I call Senate resources committee meeting to order.
Today is Wednesday, February 11th, 2026.
And the time is 3.30 PM.
Members present.
Senator Rauscher, Senator Kawasaki,
Senator Myers, senator Dunbar,
Senator Clayman, Vice Chair,
Senator Wilakowski, and myself, I am Chair Giesle.
We have a quorum to conduct business.
Thank you to Heather and Kyla who are keeping the minutes and running the audio for us.
Today we have a presentation from the Alaska Railroad as they prepare for a possible Alaska
natural gas pipeline.
call with the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and this is relevant to the Resources Committee.
The National Science Foundation is offering a critical mineral accelerator grant.
accelerate the development of critical minerals.
And so last year, I sent a letter of support.
I believe this committee actually signed on to that letter.
And, so I was asked to speak to the visiting group.
Today, the National Science Foundation
is at the University of Alaska Fairbanks doing a site visit
investigation kind of thing.
Acting Commissioner Crowther is speaking to them right now
Senator Dan Sullivan just spoke to him and
Mike Srega
Is, is he the, he's the guy in charge at UAF?
I'm not sure what the word is for that.
He's, He is the new chancellor.
Thank you, chancellor, all right.
So anyway, pretty exciting.
And I really hope they, they get that grant.
Cause we have, as Senator Sullivan said,
we had all of these critical minerals.
And so it'd be a great place for
that granted, be administered.
So, anyway.
But back to the railroad.
who could transport some of those critical minerals.
I would welcome to the table, the president and CEO
of the Oscar Railroad, Mr. Bill O'Leary.
Clark Hop is the chief operating officer
for the railroad, and Meghan Clemens, of course,
visits us often here as the external affairs director.
So welcome all of you.
Yes, Brian Lindemood is online. He's the chief engineer at Alaska Railroad
So I know you guys will call on him as needed soon
Welcome. Thanks for coming
Thank you very much
Chair Giesl, Vice Chair Wilkowski. We are actually
quite delighted to be here today. I think it's a great opportunity for us to share a little bit
about the railroad and, as you said, Chair Geesele, about our preparations for the possible Alaska
natural gas pipeline. We're going to take this in a couple different steps here. Meghan is going
to come in and take us through the overview of the rail road talking a bit about some of our
And then Mr. Hoppe, our Chief Operating Officer, will be discussing specifics to the work that we have done on the gas line itself.
And I'll be betting clean up with some comments about some relatively late breaking news on financing.
for possible opportunities on that, and we'll finish up.
So if there are no initial questions, again,
I think for the record I'm Bill O'Leary.
I am the president and CEO of the Alaska Railroad Corporation.
And if, there aren't no questions I would turn it over
to Megan Clemens.
Very good, thank you.
All right, thank you and again for the record Meghan Clemens external affairs director for The Alaska Railroad and
delighted to be here with you all today and
as Mr. Leary mentioned
my
portion here is going to be to offer a little bit of background and current overview of the
Alaska Railroad for the benefit of anyone listening who may be less familiar with our organization.
And I hope that will also serve as helpful context for later in the program as we start
discussing plans for The LNG Project.
So, the Alaska Railroad is an independent corporation owned by the state of Alaska.
It was originally built and operated by federal government, but transferred to the State in 1985.
And at that time,
the legislature set up the the Alaskan Railroad Corporation to operate very much like private industry.
So we are owned the by state,
but we're excluded from the Executive Budget Act.
that through our business activities offering both freight and passenger rail services as well as real estate services.
But that being said, as we are owned by the state, we do have very important ties to the State.
So we have a seven member board, which is appointed by The Governor.
And we also have, a number of key actions that are noted in our enabling statute that require legislative approval.
that would require legislative approval or selling railroad land.
That's another thing that will come to the legislature.
So there's some important oversight and controls that are in place by virtue of our status as a state owned corporation.
And a quick note on our mission, which guides what we do.
So we're charged with creating economic development
opportunities for Alaska through safe, reliable,
transportation services and real estate services.
And that's what I focus on.
And I'm sorry, on the previous slide,
any questions before moving on?
I don't see any.
Thank you.
All right.
All right, moving on to a quick snapshot of our current operating data, and again, hopefully
this is a little instructive of what we're bringing to be able to support a large project
like this.
So our main line stretches from Seward up to Fairbanks in the interior, that's a
little under 500 miles of track.
Palmer, Whittier, and North Pole.
And when you factor in a rail yard track as well,
that brings us to pushing close to 700 total miles of track
that we are responsible for.
While passenger tends to get the most attention
as a service that offer, you can see that our freight fleet
far outstrips our number of passenger cars.
So we own just over 1,000, a variety of different types
and those are supported by 55 locomotives.
Also, while we are a railroad, we're a multimodal operation, so we do own port facilities in
both Seward and Whittier.
Whttier is an important rail barge link for us.
That's what serves as our connection to the lower 48 rail network.
So we have a weekly bard service that operates from Seattle up to our port in Whitier, and
secured for the bard transfer up to Whittier and then rolled directly on our
system. It's a very efficient way to move goods from the lower 48 and it's
very important for for Alaska is again a great connection to to the
lower-48 rail network. Down in Seward we actually have three dock
facilities. The passenger dock has gotten a lot of attention in recent years. That
was the bond authorization that we saw last year. Construction on that facility
But we do also own a freight dock directly next door.
And as we'll be talking about a little bit more here shortly, we've been receiving a
lot of pipe into that dock in recent years already, but we would see that playing a
big role in an LNG project certainly.
And I'll also mention our land is an important asset of the Alaska Railroad.
about 36,000 acres of land came over with the railroad.
About half of that is what we consider operating land.
So that would be, you know, really hard terminals or the right of way
that extends along the tracks. The other half
of it is available for lease. And that's an important part of our
revenue picture generating the income that we need to actually maintain
the rail road to a state of good repair. But again, I think
that I think will come into play with the gas line project.
You can see our operating stats there.
Annually, we move about half a million passengers
along the system.
We're just under 4 million tons of freight last year.
Summer tends to be our busiest time in both business lines.
That tends be when out-of-state visitors
choose to come to Alaska.
But that's also gravel season as well.
So it's a busy time for a year for us in in Both areas.
Employment for well, you know for keeping the railroad running anytime, but certainly looking at a big project. That's a bigger factor
We're just under 700 full-time year-round employees that swells up to a little over 800 in the summer time
Very good. This is might seem like sort of a random question,
but I believe most of your employees will they are union that means they have pensions
And I've heard that they are long time employees.
You have significant retention of your employees,
is that accurate?
Chair Giesel, yes, that is accurate.
You can see that about two-thirds of our total employees are members of one of five unions
at the Alaska Railroad.
We do offer a pension, it's an Alaska railroad pension so it is not associated with any federal
railroad pensions system or the state of Alaska, but yes we do often that as a benefit.
And yes.
We have a number of long-term employees at The Railroad?
of your employees that have been there for their whole career.
And just love working for the railroad.
Senator Kostake.
Thank you.
Who wouldn't want to work for The Railroad?
I did have a question on the 36,000 acres of land that were sent over after we assumed state after the state assumed their responsibility.
Is there a land currently railroad land has not been seeded over yet?
Through the chair, Senator Kawasaki.
No, at the time of transfer from the federal government to the state of Alaska.
All of the assets, inclusive of all the real estate that was associated with the federally owned railroad was transferred to this state.
I think the hope was to keep it as a contained unit.
Super, thank you.
Senator Myers.
Thank you, so also on the employment side, when we had DOT in here a couple of weeks ago talking about this.
They mentioned whether our concerns is you start big large construction projects,
they're competing for kind of the same labor pool with DOT.
Railroads, there's some crossover, but there is a little bit different as well.
If a large project like the LNG project went through, would you anticipate having to compete
You would, of course, probably be trying to expand some services,
trying define some new employees.
Do you anticipate you'd be able to find those in labor pool?
You know, bring some folks up from railroads down in lower 48,
something like that.
To the chair, Senator Myers, yes, good question.
I mean, a project of this scale, I expect is going to create a demand for
employees for organizations across the state.
And I don't think that would exclude the Alaska Railroad.
Given the nature of our operations,
I think there's the chance, depending on volume, that we would look to out of state,
just given there is a fair amount of training involved for some of
lower 48 excuse me to help fill up some of those spots that require longer lead
time I think is a resource we'd look at. Okay thank you. Good I don't see any
other questions I'll let you move on.
All right.
So this will give you just kind of a quick flyover,
a summary of our freight business since 2011.
And generally, when we show this chart,
it's for a discussion of different freight
business lines.
For the purpose of today's hearing,
I thought that it was useful to show
that we've got experience with variants in volumes.
You can see we have had some fairly significant fluctuations
What we see coming potentially with the LNG pipeline we think we could accommodate within what we've handled in the past.
So certainly it's an event that we would prepare for to be able to scale up, to meet the developer's timeline and maintain our current business lines.
But you can see that fluctuations in volume is something that you have handled before.
Very good. Senator Kleinman.
Volume numbers and roughly other than one year, everything from 2017 earlier is all over roughly 4 million.
I got the right.
Well, over 4,000,00 and then once you get after 2017 everything has dropped.
What's the reason for the drop in freight and why?
Yeah, that's it.
through the chair, Senator Clayman.
So yeah, it's certainly noticeable for quite a while,
this graph, I was referring to this as one of the sadder things
you could ever see from the railroad's perspective,
but we have started to come out of it.
Driven primarily by two business lines,
weakness in two businesses lines is what you're seeing
between 2011 and 2019, 2021.
And that primarily related to our petroleum.
Hall, as many of you remember, for a number of years we moved a tremendous amount of refined
product from the Flint Hills refinery outside of North Pole down to the port of Anchorage,
So that with the closure of the Flint Hills Refinery in the 2014 timeframe that made a significant they had been stepping down
Certainly over, you know a number of years if you were to take that graph back earlier into the
2000 and 3 2004 timeframe you would see that petroleum bulk petroleum
Part of The graph was you, know at least double that if not triple that at the time
So, that was item number one certainly the second
was the demise of export coal. We run coal from the Usabella coal mine, both
north to into the interior, Fairbanks and to the bases around there.
We also, up until the 2014 time frame ish 2015 timeframe, we used to run
through our the coal loading facility down there and we go to places Chile, Korea,
Japan, places like that. Given the world markets and the strong dollar at the
time export coal was was no longer you know I mean it was again you're seeing
there in 2011 or so it is you over a million tons of export cold so between
petroleum and coal that's accounted for the vast majority of the drop in freight
Senator Myers.
Thank you.
I was just curious if you had, it's
not in this presentation I see, but curious
if had the same slide.
But in dollar figures of cargo instead of volume of
cargo.
Just curious.
Through the chair, Senator Myers, yes, we certainly do.
I mean, it's, that's we look at it sometimes it is just for this case instead of, you know,
things being at different rates based on different halls and things of that nature.
We thought it was just more instructive to have the actual volume up,
but we can certainly provide dollars if they're interested.
I'd appreciate that, thank you.
All right, I see no further questions.
I'll let you move on.
make the point that moving pike by rail isn't a new concept for the Alaska
Railroad. It's something we've done before, you know, most notably with the
construction of the trans-Alaska pipeline. The Alaska Railroad was heavily
involved in that effort. You know for for that construction
of that project you had ships coming into Valdez, the Alaska Railroad actually
built about a mile and a half of track in Valdes where we were helping to move
to a coding and welding facility,
and then barge it over to Whittier,
haul it up by rail to Fairbanks.
Certainly given the alignment of this project,
we'd be looking at a different operating concept,
but all this to say, you know,
this organization can be adaptable and support big projects.
And as I mentioned before,
we're currently moving a lot of pipe.
I mean, perhaps not the volume of what we are talking about
with the Alaska LNG project.
But, this picture you're seeing here
that was in Seward this week.
And I think that picture was taken on Monday.
That pipe is traveling north today.
But this is one of, I mean, over the last three years,
we've received 34 ships delivering pipe into Sewart.
And that's going to support the Pika and Willow projects up on the north slope.
So, you know, we remain a big part of moving that material and,
you, know doing it in an efficient way.
There's obvious benefits to moving rail, excuse me, pipe by rail.
From the shipper's standpoint, there are substantial efficiencies when you've got high volume of heavy materials to move.
That's when rail makes a lot of sense.
And certainly I think offers a benefit to Alaskans as well, just in terms of sparing the highway system,
all of the additional congestion, and wear and tear associated with moving that along the parks if we can move it by rail instead.
Thank you, ma'am chair, through the chair.
So I was wondering what's the longest section of pipe
you guys move right now for these picker projects
and now there's like that.
Through the chair, Senator Rossher.
So this pipe you're looking at here, I believe, was 30 inch 40 foot pipe.
But in the past, we have moved 80 foot.
So that was, as I mentioned, in a trans-alaska pipeline.
That pipe was brought to Valdez in 40-foot sections, welded into 80- foot sections.
And then moved on 89 foot flat cars.
So we do have the capability to move larger pipe as well. Thank you for the complete answer
Sandra Willikowski, thank you. What is your expectation as to where?
The pipe would be loaded on by the railroad. Is it sewer? Is is it anchorage?
To the chair, Vice Chair Wielakowski, thank you for the question.
I think that's actually an excellent opportunity for me to introduce our chief operating officer.
For the next stage of the presentation in which we start taking you through that operating concept.
Very good.
Before we transition, Senator Klayman.
weight configuration, is there, assuming the pipeline goes forward, will you need to make
any changes to the railroad ability to carry the weight of the cargo in terms of rails
and equipment that you have today?
Certainly, through the chair, Senator Klayman, that's a good question.
And no, the rail line, our main line the weight of the pipe is not necessarily a concern.
It's certainly a factor in how we would load flat cars.
So we're a 263,000 pound rated rail road that is informed by our bridge program.
We've been actively investing in our bridges to upgrade that load capacity to bring us in line with
lower 48 railroads, but it might be a contributing factor in how many
sticks of pipe we would load on a flat car,
but we wouldn't envision a need to make investments and
improvements to the main line to be able to hold that capacity.
All right, we will transition then, Mr. Hop.
Well for the record, this is Clark Op of a chief operating officer at the Alaska Railroad, so good afternoon
It's good to be with you always excited to talk about railroads and talk
About projects so I've got a captive audience so excited about that
So as we get into the details about the project probably ought to clarify where where's our data come from what are we planning for?
So just to walk through that real quickly
You know, we have been you know
very familiar with this project.
For quite some time, right? We've been working with the gas line authority, you know their group for for many years
So we've Been familiar for the last ten years with some of the logistics associated with The project and we're very familiar with
The FERC application that's been a great resource for us
There's a lot of information if you haven't read it and you got a Lot of questions about what are they planning?
It's the lot Of that is in there so that has been kind of a baseline for information for Us and our planning over the Last several years
Most recently, several of us attended industry outreach by Glen Farne this fall at Captain
Cook, which provided
more additional information, but pretty consistent with that FERC application.
And that kicked off a series of meetings with Glenn Farm.
We've had a handful of meeting with Glen Farm to talk high level logistics, not really
down into the details yet.
But it's enough for us to look at, okay, what is the impact of the Alaska Railroad?
How would we handle this volume of pipe?
What would our operation look like?
What additional resources would need?
So that's kind of been our process over several years.
I guess one more plug before we get into the slides you know I would argue that one of the best
preparations for this type of project is always keeping your railroad in a state of good repair
and we have worked our tails off the last 10, 15 years of major infrastructure investment
Megan mentioned our bridges we spent a lot of money on our track and so we
have a very healthy railroad that's well positioned if a project like this comes along.
So, good question from Senator Wielkowski about pipe intake.
That's a big discussion on this project,
where will the pipe come?
So based on the FERC application,
based our conversations with Glenn Farm,
their primary focus to this point has been Seward,
the Port of Sewards as pipe
intake which makes sense to us that we have
obviously a freight dock and sewer
that can handle large pipe ships that currently does.
how does what a sewer need because this would certainly be a step up in the
volume of pipe but so that's really what we've we tried to create an agnostic
plan that wasn't too tied to to you know cuz our scenarios could change but that
was kind of the baseline as we created what our transportation plan would
look like so primary pipe intake is sewer supplemented by you
know possible surge
Pikes, you know, if you have more than one ship in and you can't handle the pavement sewer
I think Anchorage is a possibility with your certainly possibility and even Port MacKenzie
Barring whether there's a rail extension or not done in time that there is support there
It would require some trucking to get it to the rail
But all of those are options as surge, but the primary look in our planning has been sewered as pipe intake
As Megan mentioned
There's A lot of
still questions around what kind of pipe is coming, you know, and really I don't believe
Glenfarn will know until they put out a public, an RFP4 pipe from pipe manufacturers. So whether
pipe, the X-70 pipe is a heavier pipe. The X80 is
a lighter pipe and then a big question for us is will they come in 40-foot joints
or will the come and pre-join and double-jointed 80- foot pipes? So that's a
question that I think the group Glenn Farm is leaning towards 80 foot
pipes but we don't have that as a definitive but based on that the latest
discussion was around 80 feet double jointed pipe so that how we've kind of
pipes. So the next piece that leads us to is what kind of cars does that require and Megan mentioned and showed a picture of our
89 foot flats though those were 40 foot pipes on there we put double excuse me we
put Double 40 Footers on their so essentially they were 80 foot types that
we're hauling today as a matter of fact so that's an 89-foot flat car with
potentially six to seven double-jointed 80-ft pipes per car.
Okay, so that's kind of the basis of our transportation model.
And we looked at moves out of Seward.
What does that look like?
How many additional trains per week would that require?
Now a lot of that is based on how will the ships come to us?
Will we have big bunches of ships or will they be fairly regularly scheduled?
If they're fairly, regularly, scheduled, right?
We're looking at would be two dedicated pipe trains out
that would run for 18 to 20 months and so just to give you a little back of the napkin
map these are all this is all rough math just be able to consume it but except
depending on X 70 X 80 pipe we're talking anywhere from 680,000 tons to
800, 000 tons depending upon the type of pipe. We can typically put a hundred
tons on a rail car
And so, 45 to 55 rail cars per train.
So, when you do the math, that's anywhere between 130 trains upwards of 204 pipe.
Right?
So we've showed 170 trains on this slide, but it's somewhere in that ballpark.
And just to give you a magnitude, we have close to 2,500 train starts a year.
So that's when we assemble a new train, and at least a terminal, we do that 2,500 times.
Now that includes passenger trains, freight trains all the trains that we run.
So, that gives you a magnitude.
We're talking at the high end, maybe 200 additional pipe trains over 18 months.
And so also, you know, there's other other things that we know Glen Farm has communicated,
you about 160 million gallons of fuel.
We have a robust fuel business now that, we haul.
And, so, some of that fuel will go direct from supplier to Fairbanks, like it already
does on the Alaska Railroad, and then some that feel would have to be what we call a
local, where it would come out of a yard and would go to some staging areas to help support
the pipeline.
Peace is always hardest to get our mind around.
The railroad is what additional freight
is gonna come at us, right?
So we expect our partners and customers
that we have in the steamship business,
we're talking to them and we'd expect
that business line to grow.
Right, we also, like Megan mentioned,
we run the weekly barge out of Seattle.
It has rail cars on it with racks above with containers.
We would expect the demand on that business to also grow.
And the good story here is that our existing freight business
between Anchorage Fairbanks, which would potentially
be half of the freight that needs
to go for segments one and two north of Fairbank's.
Our existing freight service has a lot of scalability.
It has lot room to grow.
We're currently running six days a week,
about 5,000 tons of train on those six
days of week.
We could certainly scale the seven days
a Week and upwards of 8, 000 tons.
So that's quite a bit of increased volume,
just in our existing Freight capacity
that we have on the railroad.
So, that was a lotta at you on this slide,
but before I move on to the next slide in any questions.
There are some questions, I'll start with Senator Myers.
Thank you. So we've mentioned sewer a couple of times. You said that's primarily where the
pipe is going to come in, but we also talked about the Seward passenger dock. Last year is the
gas line was starting to make the rounds around here. There was some concern that with the construction
on the sewer passenger doc that it would potentially interfere with some freight operations until
a valid concern and to what extent?
So through the chair, Senator Myers, that's a great question.
We don't anticipate the passenger
dock having any interruption to potential pipe intake.
That project is scheduled to be substantially complete
this May, the middle of May.
So that freight or a passenger dock we fully expect.
Now that you've may have heard out there,
we also have a federal grant to widen and lengthen
in Seward. So I'm kind of getting ahead of a question if it's out there. Now that
project, depending on the sewer intake schedule that you know the schedule
will still up in the air. We're not sure when pipe is coming. That project is a
potential impact that could get in a way. However we think we have enough
flexibility in that project that pipe intake and sewer is the priority and
Certain parts of that work so that that dock is always available for pipe intake. Thank you
Senator rosher
Thank You ma'am chair. So I just wonder you made earlier on you make a statement about point with Kinsey. He said that
If the road is finished in time, but you also it's being talked about somewhere
If The road has finished and time is it in contention against?
Stewart or is
How does it fit into the equation?
through the chair, Senator Rauscher.
I think my point in Port MacKenzie was,
is that there's progress on the Port Mackenzie rail extension,
which if it was built would be beneficial
to this project, that's for sure.
But it has this challenges and this hurdles
to get funded and get constructed.
I was referencing Port McKenzie
that is a port there that can offload pipe.
And so if we have too many ships to land at, say, Seward that Port MacKenzie could possibly be a surge port where you could send a pipe ship there, they can unload the pipe, go direct a truck, and then truck to some railhead where he can then ultimately put it on the rail.
Follow-up, Senator Russell.
I think, I'm sorry, through the chair, Senator Roger.
I thing at this point, the pipe intake is so murky as far as what the schedule is.
We're certainly worried about surge.
We were worried if there's multiple pipe manufacturers, could you get several ships converging on
sewer at one time?
And so there are several other ports, so until we get some clarity on what that ship schedule
You know, we're just saying every port at this point has to be in the mix from a logistic standpoint of looking at what our options are to offload pipe.
Thank you very much.
Well, no, just as a senator for the area, obviously concerned.
Sure.
Absolutely.
Senator Willakowski, thank you.
Do you need any additional capital expenditures to prepare for this project?
Any new black cars, any new engines?
Through the Chair, Senator, you're great in transition today because that's the next
part of the slide, so if it wills the Committee on.
So
short-term what we see right now, and we've known about some of this for quite some time. So
there are six to eight current existing spurs.
that are adjacent to sightings on the Alaska River.
This isn't new infrastructure that was identified
in the FERC application has been identified again
in our meetings with Glen Farm
that these are strategic locations for the offloading of pipe
to a pipe yard that will then transit
to the pipeline alignment.
And we know where those are at,
and we feel like that to each one of those locations,
we need a certain length to basically park rail cars
for unloading.
And so, actually, the 2026 capital budget at the Alaska Railroad included monies to extend
those spurs so that we would be ready to accommodate delivering those cars to those
spurrs.
Now, we'd like to see some, you know, a green light to go, but we have those projects prepared
and are ready-to-go, so—that can happen, okay?
And then also when we look at our terminals,
that's the second point here, terminal improvements,
we also have some money set aside
in our 2026 capital program,
particularly to do some work in Seward,
undergrounding utilities, expanding the footprint there
so we can have a good surge yard of place for pipe,
and also identifying, there's some uncertainty
in Fairbanks where that pipe offload would be.
Transportation is a big part of this project, but it's really a pipe handling project from
a logistics standpoint.
Getting it off the ship, getting it on a rail car, and then getting off of the rail
car destination.
To make this whole transportation network happen, it needs to get loaded quickly and
it need to be off loaded.
I saw a question.
Yes, are you at the end of this slide?
Let me just finish.
Yes please do.
So the senator's question, and then the last is rolling stock.
So this is up to 200 trains on the railroad, trains take locomotives.
And in the summer we have all those 55 locomotive are all engaged and
allocated to those 2500 train starts that we do, so
we have 12 on here, I would say that's the high end. It could be as little as four,
probably eight is the sweet spot, but it could
be up to 12 depending on cycle time. There's a lot of things that those numbers depend on.
And then those are readily available in a lower 48 power locomotives in the railroad
a lot of the class one railroads.
We currently lease at least railroad locomotives
from the Union Pacific every year
for our summer, heavy summer season.
We lease four or five just to make sure
that we have enough power to run our business.
So that would be a continuation of that,
that getting our hands on locomotive would not be hard.
A bigger challenge is the potential
389 foot flat cars that don't have.
Those are longer lead items.
That's one of those issues that
we would need a green light.
to go out and make sure we're getting those cars and getting them here on time.
And the final note, there is no allocation in the 2026 capital budget for those items.
And that finishes this slide. Very good. So, Senator Wieckowski, you asked this question. Do you have any follow-ups?
I do. And it was particularly pertaining to the rolling stock.
If construction and we are hearing Glenfarn is going to be laying pipe in December,
Do you have the rolling stock that you need for the end of this year?
Through the Chair, Sarah Wollockowski, we do not have it today.
Well, and then can we expect a capital budget request for that?
Or do you do your own?
I mean, how does this work?
I just refresh my recollection on that.
And then how quickly does it take to get these things?
You need 300 flat cars and 12-least eight-piece locomotives.
All right.
Through the chair, Senator Wolkowski.
So let's talk about locomotive first.
That's typically a 60-day, you know, 60 to 90 days.
It's just fighting space on our barge.
Most of those locomotives that we've been leasing now are in the Pacific Northwest.
We have a strong relationship with the Union Pacific.
They're a partner of ours in Seattle.
And so that side of it's, I don't have
a lot of sleepless nights about locomotive.
The 89 foot flat cars is more of a challenge.
So we are scouring the country looking for leasing opportunities of used 89
foot-flat cars as we speak.
for new builds, and those are up against that schedule
that you asked, right?
That those could be six to nine monthly times
on those, depending on if they're lease,
probably is it more available to get up here in time
if there are a new build, that's a longer lead item.
Oh.
Follow up.
Yeah, then in your conversations with Glenfarb,
my understanding is a lot of the pipe will be underground
I'm just curious how much can they late pipe in the middle of the winter or does that
I mean I was curious if there's a disparity between what what you're shipping in
the Winter versus what your shipping and the spring and summer when the ground
goes and their construction ability to do this and in
the in winter when everything's frozen. Well through the chair of Senator Wieckowski I am
high-level schedule that was in the FERC application,
also in our discussion.
That is a year-round operation.
It'll be lane pipe year round, and quite frankly,
some of the work will have to be done in
the winter because it's easier to access,
you know, that part of
the alignment, so it'll
be a Year-Round operation,
it will be Lane Pipe all year around.
It doesn't really, they have,
I mean, I say X70, X80,
if you see the actual pipe schedule,
you'll know there's multiple different types
of pipe for different applications.
Primary, you know, but 85% of it is general line pipe,
but then there are special, depending on geotech reports and such,
there's different pipes that they'll,
you Know, pipeline crossings under, say, under the railroad.
There's a different pipe. Road crossings, a
different type. But I don't, I
don t believe that would be how Glenfarn manages their delivery
to us its pipe? You know we haul pipe
Yes, Mr. O'Leary, we'll call on you next.
Thank you, Chair Giesle.
Just following up with the senator's question about what we're becoming asking for a capital
budget allocation, no,
we will not.
The Alaska Railroad, again, is charged with being self-sustaining, and only in very, very
rare and situations have we come to the legislature asking
for any kind of funding whatsoever.
So as Mr. Hop noted, or as the slide notes,
we've identified roughly $10 million worth of capital
that would be needed should the project commitment.
be made should we say that this is go and so we are not while we
are looking at this particular point for the flat cars making sure we
are ready to move when that commitment comes but
we're not moving forward at the particular
point we do have the funding the capital funding
allocated in our twenty twenty six we'll calendar your operation
as opposed to the state's fiscal year but we have those funds
allocated to our 2026 capital budget however ready
to that commitment come forward.
Thank you.
So I'm gonna move to Senator Kawasaki,
who I missed on the previous slide.
I apologize.
So Senator Kowasaki.
Thank You, Madam Chair.
Yes, on slide, let me think.
I guess it was the last slide
and it regarding the total number of tonnage
over the certain amount or over
the year and if it
was 80.
I'm trying to get the total compared to a prior slide on the annual freight summary.
And so I thought I had that it was 8,000,8 million extra tons.
But is that actually the case?
So through the chair, Senator Kawasaki.
So 2025, we've moved 3.9 million tons of pipe weight we're talking here.
Tons upwards of 800,000 tons. So less than a million tons of pipe. Okay
Thank you for that clarification and then follow up
Thank You on the on this slide that we were just talking about on The least I
I'm gonna be back up in Fairbanks. I've tried to find a rental car difficult to fine a real car cost $199 a day right now
So you sort of answered the question about the least locomotives. That's great
and that you're now up against the
You might be up against this window if you were to, like, six to nine months out, try
to figure out whether you can lease that number of cars.
Can you just elaborate a little bit more, what it's going to take.
It's not like you could just go on orbits and find a car really quick.
So I'm just curious what that would require.
I'm trying to figure out the logistics because you hear different information from different
parts of players of the whole thing.
Through the chair and the center.
So yes to all of it, you know, we currently haul pipe.
We have enough flat cars to essentially run a pipe train now, the dedicated to that service.
So that's part of what we would work with with Glen Farm is all this pipe going to
Or will there be a plus-up on the delivery pipe that I don't know yet?
Those are the kind of matter of fact we're meeting here in the next week with Glen Farm.
Those the kinds of questions that we have, we certainly have this conversation with
Glen Farne about the availability of flat cars and that it is a challenge.
And believe it or not, there are several entities out there that do nothing but lease flatcars.
The North American market knows that the Alaska rail is looking for flat cars
Just anecdotally we had a meeting last week with a group that thought they had an inside track on a hundred and seventy flatcars
And by the time we got them into our boardroom that they have vanished but
People know we're looking forward. We're our procurement apartment is also out there looking
For them. They're also in in talks with the fabricators, right?
Like the boss said, we really need a green light to go on some of those things.
Follow up, Senator Koseki.
Thank you.
And just on the total amount since we've talked about capital planning, one of the things
that the railroad corporation can do is bond for special purposes.
The pipeline was one those special purpose in 4240.
I'm curious, is that a decision that could be made by the board of directors of The
bringing that back under legislative approval, or is that something that needs to come to the legislature?
Through the Chair, Senator Kawasaki, actually about two slides in, we're going to address that, but spoiler alert,
any bonds that would be issued by the Alaska Railroad would need to have full legislative authorization.
Even though there would no, well we'll get to that but yes, thank you.
All right, next on the list, I'll hold my question.
Next on those, Senator Dunbar.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
So my questions is similar with cuts
in the opposite direction of Senator Wilkowski's.
And you've sort of answered it, but I'd
like a little more specificity.
Much of the Alaskan government right now
is thinking about ways to prepare for this gas line.
The chair's staff has discovered, and there's other evidence out there, you know, Glenfarn has
missed some deadlines on their first application. I think some of us, myself included,
remain skeptical that the financing will actually emerge for this project. Hopeful, but a little
bit skeptical. And so you said that it's in your 2026 capital budget,
but you need a green light.
So, can you speak a little bit more about what exactly does that mean, you know, how
committed are you to spending this money?
And then, is there some of this you could spend that would be a general good for the
railroad that even if the product doesn't go forward would still be helpful?
Or is it some that if you spend it and the project doesn t emerge is sort of a sunk cost?
Sort of what what kind of risk is there right now in your budget and at what point do you actually commit okay?
We're gonna spend five million dollars on this project
Even if and then it may perhaps it doesn't materialize
Through the chair center Dunbar all really good questions and it's something you know
We made the decision working with our board
who is, you know, our really governing body about this,
that we need to be prepared for the gas line,
but at the same time, not commit,
you a significant amount of resource.
I mean, we're certainly doing planning right now,
as Mr. Hop has discussed and all of that,
but before we make any kind of capital commitments,
we would certainly need much
greater security that this project was moving forward.
And those would include agreements with the developer as an example.
And it would be something that we would go back to our board to release these particular monies.
So we built our 2026 capital budget on
kind of a with and without approach on this.
So that, I mean, the monies right now are allocated, are being held back,
and are not being spent until there is that acknowledgement that we are to move forward on it.
If for whatever reason the project does not move
Trust me, when I tell you, we've got some very, very other,
or good other uses planned for those funds at this point.
So, right now, like many others, you know,
waiting for that final investment decision.
Brief of all, Mr. Chair, I'll just say I appreciate that answer.
I think that's a very good answer
You need some kind of actual agreement, some sort of firm commitment before you actually spend money on this.
Hopefully you can read to pull those funds quickly if it doesn't emerge.
But I just really appreciate that.
Being careful with, you are a private entity in some ways, or you operate that way, but ultimately this is public money.
And we don't want to throw good money after bad, and hopefully that's not what we're doing.
We've got to be very careful before we spend more money on a gas line given the state's history.
We need something very firm, and it sounds like that's what you're doing.
So thank you very much.
Thank you, Senator Myers.
Thank You. So I'm looking at the terminal improvements and the spur extensions.
And I am thinking about construction timeline on those.
Glenn Francis, they want to start laying pipe in December.
They've also said that they're looking at FID
about the end of March, if I remember right.
So at best case scenario, you've got one construction season.
I know you got, when it comes to terminal improvements,
you have got a little bit more time in there
because I've seen you guys do terminal
improvements in the middle of the winter.
But timeline wise, can we get all of this done
and how much farther can they push out F.I.D.
to get your green light before that starts.
getting in the way of the timeline for those external improvements.
Through the chair, Senator Myers, I apologize ahead of time for being a little technical in my response here.
Those six to eight locations that we're talking about, particularly on the rail,
they already exist and they exist this way.
There's typically not every case, but there's a 6,000 foot sighting that exists there.
as a sighting that's where we pass trains right and then there'll be a spur which
is a open-ended track that is off of that sighting and in these locations it
may be anywhere from 800 feet to maybe up to the 2600 feet that we're looking
for but in the interim if we don't have enough time to get that capital work done
into this one construction season we've prepared a contingency plan in our
use those sightings to park the cars until the spurs were available and we can we
can work around those sitings as they're occupied with pipe cars from until we
could get the sightings built out and with that said we do build track in the
winter the big hurdle is to get their work done in
the summer so you know and were not talking monumental construction here
Okay thank you. Senator Wilakowski. Thank you I wanted to follow up on Senator Dunbar's question.
Is there a what is the triggering event for you to go forward on these things? Is it
is it the moment that Glenfarn hits FID?
Is that when you have a firm agreement with GlenFarn or a contract with Glenn Farn to
go ahead and ship these thing what when do you pull the trigger and start spending these funds?
Through the Chair of Senator Willakowski, the ultimate triggering event will be when the board tells me to, at this point.
But that will, when there has been a decision to move forward on this, and we are comfortable that we have the organizations comfortable and our board degrees that
The correct agreements are we're further far enough along on the agreements that?
With the developer that we know this is going to move forward and we were going too. We have a project and this
Is what's needed
All right, I see no further questions, but I wanted to make one comment, you know listening to you mr. Hop
We have a consultant called Pegasus and they have reviewed
with us the kinds of things that people should be considering
as they look at mega projects and it sounds like they see,
that's exactly what the railroad is doing.
Contingency plans, but not taking the big dive
to you know for sure those kinds
of thing so I appreciate that.
I'll let you move on to slide eight.
And I will be brief here and if there are questions that is great.
Ties back to my statement when we started that the best way to be you know prepared for big projects that come along
Is make sure your infrastructure is a state of good repair and this just talks about some of the investments that we we have made in our making
The Port of Seward improvements, right? We have a $25 million freight dock expansion
We talked about the timing a little bit there.
We may have to alter that project.
We're also undergrounding utilities
and sewer and creating increased lay-down space.
And that benefits our business
and Seward just not the pipeline project, right?
We have seen an uptick in business over the last
three years and sewers separate from this project
A big one for us is a bridge abilidation program.
You know, we were pretty excited to celebrate 100 years, two years ago.
I tell you also, that means a lot of our bridges are 100-years-old, which requires a
lot work.
But we have been doing a lotta good work, decade-long, 500 million minimum investment
in our bridge.
We're at two hundred sixty three thousand pound railroad. That means we can put that's what the max weight of a car is
And we try to max those that weight out all the time to be efficient and moving
We are close with a couple of key bridges if that are in under construction now that we
Can begin looking at moving our railroad 200 and 286 thousand pounds capacity, which is a really big deal
That's quite a bit of an increase in our capacity per rail car and
We will be positioned that that's a potential
Depending on the schedule that we could temporarily go to two hundred and eighty six thousand pound railroad for the pipeline construction
So we would be very aggressive at trying to up our capacity
Maybe even for short term to get that pipe over the road
And then we've got ten million dollar investment. We just made in
2024 we acquired
four additional locomotives
That's just general growth in our business and the one thing I'd add here when you looked at the tonnage
Right tonneage doesn't always represent number of trains. Sometimes some of the things we haul are lighter
And particularly the growth and our passenger business which requires more locomotives also, so we are busy
We have more local motives than we've ever had at The Alaska Railroad and they are all in the particularly in this summer
They were all engaged and working we need them all
And we also mentioned that in the last year we have increased from five-day-a-way week freight service to six- day-of-week freight
service and depending volumes that come at us easily could expand that to seven-ay- a- week
freight surface. Any questions on our capital?
I see no questions. Thank you. Moving to slide nine.
Is this me? Yes. So another part of this story.
is, you know, like those 36,000 acres that we own,
all right, about 18, 000 of this operational acres
that is along the railroad.
And of course, Glen farmed the pipeline alignment interacts
with our right-of-way in several different locations.
There's pipeline crossings,
there's the need for pipe storage yards on our
right away, and so that's a permit need.
And so we have been fully engaged.
Our real estate department has been
fully engage with eight-star Alaska.
And the permitting process has already started.
Permit area is roughly 28,000 feet,
extending from railroad milepost to 79.6,
which is south of Hurricane,
to north of the western border of The Healy Reserve.
So really, almost the northern third of our railroad
quite a bit of interaction with the pipeline alignment.
And the railroad continues to work
where they start to accommodate corridor
and reserve permits in support of that planned construction.
So I think those discussions and that work
has gone very smoothly.
That's what our real estate group does
is we're permitting projects all the time.
So we are fully engaged in that effort.
I see no questions.
All right. Well, I think we've, you know, had a good opportunity to, to listen to Mr.
Hauptalk, both about our freight capabilities and also just touch on some of our real estate
interactions with regard to the pipeline. So what I'm going to talk about on this slide
is how the possibility of some financial activities and financing with the
I'm going to have to take you back into the way back time machine at this point to roughly
the 2002 time frame when a team of bankers and lawyers, bond lawyers discovered in both
transfer act, the document that the federal government, you know,
the Federal legislation that transferred the Alaska Railroad
to the state of Alaska, that there was a really some very special
abilities granted to
the Alaskan Railroad that was then reaffirmed
when the Tax Reform Act of 1986
was completed. And this
the ability of the Alaska Railroad,
much as Senator Kawasaki was referring to,
to some special abilities issuing tax exempt bonds
to finance any one of a number of different things.
This was thought at the time to be a very powerful tool
that could be used for, wait for it,
the gas line back in 2002, 2003 timeframe.
And as a result of that, the legislature approved a bill
authorizing the Alaska Railroad to issue up to $17 billion of bonds
in support of the project that was being considered at the time.
There were a number of different caveats to that legislation or pieces of
not the least of which was that it was subject
to the railroad entering into an agreement with,
at that point it considered the producers
with a third party to ensure
that the debt service would be paid for that.
They were talking about the concept of conduit bonds,
which I'll talk a little bit more about here in a moment.
So, that language.
Quite honestly, from our perspective and from many most other lawyers' perspectives is very clear
as to what the railroads' abilities are to do that. However, it is really literally the Alaska
railroad that has this ability in the US. So it was very clearly also that the lawyer said,
a determination from the Internal Revenue Service that it says what it
says and that yes, you are able to issue these kinds of bonds.
That particular version strain of the gas line did not move forward at that particular point.
And the bond authorization sat unused for a number of years until the 2018 or
time frame, the 2019 legislative session when Senate finance related to another bond
authorization we were seeking said, wouldn't it be nice to kind of clean up some of these older bond authorizations and
particular piece of legislation, but regardless, we were well aware that before these powers
could be brought to bear to be used that we would need a determination from the Internal
Revenue Service about this.
So it comes now to progress on the 2025 gas line, or it come to the progress of the gas
We took a look at that and said, yes, we still, of course, have this language in the, you know, nothing has changed at the federal law, or the
federal level, about this.
And wouldn't it be good to have, to understand whether this tool could be used for the gas lines should have moved forward?
Laying out what the law, laying out, what, you know, the intended use of this, of issuing tax exempt debt could be.
And ask them for a determination as to whether or not this was something that,
you could, could used.
And so that lay with the IRS until about two weeks ago,
revenue ruling 2026-4 was released.
And this revenue-ruling from the IRS effectively clarifies what the railroads' abilities are.
And with a couple of minor exceptions, it is exactly what it says it isn't exactly
what we thought it would be.
The Alaska Railroad bonds issued by the Alaska railroad for this project and a number of related projects related to the natural gas pipeline
Private activity rules are a strain of tax exempt debt that is constrained by something
they call the volume cap as to how much you can issue, and also that it's more expensive
debt.
It's still cheaper than going out on the straight taxable market, but not being subject to these
that could be very, very useful in perhaps making this,
in helping the financing of this project.
So the rates, effectively, the rate would be lower
than some of the other options out there.
There has been no decision at this point, you know, Glenfarn is a public ruling.
GlenFarn was aware or made aware of this ruling, many others have been made
aware, of the ruling there has no decisions yet to move forward with this.
But it's something that we think is
a tremendously important tool, something
that could be tremendously powerful in helping to finance this project going forward.
That said, a couple of really important points.
The type of structure that we would be using to go forward
with something like this should it happen is what they call
conduit bonds, where effectively the Alaska Railroad would
be, yes, the issuer of such bonds.
But the Alaskan Railroad wouldn't have
would not carry this debt on its balance sheet, nor would the Alaska Railroad be liable for the repayment of these bonds.
That would rest with the developer or the group, I mean, whatever, subsidiary, they may or may not set up about something like that.
My statute, well, first of all, as I mentioned earlier, any time bonds are involved.
Not bank loans, or anything like that, but bonds are involved.
It is statutorily required that the railroad receive authority from the legislature prior to being able to issue those bonds.
I know that many people have been concerned about, well, what does this mean?
Could there be, again, liability to either the rail road or to the state?
And, again, as conduit bonds, there would be no liability back to the Alaska Railroad.
And by statute, by existing statute there is Alaska railroad, or debts of the Alaskan
Railroad are simply that.
They are not debts to state.
They cannot be debts at the state, it is explicitly prohibited in our enabling statute at this
point.
Effectively, where it stands, this is, I think, something that is a really, really unique opportunity,
whether or not the developer will take advantage of it.
At this particular point is unclear.
I don't think a decision has necessarily been made at this point, but we're excited about it
being there to help move such a project along.
This is another tool that could assist in making this long awaited project a reality.
Senator Willacowski, question?
Thank you.
You mentioned that the previous bonding authority was $17 billion, is that still the same?
Through the Chair, Senator willacowsky.
Previous bonding authority was $17 billion, but that was repealed in 2018 by
When would through Senate Finance started that process by the legislature
What's your bonding what would be your bonding authority now for this project?
Through the chair, Senator Willakowski
Is that so unclear at this point? I mean, you know from my particular perspective work to move forward
I would think we would want a significant amount of bonding authority,
given that there are controls in place that you are not going to be able to issue bonds just because you feel like it.
I mean, the way the railroad statutes or legislation has worked historically.
We've come back for either like bonds for the sewer dock or bonds
for our own capital purposes.
We are given a not to exceed amount by the legislature.
It's not a requirement that we issue that much certainly.
But those controls, as I mentioned,
were there would need to be an agreement in place certainly for
the debt service to paid out there.
And also that, again, the standard that there, of course, would be no liability.
But at the end to the state or the railroad, at end of the day,
the ultimate control is the market is not going to let you issue bonds that
they don't believe you're going be able to repay.
Long would it answer and I apologize for that.
Follow up.
Yeah, so if you were to issue bond, it's a 10 billion or so.
hypothetically. Does the rail would get anything for doing that or does the state get
anything? Do you get like a share of the of interest or a fee or anything like that?
Through the chair, Senator Wilakowski, that would be something that
would just be negotiated between the railroad and the, you know, whoever is the beneficiary
To do a conduit bond
Through the chair, Senator Wilakowski
We have had brief discussions with
The developer at this point making them aware of you know, how we see this
You know this ability this power could be but I wouldn't characterize those as negotiations
at This point and so this has to be approved by the legislature so
We're here till May hopefully done in May
Should we expect something before May or if not
Are we coming next year?
special session what
Sort of thoughts on that through the chair of senator Wilakowski, I think it's a great question
I'm I I thank it say as I mentioned and you know, it is a marvelous tool that would be
purely
But my opinion on this would be great to have in place at this point, but no decision.
I mean, this is something that certainly the developer would have some interest in,
I don't know, we need to understand what their level of interest is at the particular point.
Certainly, the Railroad Board of Directors would need
to approve anything like that, even moving forward to come to the legislature.
Just one last one. Yes, Senator Willakowski. What would be the timeline then from the time that the legislature approved a conduit bond to the
issuance of the bond and so I'm just curious timeline is it like a few weeks a couple months and then what is the
What does the market expect in terms of clarity? Would they expect like?
How fleshed out of a project would they except before they before something like this went out for sale?
Through the chair, senator Willikowski, I mean
Certainly, this would not be something, you know, to be very clear, we have not done
conduit bonds, the previous bond issuances that we
have done at this point.
So, um,
you
know we
have financial advisers and we've spoken with them about timing and things of this nature.
And I
mean, it's not,
you
know
debt bond financing in the municipal market
is a tremendously cost-effective,
tremendously efficient way of doing things.
It's not a tremendous quick way
of things, there are certainly many steps
that need to be taken,
it's definitely those steps I think would be measured.
more in weeks and months than days.
This point, but I couldn't really give you a time frame.
At this point a lot would be if and when the project moves
forward, if, and, when their developer would
be interested in moving forward using this tool,
the different approvals that would
be required, it's very difficult for me to tell you, you know.
from X it would be there but I mean it could be my guess at this point is something that could
be done in a matter of months after receiving the approval.
Further questions? Yes, Senator Kawasaki. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I dug up the 2002 law
And some of the discussions at the time were that this act, this particular allowance
for the Alaska Railroad Corporation was supposed to be that it would broadly permit the railroad
corporation with the greatest amount of flexibility to accomplish the purpose and then the purposes,
of course, to just to build a pipeline. The $17 billion in legislative approval was the cap.
And I'm trying to understand, so if it were to be, if
it was taken out of statute no longer in there, do you have a cap as you understand it?
Through the Chair of Senator Kawasaki, the cap right now is zero.
We can't issue a bond without legislative approval.
If we were to move forward with something like this, as I understand it,
the mechanics would be we would come in with a request for a bill that would have a number in it that
would serve as the dot to exceed amount.
Okay, so let me restate then.
The maximum principal amount of this bond that the railroad could approve was $17 billion in Senate Bill 2.96.
we would see a bill with a maximum, but it would be based on whatever came from the board of directors.
Through the Chair of Senator Kawasaki, presumably it
would the amount certainly that the Board approves,
but I mean in working in conjunction with the developer and yes.
A little bit different, you know, we talked about
kabata over this time and I know some of us do remember kobata but it was all about whether
this bonding from bonding mechanism through the federal government was going to come back due to
us as a state in case that bond failed and i'm just a little curious because we had competing
memos back and forth about weather whether the liability of the kabbata was gonna become the
liability the state someday and im just curious if there's legal opinions that surround that
discussion. In terms of the railroad.
Through the chairs under Kawasaki, I think it's
very clear in our
enabling statute and we can certainly get you that statutory reference that
you know debt of
the rail road is not or cannot be debt
of state and this isn't even going to be dead of a railroad
that sounds magical. I guess I'm a little concerned because it's sound, I mean of course you'll have
to come back to the legislature at some point to essentially get that maximum set. There's a lot
of things that this pipeline could potentially do and it sounds like the negotiations are potentially
Between the railroad corporation and the entity that might be able to be part of this conduit bond
but not the state that
Assumes some of these costs and that's like I mean there's costs that are affiliated outside of the bonding itself. So
It gives me a little bit of pause just because there the seven members of The Board are not
They're appointed and they're exclusively appointed in not
elected by the people of the state but it sounds like the obligation will
exist way past our expiration dates as legislators. Can you give me some
comfort that that there will be a lot more legislative discretion and approval
over a potential issuance of a $17 billion bond?
You know, I can only tell you at this point what has been done in the past, really, and
that was certainly a discussion or rigorous discussion about the $17 billion authorization,
certainly out there.
But I think there are a number of controls, as I mentioned in place, the ultimate one
these bonds could actually be sold.
If the concern is this coming back to the state,
you know, like as I said, we can kind of get the we're
comfortable that it cannot as a matter of law.
But we could, you
know again get you some information on the on on
the statutes about that.
Thank you. And I.
I feel more comfortable if we got some sort of legal advice on that about the obligations to the railroad obligations as a conduit and then to actually assume that and just I thought it was very funny because the I'm reading the preparation of the fiscal note drafted in 2002.
And how does it that it is prepared by the vice president of finance and the chief financial officer, Mr. Bill O'Leary.
Wow, he's been at it a long time.
Through the chair to Chair Giesle's question
about how long the tenure of some Alaskan railroad
employees are, yeah, it's real.
Senator Jumbar.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and this is more a statement
that I hope that Glenfarn and your board here,
although you could also respond to it.
You know, we've all had conversations, I think, at this point with Glenfarn, and they've spoken here as well, the developer, rather.
And there's been talk of Department of Energy financing.
private financing. This is the first time I've heard about this kind of
financing in this context. And what I'll say is I share some of the concerns that
I think that Senator Kawasaki was alluding to about the idea that there's no way to
pierce the veil or whatever you want to call it and not make us responsible for
this bond given the railroads potential involvement in it.
And so what else say, is, you know, we are hoping that this project pencils.
the developer can find a way to make this project pencil and I would urge them and your board
to not make it turn on this question or whether or not the legislature will prove this vehicle
that is it should pencil with some other kind of financing and maybe this will be some extra
icing on the cake and it means that there's some additional construction you can do or maybe it
What I don't want to see is an exploding offer that comes to the legislature that says.
Whether or not the gas line goes forward is dependent on you saying yes or no to this railroad bond.
That is putting the legislature and the people of Alaska
in a position that I think is irresponsible.
And I I almost think by default we should say no
because I do not believe that we would not be held accountable
or should I say that if the project failed
that Alaska would be not held accountable.
So again this is more for the folks at Glen Farne
and your board that might eventually talk about using
this avenue, this conduit bond.
Do not make the Project turn on this question.
Does that.
It makes sense, Mr. O'Leary.
Through the chair, Senator Dunbar.
Yes.
OK.
All right.
Well, thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
All Right, I don't see further questions on that.
I will comment, however, that our risk, it seems to me,
is not, well, financial is there.
But if only phase one is built, we
stand to be left holding a very expensive bag.
already. All right, so I think you have another slide 11. Looks like we can go on to that one.
Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Really, this is just the big finish here for lack of a better
term. You know, really, hopefully through the discussions today, we've demonstrated, you know
the railroad's capabilities and our interest. I mean, We are here to
serve Alaska and to act as an agent for economic development in Alaska.
And I think our, and I do think we do a good job at that, but I
think this project should it move forward is going to be something that
will, the railroad will be involved with in a number of different aspects.
And, you know, we look forward to.
working with all of the different stakeholders to move that forward and just really with that just a very much appreciate your time.
It's enjoyable to come to the legislature and actually talk a little bit about railroad stuff sometimes, too, and that's been good today, so thank you.
Thank you, Mr. O'Leary. I appreciate you and Mr.. Hopp and Ms. Clemens being here
I'd appreciate your last slide that you used to caboose for the picture
It was very quick
Coincidence, I think not
I'm pretty sure not. Yes, and it's always fun to see a railroad engine a less heroic engine
My boys always had model
H.O.
scale and they have several Alaska River engines and cars.
So thank you very much for your presentation.
With that, that concludes our agenda today.
I do have some announcements.
I'm setting an amendment deadline for Senate Bill 180.
That's LNG import facilities.
The deadline four amendments will be Wednesday, February 18.
That is the next Wednesday at noon.
I am also setting in amendment, deadline, for senate bill 227.
This is the governor's tax bill, tax compact, sales tax, oil and gas tax.
That deadline will be Wednesday, February 18th at noon.
So this concludes our meeting.
Our next meeting will this Friday, Feb. 13th, oh, I also wanted to announce.
We have enough members present on February 20th that we will have a resources meeting
And it will be the introduction of a bill, an ADF and G bill.
So it would just be a presentation.
We actually don't even need a quorum, but I think we will probably have a Quorum present.
So just letting you know that.
So our next meeting will will February 13th, that's Friday, oh good, 3.30 PM.
And so that will hearing Senate Bill 158, this is first hearing,
So at this time we will stand adjourned. Let the record reflect. The time is 4.55 p.m.