Video Clips

Quoted moments from Alaska public meetings, hearings, and press conferences.

Clips from Regulatory Commission of AlaskaClear

Frank Richards

“I'm told, but I've never seen it, it's less than $150 million. Understood. No, I think that's helpful because we've heard numbers from $150 to $200 and then $240, so we should be thinking in the range of the $150 range. Through the chair, Senator Steadman again, and I believe that that includes not only not only the initial 38 miles, but also extensions out now out to North Pole and potentially out and beyond into Eielson.”

Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance - June 16, 2026 1:30pm · Jun 16, 2026

0:43

Adam Prestidge

“if it is Glenfarn that builds the Fairbanks Spur Line, or if it is an Alaska Native corporation, or one of the utilities, or a joint venture that includes all of those parties or some of those parties, it doesn't have an impact on the eligibility of the Alaska LNG Project. So long as these conditions are satisfied.”

Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance - June 16, 2026 1:30pm · Jun 16, 2026

0:55

Adam Prestidge

“it is not a firm commitment that all of the permits must be obtained because that is outside of the scope of the project developer's control. That is outside of 8 Star's control. At the end of the day, if there is a regulatory agency that for some reason declined to issue permits for the Fairbanks Spur Line, we wouldn't want that to jeopardize the tax treatment for the overall project that benefits the entire state of Alaska.”

Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance - June 16, 2026 1:30pm · Jun 16, 2026

1:24

Claire Knudsen-Latta

“proposed statutory revisions with HB 381 require that for a project to be eligible for tax abatement under AS 43, 59-010, it must include a spur line to the City of Fairbanks and Fairbanks North Star Borough, and the cost of the spur line must be allocated in a just, reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory manner across all consumers system-wide.”

Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance - June 16, 2026 1:30pm · Jun 16, 2026

0:20

Lyman Hoffman

“I would expect, highly expect that there are going to be cost overruns. What happens to the Fairbanks spur line given the language in Section 19 that I referred to?”

Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance - June 16, 2026 1:30pm · Jun 16, 2026

0:44

Adam Prestidge

“the question might come, why would we want— why would other ratepayers in Alaska be willing to accept this additional cost? And the reality is, having Fairbanks have access to gas and being a buyer and consumer of gas off the pipeline is good for everyone.”

Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance - June 16, 2026 1:30pm · Jun 16, 2026

0:24

Adam Prestidge

“Extending it to all of the ratepayers across Alaska stretches that concept a little bit. Extending it to global LNG buyers extends it far outside of the bounds of commercial sensibility. And so we recommend removing that.”

Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance - June 16, 2026 1:30pm · Jun 16, 2026

0:54

Adam Prestidge

“That additional cost, if the RCA were to approve a tariff that spread the cost across all of the users, would be a a very low additional cost to Fairbanks consumers on top of what would be the $16 tariff. when we're talking about the incremental cost that would be spread across customers, you're looking at, you know, something— 10 cents. I can't pin down an exact number, but in the range of 20 to 30 cents per MMBtu of gas would be the amount that would be spread across all buyers.”

Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance - June 16, 2026 1:30pm · Jun 16, 2026

0:46

Claire Knudsen-Latta

“spreading the cost of the spur line across the entire system acts to decrease the rates related to the spur as costs are spread over a greater area. However, in utility and pipeline regulation, there is a well-founded principle which appears at 3 AAC 48510 that the causer of the cost and consequently recipient of the cost benefit should also be the one to pay the cost. System-wide recovery would be contrary to this principle as not all users of the system are causing the cost or receiving the benefits of the SPUR.”

Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance - June 16, 2026 1:30pm · Jun 16, 2026

1:05

Adam Prestidge

“the developer would initiate a tariff proceeding with the Regulatory Commission of Alaska and file for, as has been discussed, a system-wide tariff treatment that would allow the cost of the Fairbanks spur line to be spread across to other customers. the cost of the Fairbanks Spur Line would be spread across other gas buyers from the domestic pipeline.”

Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance - June 16, 2026 1:30pm · Jun 16, 2026

0:55

Claire Knudsen-Latta

“it appears the application by the Alaska Gas Line Development Corporation, or AGDC, did not include the Fairbanks Spur, and thus, it is unlikely that FERC's May 2020 decision extends its jurisdiction over the spur.”

Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance - June 16, 2026 1:30pm · Jun 16, 2026

0:41

Claire Knudsen-Latta

“Not knowing who will construct or operate the line means that the commission cannot answer questions about whether the spur will be economically regulated or not. Additionally, the commission cannot speak to whether the operator will seek certification under AS4206 or AS4208.”

Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance - June 16, 2026 1:30pm · Jun 16, 2026

0:21

Adam Prestidge

“when we talk about the Fairbanks Spur Line, we are— and again, we will give the specific final numbers, but just for frame of reference for this conversation, approximately 30 miles with a diameter of 12 to 14 inches in diameter.”

Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance - June 16, 2026 1:30pm · Jun 16, 2026

0:32

Steve DeVries

“Right now, the plate that we have before us is that FERC has asserted exclusive jurisdiction. Until that changes, FERC and federal jurisdiction preempt state law and would preempt the regulatory commission from taking any action.”

Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance, 6/9/26, 1:30pm · Jun 9, 2026

0:23

John Espindola

“As of right now, we're not involved in any aspect of the project, so specifically speaking to the regulatory commission, we would have no nexus with what happens at this point regarding permitting.”

Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance, 6/9/26, 1:30pm · Jun 9, 2026

0:52

Steve DeVries

“we would look at prudence if the issue is raised. Utility practices are presumed prudent unless they are challenged when a cost is being reviewed by us in a docket. It is when they are challenged and a record is to be developed that shows that it is likely or that serious questions have been raised as to the prudent practices or prudent utility practice of a utility in question that calls the prudence of that decision into question, then we would— then it would be before us to adjudicate.”

Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance, 6/9/26, 1:30pm · Jun 9, 2026

0:18

John Espindola

“Yes, we would, and that would be determined in an adjudicatory proceeding based on a full record.”

Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance, 6/9/26, 1:30pm · Jun 9, 2026

0:30

Julie Vogler

“Without having that contract in front of us, we do not know what's going to be proposed, what will be presented, how they will satisfy the requirements of 4205.141. So those are unknowns to us at this time.”

Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance, 6/9/26, 1:30pm · Jun 9, 2026

0:33

Steve DeVries

“its certificated service area is only allowed to charge rates for services it provides in its certificated service area. If it wanted to expand its service area to include Fairbanks, it would need to apply for a new certificate in order to do so. Whether rates charged for a Fairbanks service area would be the same as those charged for Anchorage or current service area would have to be decided in a particular docket to see whether or not there was a justifiable reason for doing so.”

Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance, 6/9/26, 1:30pm · Jun 9, 2026

0:49

Steve DeVries

“the first step would be for FERC to decline or express or to demonstrate that it no longer is exerting exclusive jurisdiction over the pipe. If that was the case, then we would see the situation come before us, the regulatory commission, as to whether or not the state would— state meaning the regulatory commission— would have jurisdiction to regulate that, the pipeline under those circumstances.”

Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance, 6/9/26, 1:30pm · Jun 9, 2026

0:40

Steve DeVries

“There's a big difference in how the Commission reviews costs to consumers from gas supply contracts and how the commission reviews all other costs. And the reason for that is because there's a specific provision in Title 42, and that statute is on slide 7, which specifically and narrowly constrains our review authority.”

Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance, 6/9/26, 1:30pm · Jun 9, 2026

0:35

John Espindola

“We understand the two phases of the project are still under the purview of FERC jurisdiction, as we have not seen a different determination of jurisdiction in the FERC docket. Under its 2020 decision, jurisdiction lies entirely with FERC for both in-state and export as it relates to the AK LNG project.”

Alaska Legislature: Senate Finance, 6/9/26, 1:30pm · Jun 9, 2026