The Alaska Senate Finance Committee heard a briefing from the Alaska Gas Line Development Corporation (AGDC) on a phased approach to the Alaska LNG project and a proposed Phase 1 in‑state pipeline during a committee meeting in February.

AGDC President Frank Richards told the committee AGDC currently owns 100% of the Alaska LNG project and is pursuing private partners to carry the project to final investment decision. “We are currently the 100% owner of the Alaska LNG project,” Richards said. He described a full project cost estimate the corporation has previously presented at about $44 billion (early‑2024 dollars) and said the Phase 1 pipeline — a 42‑inch line designed to move gas from the North Slope toward Southcentral Alaska — is currently estimated at about $10.8 billion (AGDC estimate, not adjusted here for later market changes).

The presentation framed Phase 1 as a way to supply in‑state demand first, with off‑takes available along the 807‑mile route and a downstream liquefaction facility in Nikiski as a later phase. AGDC said the full pipeline design capacity is about 3 billion standard cubic feet per day (scfd); projected in‑state needs modeled for Phase 1 range from roughly 180 million to 200 million scfd. AGDC presented a Wood Mackenzie independent analysis that modeled a range of delivered gas costs: Wood Mackenzie’s cases for imported LNG ranged about $10.21–$13.72 per MMBtu (real 2024 dollars), and its Phase 1 “base‑load” blended case produced a delivered cost near $11.20 per MMBtu with roughly 80 million scfd of average throughput in the study period.

Why the project matters: the Wood Mackenzie study included job and economic impact estimates that AGDC said would favor the pipeline over imported LNG for Alaskans. AGDC summarized Wood Mackenzie’s output as showing Phase 1 produces more in‑state jobs during construction and operations and a multi‑billion‑dollar positive economic impact to the state when compared to importing LNG.

Financing and developer role: Matt Kissinger, AGDC’s head of commercial and venture development, said AGDC and its proposed developer would structure financing along standard project‑finance lines. “We’re looking at around 70% debt, 30% equity,” Kissinger said, adding that the debt would be expected to be supported in part by federal loan guarantees and by long‑term off‑take contracts. AGDC said it has an exclusivity term sheet with a developer that the presenters named as Glenfarn (presentations used variant spellings in the record), and said the developer has committed to fund front‑end engineering and design (FEED) work and to carry the project toward final investment decision. Under the structure described, the state/AGDC would retain an option to hold up to 25% of a top‑level holding company (the presenters called it H Star Alaska / 8 Star Alaska LNG) but would not be obligated to contribute capital beyond that option unless the legislature and the state decide to do so.

Risk points and contingencies raised by the committee: senators pressed AGDC on several categories of risk. Committee members asked how possible U.S. steel tariffs and Buy America requirements tied to federal loan guarantees might affect costs and sourcing; AGDC said those regulation details are still unresolved and under discussion with the Department of Energy and that the team is updating the cost estimate to reflect known market pressures. On labor and logistics, senators noted the magnitude of construction, possible bottlenecks on the Dalton Highway and Parks Highway, port handling (Seward was cited as a likely import port for pipe), and a limited in‑state workforce for a project of this scale. AGDC said it has engaged unions and transportation agencies and believes existing corridors and recent retrofits reduce—but do not eliminate—logistical risk.

Gas supply and price assumptions: AGDC described a recently signed gas‑supply precedent agreement with a developer identified in the presentation as Great Bear Pantheon; AGDC said early flow tests from that prospect showed gas with low CO2 and H2S such that it could enter the pipeline with minimal treatment (presenters characterized the commodity price in that limited discussion as up to $1 per MMBtu under that supply precedent). AGDC also identified Point Thompson and Prudhoe Bay as backup supplies but noted varying constituent gas treatment needs would raise delivered cost in some cases.

Taxes, rates and sensitivity: committee members asked how earlier assumptions — including property tax treatment and royalty assumptions — affect delivered cost. AGDC summarized Wood Mackenzie sensitivities: for example, increasing the modeled property tax from the study’s low assumption to a higher rate added roughly $2.20 per MMBtu in that sensitivity, and choosing Point Thompson supply rather than the low‑treatment prospect added about $0.78 per MMBtu in the presented scenarios. AGDC said the modeling includes contingencies and that FEED will update the class‑3 cost estimate the project would use to negotiate commercial contracts.

Developer commitments, ADA backstop and next steps: AGDC said it has been negotiating a developer agreement and is also negotiating a $50 million backstop/FEED support financing term with an authority referenced in the record as ADA; presenters said some developer parties have committed up to $150 million total for FEED across the subprojects (pipeline, gas‑treatment plant, liquefaction) but that definitive agreements had not been fully executed at the time of the presentation. AGDC characterized the developer commitment as taking the primary development and funding risk through FEED and toward final investment decision, while the state would retain decision authority on any later equity contribution. AGDC said it would provide the committee a list of major outstanding decisions and issues to help inform legislators and that it expects FEED work to be the immediate next technical step.

Committee reaction and remaining work: senators signaled ongoing support for the project’s goal of delivering lower‑cost gas to Alaskans but repeatedly stressed the committee needs updated, peer‑reviewed cost and execution plans and clear allocations of cost‑overrun, tax and royalty risk. “What we don’t want is an upside‑down project,” Senator Stedman said during questioning. Several senators requested briefings on comparable projects, market‑participant perspectives (traders and international buyers), and a clearer statement of who would bear downside risk in plausible stress scenarios.

Administrative note and follow up: the committee paused further action on the AGDC presentation and said it would resume consideration at a follow‑up meeting; AGDC’s Frank Richards closed by agreeing to provide the committee a concise list of issues and timelines by the end of the week and to continue negotiations with the developer and the ADA authority while pursuing FEED work.

Note: the article summarizes testimony and figures presented to the Senate Finance Committee by AGDC and questions from committee members. Cost figures reported here are AGDC estimates or Wood Mackenzie results presented at the hearing; FEED and market changes (tariffs, inflation, procurement rules) will change final numbers as AGDC completes updated cost estimates.