The sources committee to order today is Monday, February 9th, 2026, and the time is 3.30 p.m.
Please turn off your cell phones.
Committee members present today, Senator Rousher, senator Dunbar,
Senator Kawasaki,
Senator Myers,
and myself, Chair Geesele.
I am anticipating Senator Klayman and Vice Chair Wilakowski to join us shortly.
We have a quorum to conduct business.
We've one item on today's agenda.
And welcome, Senator Klayman.
We have one item on today's agenda, and that's Senate Bill 180.
So Senate bill 180 is intended to clarify
the regulatory commission of Alaska's authority to
regulate the price of natural gas coming in from an LNG import facility.
Welcome, senator Wilkowski.
We count on the RCA, the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, to speak for the consumers,
to regulate the price of products coming in through an LNG facility,
the prices that utilities are charging for power, all kinds of role for
the regulatory commission of Alaskan.
We have several projects that are moving very quickly.
It's important that we address the question in Senate Bill 180.
So as an example, we have an oil pipeline that is being proposed,
coming from the North Slope down to South Central.
The company Glenn Farn is proposing to do this project.
And they made a FERC filing, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
on February 5th, that was Thursday of last week, and in that filing, they proposed a timeline,
and members have at their desk an expanded part of page 70 of that FERC filing.
So if you go to page 70, you will see a blur of colors and lines and all this kind of stuff.
But if expand it over the columns 340 to 400,
you'll see this information.
And it identifies an FID decision.
reached by February 1 of 2026, they sort of missed it.
This was actually filed with a FERC on the 5th of February.
Authorization to construct April 1, 20 26, early works, operations,
commence April 15,2026 and so on.
This will be posted on basis.
The full report, the full FERSC filing is there, but you can see that there are some very quick
timelines here. All of this is moving very quickly. In addition to this project, we also
have the idea of importing natural gas. Now, saying natural
gas in South Central, of course, draws acute interest. We're very interested in getting
natural gaps there.
We all agree that it's important. So two import facilities are being proposed.
two different projects. And I'm hearing from consumers, are we going to pay for two projects?
How in the world, why are two, where are 2 projects going forward?
That is an issue for the RCA to, to wrestle with.
And, and I know that's before them in some filings. But that takes us to Senate Bill 180.
There was a phrase put into, a section put in to House Bill 50 that passed.
It was on page 37, lines 27 to 28, and it says,
a liquefied natural gas import facility under jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is exempt from this chapter.
This chapter refers to the regulatory commission of Alaska's authority.
This one sentence that was placed in House Bill 50 has caused confusion.
So to review what we had talked about last year, the first time we heard this bill,
the RCA had had some hearings at which different entities asserted
that imported gas, because of this sentence, imported
gas would not be under the cost of it to consumers,
would be not under control of the RCA.
And in the packet that's on the website,
and I believe you have in your packets here,
are the minutes are actually up.
decision from the RCA as well as the minutes from that meeting in which jail properties asserted
that R CA did not have jurisdiction over N star's LNG project and the gas coming out of it.
At the same time, N Star, excuse me, Chugach asserted that in fact,
RCA had jurisdiction over it. So you see there's confusion the public
even the regulatory agent or the entities being regulated demonstrated confusion.
And so what the R CA wrote in their opinion in
their decision it is a decision dated April 22nd 2025 it's on page 31.
Not only does this subsections express language clearly appear to clearly bar our assumption of jurisdiction.
But the legislative history underlying this enactment reinforces this conclusion.
Therefore, if we were to assert LNG facility oversight,
which this suggests, we would be disregarding the jurisdictional sideboards imposed on us by the legislation.
we decline to do so.
So you see the RCA is saying, yeah, it does look like we don't have jurisdiction over the
price of this gas, but we disagree.
And so they further went on to say case law, cited by Chew Gatch clearly shows we would
maintain jurisdiction to review end-stars development costs,
but only to the extent they're related to citing.
FERC has jurisdiction over infrastructure.
They have jurisdiction of the facility itself, but not the gas coming out.
So what Senate Bill 180 is intended to do is
to clarify that the RCA has that regulatory authority.
So the bill itself actually repeals that sentence that was placed in House Bill 50.
Clarifying, it will not change anything about the FERC's regulatory authority over infrastructure
construction.
The pipeline itself, you see that Glenfarn has submitted their document to the fERC exactly
as they should.
It's infrastructure.
But that gas coming out of it, RCA will have the jurisdiction over the cost.
So, that's the intent of Senate Bill 180, and it's a very simple bill.
It's one sentence.
We repeal that section.
So online today, we have three people from the Regulatory Commission of Alaska.
John Espandola is the chairperson of the regulatory commission.
He is online.
Steve DeVries is a commissioner on the RCA,
Also, online is Claire Newtson-Lada.
She is the utility engineer analyst with the Department of Community and Economic Development.
So I know Mr. Espandola and Mr Devries are here to offer testimony to speak to this bill.
When you get past a note, it's hard to continue with.
You gotta read and talk at the same time.
So they're sharing one line and I would just remind them as they speak if they would identify
themselves since they are going to be on audio.
It does look like I see Mr. Espandola is unavailable, so I'll turn to Mr De Vries.
Mr de Vrieze, can you hear us?
Yes, I can hear you. This is Steve Debris. I'm a crusher with the RCA. Great. Thank you so much for being here
and you had testimony related to Senate bill 180
Yes I testified last year on SB 180 before this committee before the committee
Could you reiterate, we're hearing it, the bill again, it's been a year since, well, several months anyway, since we last heard it.
If you could refresh members' minds on what you had said.
in your opening comments and that order was issued on April 22, 2025, and we addressed
some jurisdictional issues that were raised in that docket concerning a cost horizon from
a liquefied natural gas import facility that was being proposed by ANSTAR at that particular
time. In the jurisditutional briefing, it was
the exclusivity of first jurisdiction, where it attached,
where did not attach, what we, the RCA,
had the authority to review,
and what did we not have the authorities here.
And through briefing, we issued that order
which outlined our jurisdiction as follows.
Regarding the citing operation,
construction expansion of an LNG facility,
we noted on page...
and I believe the committee has a copy of that order in its packet.
That jurisdiction is exclusively perps jurisdiction.
We did note that there was a provision under the National Gas Act where a state commission,
such as the Regulatory Commission, could request the ability to exert state jurisdiction,
that's called the Henshaw amendment, that is discussed on page 30 of the order,
state oversight through its commission of that particular component of what is
ordinarily exclusive for jurisdiction. But as we pointed out in that order,
that would apply only to interstate commerce. The LNG that's slated for
import, importation as, we understand it from any utility that is proposing to
facility that is currently being discussed is coming from Foreign Commerce.
The exemption that would otherwise theoretically be an available option to a state commission
would not be available to the regulatory commission where foreign commerce is implicated.
We did point out also in the order that parties had disputed the jurisdiction of the Commission
that would arise to consumers from gas imported into an LNG facility,
as well as a cost that will be proposed to be included in the consumer race
arising from a terminal use facility that any utility might choose to contract with for LGG imports.
That was raised as Chair Geisel referenced earlier in our open comments by J&L properties.
We noted that FERC has spelled out in a number of decisions that that jurisdiction belongs
to the Commission and we do not believe that jurisdictional boundary has been changed
or otherwise altered by virtue of the current provision that you're looking at right now
The existence of that provision does provide is ammunition.
Ammunition should any party wish to appeal a decision
that we might make,
asserting our ability to review gas, fly costs,
and turbulent use agreement costs
to utilities and for inclusion and rates.
And so, for that reason,
I believe as the Chair, Chair Giesle commented
and as our fiscal note points out,
that the elimination of this provision would help eliminate uncertainty of our jurisdiction
over those types of costs that would ordinarily be included in consumer rates, understanding
for jurisdictional decisions or decisional case law, and our understanding of it as we
We are not, as a commission, the final arbiter of our jurisdiction.
That is the province of the courts.
So to whatever extent we were to follow our decision from last year,
nonetheless,
the court would be the Final Arbiter, so that particular question.
So elimination of subsection V would just provide additional.
support for our claim, our determination that we made last year, that
we continue to have jurisdiction to review those types of cost for inclusion and rights.
I hope I've answered your question.
Thank you very much, Commissioner De Vries.
You did answer my question, are there other questions for Commissioner de Vies?
Senator Myers.
Thank You, Madam Chair.
So, Mr. DeVries, let me ask a couple of questions to make sure I'm understanding.
Properly, and then I'll ask the question. I'm actually trying to get to so first of all if I am understanding you correctly
basically the RCA
does not have any control over the gas regardless of source whether it's a
well in the inlet or a
potential pipeline coming down from the slope or imports
until it gets to the point of sale to
a utility such as n-star or chugach. Is that correct?
Through the Chair, Senator Myers, I believe that's the first statement, yes.
Okay, so it sounds to me like at least when we're talking about imports, this bill
would effectively move your jurisdictional start to earlier in the process, is that right?
solidify what our current jurisdiction is and has remained.
I don't think this bill will change our jurisdictional status.
What it does do is it eliminates an argument that can be used to be court
or to any reviewing entity that we somehow lack jurisdiction.
Okay.
Along those lines, now that
the utility under RCA jurisdiction, now that they're both under that umbrella, does that
make it easier for whoever ends up building the import terminal to pass construction and
RCA does not have jurisdiction over the LNG import facility.
So to the extent that is a predicate or a foundation for your subsequent part of your question,
I don't believe that that jurisdiction attaches.
Senator Myers, before you move on, could I refer you to page 29 of the order,
U-25-0045 issued on April 22nd.
It says in the middle of page line 10, analysis, jurisdiction.
And the second sentence, while no party dispute
that FERC has exclusive jurisdiction over, quote,
sightings, construction, expansion, or operation
of an LNG import facility used in either interstate
or foreign commerce under the NGA, which I'm sorry,
I don't know what that is.
vehicle for the commission to assume jurisdiction.
So no one is disputing that RCA, or excuse me, FERC has the authority over that import facility.
Just like the gas pipeline from the NARS slope.
Yes, Senator.
Senator Myers, continue your questions.
Thank you.
So Mr. DeVries, just to clarify, I'm not talking about.
current law, what's under your jurisdiction, I'm talking if this bill passed.
What would then be under jurisdiction?
My concern here is that if
this Bill passed, now that both the import facility and
the utility would be Under your Jurisdiction,
would that make it easier to then pass on the construction cost to the consumer?
in at least partially remove some incentive for whoever's the owner or
the builder of the import facility, remove an incentive to control those construction costs.
Is that accurate or not?
Through the chair, I don't believe that's accurate because again,
I do not believe this bill alters our jurisdiction.
to, uh, over the construction and how it's, how an energy facility is to be constructed,
uh what materials are used, or how they go about it, would be subject exclusively to
first jurisdiction.
The only thing that the RCA has and would maintain notwithstanding this bill passing
and the elimination of that subsection would
Theoretically at least as I understand them the cost of gas from a gas cells agreement and or a terminal use
Agreement costs that might be entered into by a utility
That wants to use that facility to bring gas to its to it's customers
Senator Myers again on page 29 in the footnote
Line 25. It's footnote number one two four. This is u.s. Code
We are not preempting u s code and if you read it it talks about FERC's jurisdiction
Yes a question yes, madam chair, I'm I still trying to understand because I've the way I am hearing
Mr. Debris talking it's sounding
Some of the answers to that I'm getting from my questions are it's like it is a yes and a no and so I am still trying to untangle that a little bit.
So, for example, he says okay they would not have any jurisdiction, whether or not this bill passed, they wouldn't have jurisdiction over the construction, I get that.
than using it. But my concern then is that the now that they had jurisdiction over that
contract, that then that makes it easier to use that contract to pass on costs to the
being simply a matter of who owns the facility.
So my apologies to you or to Mr. Devries if I'm not getting that across clearly,
but I am worried effectively that by putting those two together that it makes it easier for some of that.
costs to then flow over later on, even though you don't have direct
control over the construction later, on as they are trying to recoup the
investment that they used for the constructions. If some of that would
then be easier to be passed on to the consumer.
Commissioner de Vries, can you offer any help to Senator Myers on that?
Through the chair, Senator Meyers, I will certainly try to help.
And I understand if, maybe if I can, let me see if
I could try to reframe your question.
Senator Mice, is it your questions that you are concerned
that costs that would be incurred in the construction
and or development of an LNG import facility would
a contract that we would then be asked to review and approve?
Mr. Jerry said that's approximately correct. Yes.
And through the chairs, Senator, that that is an excellent question.
And I don't know, as I said here, until I see or until we see a specific
contract and we can inquire into the components of that contract, whether
something that would be considered non-jurisdictional.
Now, since we do not control,
nor to have any jurisdiction over the costs associated
with the construction of an LNG import facility,
nor its operation or development or expansion,
and those are specifically subject to for jurisdiction,
not our own,
where we presented with those costs
We would need to ascertain whether or not they were jurisdictional to FERC or
not. Commissioner de Vries, would you clarify for me?
I'm looking again at order U-25004 was not the subject of this deliberation and your final order.
They are party to
Developing one of the import facilities and
my understanding was
That N star came to you wishing to recover some of those costs and
At the end of The day, I believe you denied them the ability to do that
Is that that is what this case was about was it not?
We denied the type of cost recovery that EndStar sought, which was through a mechanism called
a gas adjustment clause.
What we told the End Star in that order was they could seek to recover those costs,
from Glen Farm, I believe it was,
if the under certain circumstances,
but the way that it would need to present that to us
would be in a subsequent case
where they were presented to
us as a request to include it in rates.
At that point, we would the reviewing
the reasonableness of those costs.
and whether they were jurisdictional, in other words,
whether we were within our jurisdiction to consider or not.
So if they weren't jurisd
So, it was not a refusal to consider those costs at any time, but rather it
was a decision that we made on how they had to be presented for our review at a later time.
Thank you.
So Senator Myers, I think you can see there that it had,
they would, RCA would evaluate whether those were justifiable to
Okay, I'll just have one more question.
Yes, that'd be great.
I've finished up.
So Mr. DeVries, if this bill had been in effect at the time of the order in question here, the U-25-004,
would that partial denial have gone the other direction?
Through the chair, Senator Myers, I just want to make sure I understand your question because I I was having a hard time hearing it. I apologize
Your was your questions people was whether the existence of this particular provision was in effect at the time that we issued the order
No, mr
To raise my my question is if this bill had
passed at the time that this order was issued if the exemption in statute was no
longer there at that time at this case and that the U-25-004 was
issued, would the partial denial that you gave
N-Star have gone the other direction and it would not have been a denial?
Through the chair, Senator Myers can go.
The decision would have it made regardless.
That's my understanding.
Okay, thank you.
For the questions, it looks like Senator Klayman.
So I know we're talking, a lot of the discussion is about two different potential import facilities.
One, the old, old plan at Nikiski and then a newer one that's projected to be near where the proposed pipeline is coming out.
But are your answers the same for both of those potential
But the issue that was before us squarely in the order that you have before you pertain
to costs associated with the Glenfarn facility, not the proposed harvest facility.
So I, as much as I'd like to answer your question, I can't speak to what was not specifically
before at that particular point in time.
that it is in the order that talks about that particular competing facility and that's found
on page 33 from note 135 where we spoke to our prudence of review of any decision that was made
to select a particular LNG import facility option and we noted and I will just quote it for you.
that said our prudence review of development costs of the under either scenario one or
two, as well as a review, of any gas supply or terminally-used agreements will likely
include an assessment of whether a prudent utility manager should have considered or
selected a competing LNG import facility option to meet as far as gas-supply needs."
And just so that I say geographically oriented,
tell me which of the two proposed import locations
you're talking about when you reference the Glenfarn.
GlenFarn facility is the Greenfield.
It is not the reconstituted Nokiski plant
that marathon opened up to export gas to Japan back
in the 60s.
Did that help, Senator Klayman?
It did help in one more question.
Yes, follow up, senator Kleyman.
Again, for clarity, when you exert jurisdiction, and you obviously didn't exert
jurisdiction in order number five, but when
you do exert
jurisdiction specifically, what are you exercising jurisdiction over?
Does that make sense?
Through the Chair, Senator Klein, I believe I understand your question.
What our jurisdiction would extend to would be costs that would
A car can't let utility to include a consumer race, which would normally be the cost of
gas that would be presented during a gas supply agreement presented for review and approval.
Or a terminal use agreement that will be used by a cook-in-let utility for purposes
of making that gas-supply available.
And just to…
Follow-up, Senator Cleaner.
So what you'd be exercising jurisdiction over.
would be whether or not end star in the rate that end-star charge consumers could include certain costs.
That's through the chair of center of climate, that's correct.
What we would agree reviewing would the cost and star any utilities free to enter into the contracts.
Whether or Not we allow those contracts for those costs to be included in rates as our jurisdiction to determine.
Thank you.
Thank you, and actually that last statement Commissioner de Vries was very clear and that's the whole purpose of SB 180
You also have in your packet the minutes from January 15th, 2025 meeting
in which this was discussed and on page 54 and 55
comments from Commissioner Pickett
He read, actually, the section 49 that was in House Bill 50, and he said,
when you have that sort of specific language, I think that it was a mistake toward it
like that, that being the single sentence that the legislation had originally stated.
He said and so, he went on to say, so I'm not advising that.
Maybe somebody in June, oh, needs to look at this because sometimes when they relook at things it gets worse
But I think you may be dealing with an entirely different commissioners by that time and some of the regulatory assets and so forth
But they were concerned about perhaps we'd make it worse
But this is simply saying let's repeal this so the confusion doesn't exist
Senator Dunbar. Thank you madam chair. I have a question for you, but perhaps it's for the
the commissioner. There's a reference in the order to briefing by J&L properties, and I don't
have the briefing in front of me. But basically, J and L properties says that there is legislative
intent that they have sort of divine that indicates that we did intend that the RCA, I'm sorry,
Can someone speak to that?
That is, what was it that someone in this building said
that made folks believe that the RCA could not prevent
a utility from putting
unreasonable costs into the cost recovery and the rates.
And I don't know if you've done that research, Madam Chair, or if Mr. De Vries, if that is clear, what was it they pointed to?
What was the discussion at the legislature that seemed to cause this confusion?
Senator Jumbar, I did explore that.
I hadn't noticed this until after the bill had passed.
And so I went back and looked in minutes, there is no record.
of who put this in or why it was put in, it simply appeared in a committee substitute.
It was near the end of session.
It's very busy time.
If I'm not mistaken, this was the, I think it's the carbon, yes.
I thing it is the Carbon sequestration bill.
And so it just appeared, came out of a CS.
There was no discussion.
Interesting.
Further questions or discussion?
Ms. Vogler, do you have any comments to contribute to the discussion I?
Do not thank you commissioner debris
Excuse me through the chair. I do not. Thank you question debris have done a great job of covering all aspects
Thank You
Ms Knudsenlada you are with DCCD. Do you know
comments to share this is clear to me it's a lot of I'm actually also with the
RCA it appears there was maybe a issue with
the record keeping and I don't have anything to add. Thank you for that
correction we'll make sure that the records clarifies that you are with
the R CA not DCCED thank you. Are there further questions for Commissioner
To this particular build is the RCA have a position for against our neutral on this legislation
Through the chair senator requirement, we take no position on the legislation. Thank you
Senator Myers
Mission degrees does the rca tend to take position in any legislation
Chair, Senator Myers, who are reluctant to do so.
Okay, thank you.
We have to read between the lines, they want it.
Just putting things in context, Madam Chair.
Sure. Senator Willakowski.
I'll ask you a kind of really eighth grade question, I guess.
Will the consumers in South Central and all up and down
the railboat be, have their rates better safeguarded
if this legislation passes?
for the Chair, Senator Wilkowski.
As I indicated before, if this legislation passes, it will remove an argument that can
be raised that would tend to limit our ability to do, will provide the kinds of protections
that you are talking about.
As stated before and as the order that we have in your packet reflects, we believe, consistent
The existing jurisdiction to review those agreements gas supply and terminally
instagram it's already and that this legislation does not prohibit that or
limit it but it will strengthen our arguments to the extent that we need to
present them to record regarding the limits and extent of our jurisdiction.
Follow-up, Senator Wilakowski.
If for some reason the RCA did not have jurisdiction in this in these types of cases.
or over these issues, would the FERC safeguard rate payers
from unreasonable price rate hikes under their jurisdiction?
Through the Chair, Senator Wilkowski,
I don't know the answer to that.
Bob, senator Wilkowski.
I thought I heard last week in testimony
that the fERC in gas contracts does not,
to the consumer does, not.
not safeguard rate payers from unreasonable costs, they just sort of give an up or
down vote without looking at the impact to the consumer.
Is that your understanding?
Through the Chair, Senator Wilkowski, I heard that same testimony.
And I can't offer any observations on it without providing independent research concerning
purk jurisdiction, but since that is not the issue or the issues that.
Typically arise before the RCA. I have not independently evaluated it
Thank You senator rosher question. Thank you madam chair to the chair. So I was wondering
If this bill
Doesn't happen are there any other safeguards that the consumers have
Through the Chair Center of Rousher
if this if
the existing safeguards that I've articulated and I believe already exist,
including our ability to review the gas supply agreements
and the terminal use agreements for inclusion and rates,
and how they would be reviewed would
be governed at least as far as a gas
supply agreement would governed by the provisions of AS4205-141D.
It's an open question as to whether or not a terminal
would be reviewed under the auspices of the same statute that has never been adjudicated
by the commission.
And so I can't offer an opinion as to whether or not the in each terminal use agreement
would also be review under context of that particular statute or no.
In addition, the Commission maintains the ability to review the prudence of decision-making
in the context of or in this type of a context.
And I believe I quoted you earlier a footnote
in you border that you have before you
that speaks to an example of
a particular kind of prudence review.
Thank you.
Senator Wilakowski.
Just, so what I hear you saying is you think
you had jurisdiction already,
but this just provides a level of clarity,
a levels of certainty.
Is that fair to say?
Maybe remove some of the potential ambiguity that exists out there.
Through the chair, Senator Wollicowski, that is correct.
And if you were to review the fiscal note that was submitted on this bill,
I'm looking at the analysis provision on the second page with our fiscal
The repeal of AS-4057-11-V would eliminate any uncertainty regarding the RCH jurisdiction
over the review of gas supply agreements or terminal use agreements for public utilities
using the services of an LNG import facility.
So again, the goal, as I understand it from this legislation, is to review that uncertainty
and as testified, that uncertainly would be to remove an argument that could be raised
to our jurisdiction, which, as I indicated before, I believe, that we maintain.
Further questions?
So perhaps this could be regarded as a savings bill.
We wouldn't have litigation based on our CA decisions.
vote against it to help the lawyers hmm I think you have a conflict of interest in
her climate I'm joking are there other questions for the commissioner or his
staff all right thank you uh commissioner dorries thank
you very much for joining us today um are the is there any discussion further
discussion or questions
All right, seeing none, this is the only item on our agenda today.
So I'm going to set this bill aside for a future committee meeting.
This concludes our meeting for today, our next meeting will be Wednesday, February 11th at 3.30 PM.
On the agenda will a presentation from the Alaska Railroad.
Corporation, President and CEO Bill O'Leary will be joining us.
I have asked him to address the railroad's readiness for the gas pipeline project and
also to addressed the question related to bonding opportunities by the rail road.
So with that we will stand adjourned.
Let the record reflect.