in Alaska passed a
constitutional amendment to establish the Permanent Fund, which
would save 25% of the State’s oil, gas, and mineral royalties and
invest them to preserve the benefits of Alaska’s resource wealth for
future generations, turning non-renewable resource income into a
renewable resource of funding for the benefit of all Alaskans. 87
The Permanent Fund started with $734,000, and, over the
years, has grown to nearly $80 billion with the help of the Alaska
Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC), a state-owned corporation
that manages the assets of the Alaska Permanent Fund in an effort
to ensure sufficient financial returns that will benefit both current
and future generations of Alaskans. 88
No other state has a sovereign wealth fund of this magnitude in
the United States that is constructed to benefit both the state and
individual Alaskans.
In 1982, Alaska legislature authorized equal dividend payments
to residents, regardless of need, distributing the Permanent
Fund Dividend (PFD) checks on June 14, 1982, for $1,000 each. 89
In the ensuing years, the PFD was paid out according to a
statutory formula calculated using a five-year average of the
Fund's performance, with those earnings divided among all eligible
Alaskans. This process endured until 2016 – during this time, the
75% of oil, in addition to production, property, corporate, and
other taxes, were allocated towards funding state government and
social programs, and enhancing infrastructure, which has resulted
in significant societal impacts such as raising Alaskans above
national poverty thresholds. It is worth noting the cost of living in
rural Alaska is significantly higher than that of the continental U.S.
Natural gas and electricity bills can reach up to 33% higher than
the national average, and food for one person per month is over
$100 higher than the national average. 90
A study by the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER)
at the University of Alaska Anchorage in 2016 assesses the effect
the PFD has had on alleviating poverty among the State’s rural
Alaska Native peoples. Alaska Natives have historically high poverty
rates and live in regions with limited economic opportunities.
91 Official poverty statistics often fail to account for the PFD in
household income, causing those statistics to misstate poverty
levels in Alaska and effectively undervalue the effect of the PFD.
ISER reconstructs house-hold level data to estimate poverty rates
without PFD income; the resulting estimated poverty rates show
that the PFD has had a meaningful, yet diminishing, effect on
alleviating poverty amongst rural indigenous families. The PFD has
had more significant effects on children and elders than for the
rest of the rural Alaska Native population.
Alleviating Poverty Through Economic Equity
The Alaska Standard | Inaugural Sustainability Report | 19
IMPACTS
Alaskans
The 2016 PFD study estimates that the PFD has raised up to 25,000
Alaskans out of poverty each year since its initiation, conditional on
the amount of the payment and the posture of the economy that
year. 92 Without the PFD, one-third more Alaska Natives would have
been below the national poverty threshold. Additionally, without the
PFD, poverty rates for Alaskan children and seniors would increase by
one-third or more. 93
Rural Alaska Natives
The PFD has had especially strong impacts on the livelihoods of
rural Alaska Natives relative to the rest of the Alaskan population.
Poverty rates among Alaska Natives are 2.5x higher than the
poverty rate of non-Native Alaskans, and twice the poverty rate
of the Alaska population overall. It is estimated that the PFD
effectively reduced the poverty rate for rural Alaska Natives by 6%
between 2011 and 2015.
Children
The PFD has had pronounced impacts on children. Research has
shown that an additional $1,000 in PFD payments decreases the
probability of obesity amongst Alaskan children by as much as
4.5%. This reduction could potentially avoid 500 cases of obesity,
resulting in an estimated medical cost savings of $2-$10 million
per year. 94
Elderly
Research suggests Alaska Native seniors have experienced a 59%
reduction in poverty as a result of the PFD since 1990. 95
Deep Poverty
The effects of the PFD have been most noticeable for the most
impoverished populations. Between 2011 and 2015, the PFD
reduced deep poverty, defined as less than one-half the poverty
threshold, from 13.1% to 8.1%. The PFD represents a larger portion
of annual income for impoverished individuals; in the year 2000,
it was estimated that without the PFD, 11.7% of Alaskan’s would
have been in deep poverty, compared to only 3.5% with the PFD. 96
Further, progressive federal income taxes recapture a portion of
the PFD payment from more well-off individuals, enhancing the
effects of the payments on the poor relative to the wealthy. While
roughly 660,000 eligible Alaskans receive the PFD, its income
maintenance properties strongly affect low-income households,
especially those with children.
THE FUTURE OF THE PFD
While the PFD has helped to alleviate poverty
among Alaska peoples, there is growing debate
around the size of the dividend, and the
sustainability of the fund in the wake of declining
production and prices for oil and gas.
In 2015, oil and gas prices declined, and with them, Alaska’s state
revenues. In 2016, former Alaska Governor Bill Walker vetoed half of
the appropriation for the PFD. This was the first time the statutory
PFD formula had not been followed, and a group of legislators and
citizens sued. Eventually the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the
constitutional power to appropriate delegated to the Legislature
and the veto power delegated to the Governor supersede any
statute regarding appropriations such as the PFD formula. In 2018,
Governor Bill Walker signed legislation allowing a percentage of the
fund to be withdrawn each year to pay for state spending and the
dividend, abandoning the statutory PFD formula. This withdrawal
is now 5% of the Fund’s market value per year, currently about
$3.4 billion for the 2024 fiscal year that starts on July 1, 2023. A
new formula to calculate the PFD has yet to be agreed upon, which
causes the ongoing debate over spending on state services versus
the size of the PFD.
8.7%
10.6%11.6%11.6%
6.3%6.4%
9.1%8.2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
0
15,000
30,000
45,000
60,000
75,000
90,000
1990 2000 2010 2015
Alaskans Below Poverty Threshold, With and Without PFDs
Number Without PFD Number With PFD Percentage Without PFD Percentage With PFD
23.2%22.4%
23.9%
22.5%
16.7%
12.6%
18.2%
15.4%
10.0%
14.0%
18.0%
22.0%
26.0%
1990 2000 2010 2015
Rural Alaska Natives Below the Poverty Threshold (%)
Rural Alaska Natives Without PFD Rural Alaska Natives With PFD
-2.6%-3.0%
-1.7%-2.0%
-4.4%
-6.8%
-5.1%
-6.4%
-8.0%
-7.0%
-6.0%
-5.0%
-4.0%
-3.0%
-2.0%
-1.0%
0.0%
1990 2000 2010 2015
Net Change in Poverty Rate With PFD
Elderly (65 or Older)Children (17 or Younger)
PFD APPROPRIATIONS
$29.4 billion
Total in PFDs paid out since inception 97
20 | The Alaska Standard | Inaugural Sustainability Report
Supporting Domestic and Global Sustainability Goals
THE ALASKA LNG PROJECT
The Alaska Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) Project
(the Alaska LNG Project) is Alaska’s priority energy
infrastructure project to maximize the benefit of
Alaska’s North Slope natural gas resources.
The Alaska LNG Project will use clean, energy-efficient, and
safe production methods to provide existing, stranded natural
gas to Alaskans and convert a portion of the gas to LNG for
commercialization in international markets. Alaskans will gain
a long-term source of natural gas for home heating, power
generation, and industrial needs at affordable prices made possible
by the LNG export infrastructure. Under development by the
Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC), an independent,
public corporation of the State of Alaska, the Alaska LNG Project
has been widely studied by stakeholders, federal agencies, and
state regulators, and is the only LNG project that has been granted
all major permits on the U.S. west coast.
Because gas is produced along with oil on the North Slope, and there
is no existing gas pipeline to commercial markets, approximately
7.7 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of gas is currently being compressed and
reinjected back into the producing formation at Prudhoe Bay gas
management facilities each day. The Alaska LNG Project will use a
portion of that existing, stranded gas, estimated at nearly 40 trillion
cubic feet (Tcf) of proven natural gas reserves in the Prudhoe Bay Unit
and Point Thomson Unit, 98 over the 30-year term 99 of the Alaska LNG
Project. Approximately 75% of the gas feedstock for the Alaska LNG
Project will be from Prudhoe Bay and 25% will be from Point Thomson.
The Alaska LNG Project’s Arctic Carbon Capture (ACC) plant will be
located in Prudhoe Bay near existing oil and gas infrastructure and
will condition the feed gas to meet pipeline and LNG specifications.
The plant, with an average capacity of 3.5 Bcf of gas per day, will
be comprised of three parallel treatment trains for the removal of
carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide from the feed gas. 100
By design, carbon dioxide from the feed gas for the Alaska LNG
Project will not be vented. Byproduct carbon dioxide separated
from the feed gas stream will be captured and placed back into the
subsurface geologic formations, either for enhanced oil recovery
(EOR) or sequestration. Over the term of the Alaska LNG Project,
The Alaska Standard | Inaugural Sustainability Report | 21
approximately 3.84 Tcf, or 202 million metric tons (MMmt), of
carbon dioxide will be available to be captured and used for EOR or
sequestered on the North Slope. 101
The backbone of the Alaska LNG Project is the 42-inch diameter
mainline pipeline that will traverse 807 miles from the ACC plant in
Prudhoe Bay through Interior Alaska before it crosses Cook Inlet and
connects with the LNG Facility and marine terminal in Nikiski on the
Kenai Peninsula. The pipeline will be buried with the exception of two
planned aerial water crossings, aboveground crossings of active faults,
and the underwater offshore pipeline section crossing Cook Inlet.
Interconnections along the pipeline route will provide Alaskans
with access to natural gas for heating and electrical generation.
The LNG Facility will produce up to 20 million metric tons of LNG
per year for export. 102
REGULATORY PROCESS
There are more than 50 major federal, state, and local permits
and authorizations required for the Alaska LNG Project. A
comprehensive regulatory process was established for the Alaska
LNG Project to ensure required permits were obtained and to
maintain compliance with applicable legal requirements. The major
permitting process was initiated in 2014 and was competed with
all required federal permits in 2020. The Alaska LNG Project is
permitted as an integrated project and has completed a full review
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as the Lead Agency. 103
As part of the initial FERC application process, 14 public open
houses throughout Alaska were held for the Alaska LNG Project
from October 2014 through January 2015 to provide the public with
information and solicit comments from interested stakeholders
and regulatory agencies. The FERC also conducted extensive
public involvement activities by submitting the Notice of Intent
to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to over 1,850
interested parties that included Alaska Native tribes, holding 12
public scoping meetings in the fall of 2015, and providing a 90-day
public review and comment period for the draft EIS starting in
June 2019. 104 The FERC published its Final EIS (FEIS) in March 2020
which assessed the potential environmental effects of the Alaska
LNG Project's construction and operation activities in accordance
with the requirements of NEPA.
The comprehensive, 5,000-page 2020 EIS concluded that the
construction and operation of the Alaska LNG Project would result in
temporary, long-term, and permanent impacts to the environment.
While the EIS found some of these impacts could be significant,
most impacts would not be significant or would be reduced to less
than significant through the implementation of required avoidance,
minimization, and mitigation measures proposed by AGDC and
FERC. Based on their comprehensive analysis, FERC determined
the Alaska LNG Project is consistent with the public interest and
issued an order on May 21, 2020 granting AGDC authorization to site,
construct, and operate the proposed Alaska LNG Project.
The Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. Department of
Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and National
Marine Fisheries Service participated as cooperating agencies in
FERC’s review of the Alaska LNG Project and provided expert review,
analysis, and input. Following issuance of the FEIS, each agency
adopted the analysis and issued associated permits and approvals
for the Alaska LNG Project. Permit and approval requirements
include compliance with the 165 environmental conditions adopted
in the FERC Order plus the requirements in Appendix X proactively
agreed to by AGDC, as well as additional requirements and
conditions specific to each of the permits and authorizations.
AGDC has developed a comprehensive compliance assurance
process to confirm compliance obligations from permits and
authorizations are fully identified and addressed during construction
and throughout operations.
DOE’s authorization allowing the Alaska LNG Project to export LNG
produced from the Alaska LNG Project to non-Free Trade Agreement
countries was issued in August of 2020. On September 21, 2020, the
Sierra Club (a nonprofit environmental organization) filed a request
for rehearing of the DOE export authorization. The Sierra Club argued
that DOE violated NEPA by relying on an EIS that did not examine all
reasonably foreseeable impacts of the proposed Alaska LNG Project
beyond the scope of FERC’s jurisdiction. The DOE issued an order
granting the Sierra Club’s request for rehearing for the purpose of
conducting two Alaska-specific environmental studies and related
public process. One of the studies was for analysis of the potential
environmental impacts of upstream production (i.e., impacts before
gas is placed into the Alaska LNG Project) and a second to evaluate
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the full life cycle
(i.e., conduct a life cycle analysis [LCA]) of the Alaska LNG Project
including export and use of the gas in other countries.
“ No disposals or leases of state lands, or interests
therein, shall be made without prior public notice
and other safeguards of the public interest as
may be prescribed by law.”
Alaska Constitution, Article 8, Section 10
22 | The Alaska Standard | Inaugural Sustainability Report
On July 2, 2021, the DOE published its Notice of Intent in the
Federal Register to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (SEIS) for the Alaska LNG Project. 105 The draft SEIS was
published June 24, 2022 and was released for public comments
until August 15, 2022. Of the more than 200 comments on the
draft SEIS, 182 (91%) were positive comments supporting the
Alaska LNG Project, including input from native corporations and
organizations (Doyon, Salamatof Native Association, Arctic Slope
Regional Corporation, Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, Nana
Worley, ASRC Energy Services, etc.), residents, utilities, industry
organizations, government organizations and representatives,
the Governor of Alaska, the Alaska Delegation, and others. Three
agencies provided technical comments.
On January 6, 2023, the DOE issued the Final SEIS, adding over 1,200
pages of analysis to the comprehensive environmental assessment
of the Alaska LNG Project, responding to comments, and concluding:
y The Prudhoe Bay Unit and Point Thomson Unit have sufficient gas
to supply the Alaska LNG Project for the entire 30-year term of
the Alaska LNG Project;
y There is sufficient capacity at Prudhoe Bay for sequestration of
carbon for the entire life of the Alaska LNG Project, as well as
opportunities to enhance oil recovery at other North Slope fields
to maximize use of existing infrastructure;
y Negligible, 106 negligible to less-than-significant, or less-than-
significant impact assessment ratings were given for both
construction and operations for most upstream resource
categories because the upstream resources are existing,
developed oil and gas fields;
y The results of the DOE life cycle GHG analysis demonstrated:
–When Alaska LNG GHG emissions were compared on an
energy-equivalent basis, the Alaska LNG Project had 7 to 16
percent lower GHG emissions than the ‘Business as Usual’
Scenario 1 107 (this range is with and without end use carbon
capture and sequestration), supporting DOE’s statement
that, “In conclusion, exporting LNG from the North Slope of
Alaska would not increase GHG emissions when providing
the same services to society (through production of natural
gas and crude oil) as the no action alternative.”
–When Alaska LNG GHG emissions were compared on a non-
energy equivalent basis, Alaska LNG showed higher GHG
emissions than the No Action Alternative 2, 108 supporting
DOE’s statement that, “Exporting LNG from the North Slope
… would increase GHG emissions as compared to the No
Action Alternative 2, due to the difference in LNG volumes
delivered to end-users.”
ALASKA LNG PROJECT TIMELINE
2014 ALASKA LNG PROJECT
PERMITTING PROCESS BEGINS
JUNE 2019
90-DAY DRAFT EIS PUBLIC
REVIEW PERIOD
MARCH 6, 2020
FERC ISSUES FINAL EIS
MAY 21, 2020
FERC ISSUES AUTHORIZATION
TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE
THE ALASKA LNG PROJECT
JULY 10, 2020
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
ISSUES PERMIT UNDER
SECTION 404 OF THE CWA
AND SECTION 10 OF THE RIVERS
AND HARBORS ACT
AUG. 20, 2020
US DOE ISSUES NATURAL GAS
EXPORT AUTHORIZATION
JULY 2, 2021
NEPA SEIS PROCESS
COMMENCES
JUNE 24, 2022
DRAFT DOE SEIS ISSUED FOR
PUBLIC COMMENT
JULY 7, 2022
LIQUEFACTION FACILITY AIR
PERMIT ISSUED
NOV. 14, 2022
FINAL DOE SEIS ISSUED
APRIL 13, 2023
DOE ORDER AFFIRMING AND
AMENDING AUTHORIZATION
FOR EXPORT TO NON-FREE
TRADE AGREEMENT
COUNTRIES ISSUED
The Alaska Standard | Inaugural Sustainability Report | 23
GREENHOUSE GAS BENEFITS
In 2021 (prior to the DOE SEIS), AGDC commissioned a technical
study which analyzed GHG emissions across the entire life cycle
of the Alaska LNG Project. This LCA analyzed GHG emissions
from initial upstream extraction on the North Slope through gas
treatment, main pipeline transportation, liquefaction, marine
transportation, re-gasification, and power generation/distribution
using techniques established and published by the DOE’s National
Energy Technology Laboratory. Comparisons were then made
to similar projects in the U.S. Gulf Coast and, due to the goals
of commercialization in international markets, to Asian energy
equivalents (e.g., Asian coal).
The conclusions of the LCA study were consistent with DOE’s
subsequent SEIS, noting the lower carbon intensity of Alaska LNG
in comparison to coal and other LNG projects. The LCA concluded
that the Alaska LNG Project emits about 50% less GHGs, shown as
carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-e), than the GHGs generated by a
representative Asian regional coal supply chain.
This translates to a reduction of more than 77 million metric tons
of CO2-e annually due to use of Alaska LNG compared to Asian
coal derived power. 109 Use of EPA’s GHG equivalency calculator 110
provides an estimate of the impact of that level of global carbon
reduction, as identified in the figure below.
Coal is currently the largest source of energy for many Asian
countries. Many of these countries have set net-zero GHG emissions
goals and are trying to move away from coal fuel to meet those
goals. For example, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore have set 2050
net-zero GHG emissions targets; China has set a 2060 net-zero GHG
emission goal; Thailand aims to reach net-zero by 2065; and India
plans to reach net-zero by 2070. 111
The comparison of GHG emissions from coal versus LNG power
production is important, as switching from coal to gas is a critical
step in reducing global GHG emissions. The International Energy
Agency found that in general, coal-to-gas switching reduces GHG
emissions by about 50% when providing electricity and by 33%
when providing heat. 112 Yet, despite lofty carbon zero goals, last
year (2022) was one of the largest coal-use years ever, with record
coal output from China, India, and Indonesia. 113 European nations
increased coal consumption for the second year in a row, and the
U.S. used coal for about 22% of electric power generation. Carbon
dioxide emissions from coal power plants hit record levels in 2022
and resulted in record high global GHG emissions. 114 LNG shipped
from Alaska to replace Asian coal fueled power generation will
help Asian countries meet their energy needs while decreasing
global GHG emissions. Further, when compared to other LNG
export supply chains, the Alaska LNG Project had a lower overall
GHG intensity primarily due to lower upstream emissions, pipeline
transmission, and ocean tanker transportation components. 115
y Lower Upstream Emissions – Natural gas produced on the
North Slope shares extraction and gathering and boosting
emissions with that of the associated oil production.
y Pipeline Transmission - Carbon sequestration is proposed to
occur at the point of production (North Slope), thereby lowering
the opportunity for fugitive losses during pipeline transmission.
Additionally, the Alaska LNG Project’s mainline pipeline is one
807-mile single pipeline with only eight compressor stations,
resulting in lower fugitive and compression combustion
emissions compared to other projects with multiple pipelines
and more combined compressor stations.
y Ocean Tanker Transportation – Shipping routes from Alaska to
Asian markets are significantly shorter than those from the U.S.
Gulf Coast.
154.0
77.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Asian Regional Coal Alaska LNG Nikiski to Asian TerminalsCO2e Mmtonnes/yrAsian Coal Comparison to Alaska LNG GHG Emissions
1.92 1.80
1.19
0.88
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0
New Orleans to
Shanghai
(NETL 2019)
Darwin, Australia to
Shanghai
(NETL 2019)
Cheniere
(ACS SCE 2021)
Alaska LNG Nikiski
to Asian TerminalstCO2e/tLNGNatural Gas Life Cycle GHG Intensities
Production through Regasification
GHG Benefits Equivalent To:
16.6 mill. cars
eliminated per year
8.7 bill. gallons of gasoline
eliminated per year
21 thousand
wind turbines
1.3 bill. tree seedlings
grown for 10 years
24 | The Alaska Standard | Inaugural Sustainability Report
IMPROVED AIR QUALITY IN INTERIOR ALASKA
The Alaska LNG Project will improve air quality and decrease air
quality-related health hazards in the state, especially in Interior
Alaska. Fairbanks, in the central Interior region of Alaska, does not
meet EPA air quality standards and the EPA has determined it is a
serious non-attainment area for particulate matter (PM 2.5) with
pollution levels high enough to be a human health concern. The
area currently lacks a direct-source gas transmission pipeline
and depends instead on coal for generation of electricity, along
with wood and oil for heat and some limited availability of gas
transported by tanker/road from the Southcentral area. Recently,
EPA rejected portions of Alaska’s State Implementation Plan that
was put forward to help reduce PM2.5 emissions in Fairbanks,
creating significant concern in the community about how to meet
air quality goals given the lack of gas as an alternative to existing
coal and wood/oil use. 116
By creating a long-term, reliable, and low-cost supply of clean-
burning natural gas for Fairbanks via a future interconnection from
the main Project pipeline, human health and air quality would be
significantly improved in the region.
ALASKA CLEAN AMMONIA OPPORTUNITY
AGDC currently has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with a
Japanese-led team for evaluating the opportunity to use gas from
the Alaska LNG Project for production of carbon-free ammonia
for export. The carbon dioxide generated from this ammonia
manufacturing process will be captured and sequestered in secure
underground geologic formations, and Alaska’s Cook Inlet basin
has been identified by scientists as having world-class carbon
sequestration potential. This assessment will further define Cook
Inlet’s sequestration potential and the economics for producing
clean ammonia alongside LNG in Alaska.
Ammonia is central to the zero-carbon strategies of nations
across the Pacific rim. In October 2020, Japan declared that it
aims to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 and developed the
“Green Growth Strategy” that outlines 14 growth sectors including
ammonia-fired power generation. Japan plans to grow ammonia
use in energy production to 3 million tons per year by 2030 and
20 million tons in 2050, up from zero today. 117 Alaska is only seven
shipping days from Japan (6,000 miles shorter than from the U.S.
Gulf Coast) with no canals or congested shipping lanes, thereby
reducing costs and shipping emissions. 118 Alaska is uniquely able to
offer long-term LNG supply security while also providing the option
to transition to low-carbon fuels utilizing the same infrastructure.
This provides Alaska LNG Project customers the flexibility to
transition from LNG in response to the market and technology.
ECONOMIC BENEFITS
The Alaska LNG Project has been termed ‘transformative’ for Alaska
because of its job creation, long term state revenue generation,
and stable low-cost energy supply. 119 Each of these issues is
discussed below.
Jobs
As outlined in the socioeconomic portion of the Alaska LNG Project
2020 EIS, the eight-year construction phase of the Alaska LNG
Project is expected to create up to 35,000 direct jobs with an
average of 54% filled by Alaska residents. Additionally, there are
approximately 1,000 direct operational jobs expected that would
create a permanent increase in the economic activity around the
North Slope Borough (ACC plant location) and the Kenai Peninsula
(LNG facility location). 120
State Revenue
Royalties gained from the Alaska LNG Project will be distributed into
government programs including the Permanent Fund (approximate
12.5% allocation) to support the funding of state government
operations and annual dividend payments for Alaska residents, and
the Alaska Affordable Energy Fund (approximate 20% allocation) to
support access to energy programs in communities without direct
access to gas from the Alaska LNG Project. 121
Lower Energy Costs
Natural gas from the mainline pipeline will cost approximately $4-5
per MMBtu for utilities, a rate much lower than alternative sources
such as a diesel/fuel oil equivalent at approximately $30 per
MMBtu, 122 or gas from Cook Inlet that has averaged approximately
$8.40 per MMBtu.123, 124 Offering an alternative and lower cost
energy source to Alaskans will result in significant savings for
Alaskan households. To quantify that savings:
y The current total utility demand for natural gas in Southcentral
Alaska is about 60 Bcf per year.125
y If the Alaska LNG Project saved $4 per MMBtu/Mcf, that would
equate to annual savings of $240 million in total natural gas costs.
y With a combined population of Anchorage, the Mat-Su, and
Kenai totaling approximately 460,000 residents, energy savings
per capita could amount to about $500 per person per year.
The Alaska Standard | Inaugural Sustainability Report | 25
As of 2019, approximately 1.5 billion people around the world were
living on a daily basis with “broken” electricity grids, resulting in
up to hundreds of thousands of blackouts annually. 126 This lack of
access to a resilient supply of regionally supplied energy across a
global population can result in a reliance on local solutions, such as
diesel-powered generators, which is both costly for the consumer
and can have greater negative impacts on the environment. 127
Our rural Alaskan people understand these challenges fully as
approximately 82,000 Alaskans in 193 communities served by AEA’s
Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program rely primarily on diesel fired
power. 128 In these same communities, access to clean water is also
a key concern - across the more than 200 remote communities in
Alaska, approximately half have traditional piped water systems. 129
Even further, 32 communities in Alaska have zero piped water
service and, rather, must solely rely upon trucking, hauling,
and honey buckets. These conditions are unsustainable for
many villages: the lack of sanitary water contributes to high
rates of respiratory and skin diseases, it also adds unnecessary
transportation related greenhouse gas emissions into the
atmosphere. The distribution of safe water is directly tied to
the energy costs associated with delivering safe water to rural
Alaskans — a November 2022 study conducted by the University of
Alaska Fairbanks found energy costs are 12-16 times the national
average for remote Alaskans. 130 For one small rural community of
142 Alaskans in Wales, the current estimate for installing a piped
water and sewer system is predicted to amount to approximately
$47 million, resulting in a monthly water and sewer bill of $380 for
Wales residents. With the cost of energy being 5-10 times higher
than the national average, that amounts to 60-260 times the
national average just for providing water sourcing, treatment, and
distribution across rural Alaska.
Through the State’s ongoing resource development efforts to drive
lower energy costs for Alaskans through AEA’s programs, strict
environmental standards, and extensive amounts of research,
Alaska demonstrates its commitment to bringing lower cost, and
more sustainable, energy security to those who previously did not
have access, both in Alaska and abroad. While significant progress
has been made in reducing poverty rates, and increasing life
expectancy across the state, much work remains.
The State of Alaska is committed to bringing affordable energy
and safe water to every Alaskan, and we will continue this
work through appropriately regulated and sustainable resource
development that has become our hallmark.
“North to the Future”
“ Alaska has the resources, creativity, and ability
to achieve energy independence that will fuel a
growing economy.”
Governor Mike Dunleavy
26 | The Alaska Standard | Inaugural Sustainability Report
These benefits from responsible resource development are well
understood by Alaskans. While environmental activists outside
Alaska protested the Willow project, it has widespread, bipartisan
support inside Alaska from a host of stakeholders. There were
unanimous resolutions of support in the Alaska House and
Senate, Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan and
Democrat Representative Mary Peltola, and is further supported
by labor unions, Arctic Slope Regional Corp (ASRC), and Kuukpik,
the Village Corporation for Nuiqsuit. It is expected that the
$8 billion investment will create 2,500 mostly union construction
jobs, and hundreds more long-term positions and will generate as
much as $17 billion in new revenue for the federal government,
the State of Alaska, and North Slope and Native communities.
And while protesters of the project proclaim its potential
negative environmental impacts, the Bureau of Land
Management’s analysis estimates Willow's average annual
total domestic emissions will total a mere 0.3% of anticipated
U.S. emissions levels in 2030. In the end, the oil not produced
at Willow will be produced elsewhere, but without Alaska's
strict environmental standards, respect for human rights,
and societal benefits for our residents.
In April 2023, Governor Dunleavy introduced legislation creating
the Alaska Energy Independence Fund to increase Alaska’s energy
independence and security. Senate Bill 125 and House Bill 154 will
allow the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) to create
a nonprofit subsidiary that will provide financing for sustainable
energy development projects in Alaska, also known as a "green
bank." Examples of these projects include renewable energy
generation, energy storage, energy efficiency improvements for
commercial and residential buildings, and cleaner transportation.
Further, Alaska embraces the opportunity to be a proving ground
for innovative technologies that have the potential to bring reliable
energy with less environmental and climate impact to its people, as
well as enable other nations to reach their climate goals by sharing
both our successes and challenges as we explore new solutions.
Alaska is dedicated to the development of sustainable, affordable,
and environmentally sound forms of energy including the low
and no carbon sources of the future such as hydrogen, ammonia,
and tidal. As discussed in this report, Alaska fully embraces the
concepts, promise, and benefits of renewable energy. Over the past
15 years, the AEA has funded more than $300 million in renewable
energy and efficiency projects, displacing as much as 60,000 cars
off the road. 131 Alaska can also untap potential with nearly 20% of
identified tidal energy potential in Cook Inlet and additional utility-
scale geothermal potential. A recent 2021 study on the importance
of Alaska in stabilizing biodiversity conservation suggests Alaska
could contribute over 50% of total carbon storage for the entire
United States given its geographic size and expansive landscape. 132
To capitalize on the carbon market opportunity, Governor Dunleavy
created the Office of Energy Innovation in the fall of 2022 to
coordinate these efforts and has since introduced several new
forms of legislation to offer on and offshore resources for carbon
capturing, storage, and utilization (CCUS). Alaska has more than
50 gigatons of pore space available in Cook Inlet, which represents
the largest carbon sequestration resource on the U.S. west coast
– this amount of carbon equates to 50 years of carbon emissions
from the entire nation of Japan. As of 2019, four Alaska Native
Regional corporations and eight Village corporations had entered
the forest carbon offsets with credits valued at $370 million. 133
Alaska will continue to invest in innovative technologies that will
support the need for reliable, affordable, and sustainable energy
both in Alaska and for the world, funded by responsible resource
development. We hope you have enjoyed learning about all that the
State of Alaska has to offer and come visit yourself to learn firsthand
all the opportunities present here. We will periodically update this
report to document our continued efforts to responsibly develop our
resources under The Alaska Standard for the maximum benefit of
our people.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report could not have been put together without the time, resources, and support from the
following agencies and stakeholders:
y Alaska Energy Authority
y Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission
y University of Alaska Anchorage Institute
of Social and Economic Research
y Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation
y Alaska Gasline Development Corporation
y ANCSA Regional Association
y Teck Resources Limited
y Arctic Slope Regional Corporation
y Alaska Department of Natural Resources
y Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation
y NANA Regional Corporation
y UAA Alaska Native Science and
Engineering Program
y Voice of the Arctic Iñupiat
The Alaska Standard | Inaugural Sustainability Report | 27
Appendix
1 Article 8 Section 4, Management for Sustained Yield
2 https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/oil-and-
gas/alaska-legacy-wells
3 https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/Portals/18/Pub/
LegacyNon-CompliWhiteP.pdf
4 https://www.ktoo.org/2022/07/23/alaska-sues-interior-
department-over-contaminated-ancsa-lands/
5 Oil and Gas (akrdc.org)
6 The Role of the Oil & Gas Industry in Alaska’s Economy
7 http://tax.alaska.gov/sourcesbook/
qr.aspx?Chapter=16&FY=2022
8 https://pfd.alaska.gov/Division-Info/summary-of-dividend-
applications-payments
9 https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/
central_arctic_herd/cah_newsletter_summer_2020.pdf
10 State Carbon Dioxide Emissions Data - U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA)
11 Alaska Profile (eia.gov)
12 EIA, ibid.
13 USGCRP (2014). Chapin, F.S., S.F.Trainor, P. Cochran, H.
Huntington, C. Markon, M. McCammon, A.D. McGuire, and M.
Serreze, 2014: Ch. 22: Alaska. Climate Change Impacts in the
United States: The Third National Climate Assessment, J. M.
Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds, U.S. Global
Change Research Program, 514-536.
14 Alaskas-Changing-Environment_2019_WEB.pdf (uaf-iarc.org)
15 Ibid.
16 Maximizing Alaska’s Energy Resources - YouTube
17 Alaska sustainable energy key for mining - North of 60 Mining
News (miningnewsnorth.com)
18 The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions –
Analysis - IEA
19 GRI - Home (globalreporting.org), Oil & Gas Standards
20 Alaska Energy Authority > What We Do > Alternative Energy
and Energy Efficiency Programs > Hydroelectric
(akenergyauthority.org)
21 Microsoft PowerPoint - Hydro.pptx (akenergyauthority.org)
22 Alaska Energy Authority > What We Do > Alternative Energy
and Energy Efficiency Programs > Hydroelectric > Bradley Lake
Hydroelectric Project (akenergyauthority.org)
23 Alaska Journal | Alaska utilities plan $200M investment in grid to
boost renewable power, increase reliability
24 Alaska Energy Authority > What We Do > Alternative Energy and
Energy Efficiency Programs > Hydroelectric > Hydro Projects
(akenergyauthority.org)
25 Snettisham, US (power-technology.com)
26 Juneau Hydropower and J-POWER Advance Sweetheart Lake
Hydroelectric (akbizmag.com)
27 Financing Food Security in Alaska Presentation, Tim Sandstrom,
Chief Operating Officer, November 2022.
28 Renewable Energy Projects by Energy Region
29 Alaska Energy Authority > What We Do > Grants & Loans >
Renewable Energy Fund (akenergyauthority.org)
30 Alaska’s largest solar farm opens in Willow (adn.com)
31 Construction of Alaska’s largest solar project gets underway in
Houston (adn.com)
32 Alaska Energy Authority > What We Do > Grants & Loans
> Volkswagen Diesel Settlement Grants > Background
(akenergyauthority.org)
33 Alaska Energy Authority, September 2022.
34 20 popular EVs tested in Norwegian winter conditions | NAF
35 Alaskans Help State Officials Prepare for EV Charging | Transport
Topics (ttnews.com)
36 http://dnr.alaska.gov/commis/pic/about.htm
37 https://dec.alaska.gov/
38 https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=about.mission
39 https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/aogcc/
40 Legally Drunk Ship’s Captain Fired by Exxon - Los Angeles Times
(latimes.com)
41 30 Years after the Exxon Valdez (alaska.gov)
42 Oil Pollution Act Overview | US Environmental Protection
Agency (epa.gov)
43 What is Gas Flaring? (worldbank.org)
28 | The Alaska Standard | Inaugural Sustainability Report
44 US Energy Information Administration Alaska Natural Gas
Vented and Flared
45 What is Gas Flaring? (worldbank.org)
46 Admin Approval - Injector Integrity (documentcloud.org)
47 US Energy Information Adminstration - Natrual Gas
48 https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-
calculator
49 US Energy Information Administration Alaska Natural Gas
Vented and Flared
50 https://www.energy.gov/fecm/enhanced-oil-recovery
51 ConocoPhillips Alaska Great Prudhoe Bay
52 AOGCC Data Miner
53 Code of Federal Regulations Title 30 Part 254
54 Alaska Administrative Code 18 75.438
55 USEPA What are the oil discharge reporting requirpments in the
SPCC Rule?
56 USEPA Office of Emergency Management Oil Discharge
Reporting Requirments, December 2006
57 https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ana/fact-sheet/american-indians-
and-alaska-natives-numbers
58 2015-MiningAndSustainableCommunities.pdf (alaskapublic.org)
59 Cost of Living In Alaska in 2022 - All You Need To Know
(movingist.com)
60 Microsoft Word - Red Dog information fact sheet - Final_jan
13[4].docx (teck.com)
61 Alaska Poverty Rates by Census Area 1960 – 2010.
62 Alaska sees the most dramatic increases in life expectancy in
the nation, new study says (adn.com)
63 Trends_in_Population_Summary_2019.pdf (alaska.gov)
64 Zinc producer settles suit over Alaskan mine waste | Reuters
65 What is the Toxics Release Inventory? | US EPA
66 2021-Sustainability-Report.pdf (teck.com)
67 Best States for Education | US News Best States
68 Statewide - State Report Card to the Public - DEED (alaska.gov)
69 Statewide - State Report Card to the Public - DEED (alaska.gov)
70 2000084-evaluation-of-the-alaska-native-science-and-
engineering-program_1.pdf (urban.org)
71 2000084-evaluation-of-the-alaska-native-science-and-
engineering-program_1.pdf (urban.org)
72 A Leak in the STEM Pipeline: Taking Algebra Early (ed.gov)
73 2000084-evaluation-of-the-alaska-native-science-and-
engineering-program_1.pdf (urban.org)
74 2000084-evaluation-of-the-alaska-native-science-and-
engineering-program_1.pdf (urban.org)
75 About - Voice of the Arctic Iñupiat (voiceofthearcticinupiat.org)
76 Anchorage Daily News (newsmemory.com)
77 Moving Alaskan Villages Away from Encroaching Sea : NPR
78 What is the Average Price of a Snowmobile? [Price Chart and
Videos] – PowerSportsGuide, How Much Does An ATV Cost?
Price Examples For The Popular Models - (utvride.com)
79 Arctic Slope Native Association | Samuel Simmonds Memorial
Hospital
80 U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: North Slope Borough, Alaska
81 Ibid.
82 Ibid.
83 Ibid.
84 Ibid.
85 Alaska sees the most dramatic increases in life expectancy in
the nation, new study says (adn.com)
86 https://www.akrdc.org/oil-and-gas
87 2016_12-PFDandPoverty.pdf (iseralaska.org)
88 Swanson, Paulyn; Director of Communcations of Alaska
Permanent Fund Corporation
89 Permanent Fund Dividend - Historical Timeline (alaska.gov)
90 The True Cost of Living in Alaska - SmartAsset
91 Resource rents, universal basic income, and poverty among
Alaska’s Indigenous peoples (iseralaska.org)
92 Ibid.
93 Ibid.
94 Publications - Institute of Social and Economic Research
(iseralaska.org)
The Alaska Standard | Inaugural Sustainability Report | 29
95 Ibid.
96 Ibid.
97 https://pfd.alaska.gov/Division-Info/summary-of-dividend-
applications-payments
98 US DOE Final Supplemental EIS - January 2023 - Volume I
99 FERC Order Authorization
100 FERC Order Authorization
101 US DOE Final Supplemental EIS - January 2023 - Volume I
102 FERC Order Authorization
103 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandated that FERC lead the
siting analysis and approval of all LNG terminals proposed in
the United States.
104 FERC FEIS - March 2020 - Volume 1
105 US DOE Draft Supplemental EIS - July 2022 - Summary
106 No apparent or measurable impacts are expected, and may
also be described as “none,” if appropriate.
107 This scenario examined the remaining oil production potential
from the Prudhoe Bay Unit without major gas sales and no
Alaska LNG Project.
108 This alternative presents GHG emissions associated with the
estimated production of oil from the North Slope and the
associated emissions from the transport, refining, and use of
oil. It accounts for only the life cycle GHG emissions directly
attributed to the energy production from the North Slope
that would be impacted by the Alaska LNG Project.
109 GHG LCA - Alaska LNG Project
110 EPA’s GHG Equivalencies Calculator
111 https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/
112 https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-gas-in-todays-
energy-transitions
113 https://www.iea.org/reports/coal-2022/executive-summary
114 https://www.progressivepolicy.org/publication/the-climate-
case-for-expanding-us-natural-gas-exports/
115 Alaska LNG GHG LCA - October 2021
116 https://www.epa.gov/ak/fairbanks-air-quality-plan
117 METI - Hydrogen/Ammonia Fuel
118 https://agdc.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/2022-10-04-
Ammonia-Assessment-Release.pdf
119 Public Board meeting comments, Aaron Schutt, President and
CEO of Doyon, Limited, an Alaska Native Regional Corporation,
Fairbanks, Alaska, June 16, 2022
120 FERC FEIS - March 2020 - Volume 2
121 Alaska Statute 37.05.610
122 Approximate value when diesel/fuel oil cost an estimated
$4/gallon.
123 According to Enstar Natural Gas Company and the Energy
Information Administration.
124 The stated energy costs reflect the anticipated amount
to be charged directly to the utility company and are not
necessarily reflective of customer rates.
125 https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_SAK_a.htm
126 The Dirty Footprint of the Broken Grid
127 Ibid.
128 Alaska Energy Authority’s Power Cost Equalization Program
Statistical Report, FY 2022
129 Rural Alaska water treatment and distribution systems incur
high energy costs: identifying energy drivers using panel data,
University of Alaska Fairbanks.
130 Ibid.
131 Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator | US EPA
132 Frontiers | The Importance of Alaska for Climate Stabilization,
Resilience, and Biodiversity Conservation (frontiersin.org)
133 https://www.akbizmag.com/industry/alaska-native/
harvesting-carbon-credits/
The Alaska Standard
Inaugural Sustainability Report