A Citizen’s Guide

The pieces are gradually moving into final position down in Juneau for an eventual vote by the Alaska Legislature on the natural gas pipeline agreement that Gov. Frank Murkowski has reached with Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips and BP. And with those pieces—in the form of separate bills relating to the total gas line agreement—now in front of the Legislature, two overarching forces are coming into focus. These aren’t the forces of the governor and the oil companies and the various factions in the Legislature, however.

No, these are the more-encompassing forces of the legitimate need to conclude a gas contract in an efficient manner and the real need to take the time to ensure that the contract is the best one for Alaska.

These two forces need not be in competition, however. Ensuring they aren’t in competition is the challenge for the Legislature, which should be aiming to get a timely and good deal for Alaska. With the Legislature in the throes of its work after many months of hearing about a possible gas pipeline agreement, the words of a Daily News-Miner editorial from Oct. 30, 2005 ring as true today as they did back when winter was commencing and the governor was dealing with the fallout of the departure of several people from the Department of Natural Resources over their objections to his gas line negotiations:

“… Faith can only be restored by one entity: the Alaska Legislature.

“The Legislature, which already had the task of approving or rejecting a contract, must now assume the additional role of engendering public confidence in not only the process but also in the worthiness of a contract that it approves. Gov. Murkowski can no longer serve as a believable salesman of a gas line contract. That job, too, must fall to state legislators—of both parties.

“Where just two weeks ago the Legislature was seen publicly as the entit ythat would be called on to ratify a contract, it now must be called on to be the principal verifier of an agreement’s benefits to the state. Legislators of both parties must recognize this new responsibility and make efforts to live up to it. A contract between the state and the three oil companies—ConocoPhillips, BP and Exxon Mobil—was certain to be the subject of intense scrutiny by lawmakers anyway. But legislators now must look for ways to convince the public that the process is not being rushed and driven by the oil companies and the governor’s constant pressure for an agreement.

“The loss of key members of the Murkowski gas team and the eruption of doubt about the governor’s gas line effort has without question reshaped the legislative aspect of a gas line contract. There’s already talk that the legislative debate and scrutiny will need to be extended and expanded and more open to convince the public…

“The Legislature must press ahead, however, with an eye to restoring confidence but also with an eye on the global gas market. Alaska does not have an unlimited amount of time in which to get a gas line built and filled; projects elsewhere in the world will be competing for market share, and it’s believed Alaska has but a few years to get its project going. The Alaska Legislature, the site of much partisanship over the years, has an opportunity to rise in a bipartisan way on behalf of all Alaskans at this critical stage. It also has an obligation to do so.”

That hasn’t changed with the passing of the seasons.

Now more than ever in this process, Alaska needs the Legislature to show itself as a thoughtful, strong and independent branch of government.