Gas pipeline plan requires real choices

Scores of Valley residents turned out Wednesday to get a closer look at Gov. Frank Murkowski's proposed gas pipeline contract. The &#8220deal,” inked under a heavy cloak of secrecy with the three North Slope oil producers, has only recently come under scrutiny, thanks to a court order that forced the governor to go public with the plan.

Now, with the governor having officially filed for re-election, he is taking his plan on the road in a series of presentations and public hearings around the state. Wednesday's stop in Wasilla was the seventh on the pipeline tour for Murkowski, and it contained much of the same suspicion and negative public sentiment that appears to be mounting into a crescendo of opposition.

With good reason. Alaskans, like most Americans, value open, accountable government that transacts the people's business in an atmosphere of trust and transparency. The closed-door construction of this contract and Murkowski's paternalistic &#8220just trust me” attitude cast the entire proceedings in a veil of arrogance with which virtually no one - former administration officials and members of the governor's own party included - was comfortable.

Now, we are being asked to quickly jump on the bandwagon of a proposal that, by most reasonable accounts, amounts to little more than an industry-friendly arrangement that reneges on the constitutional charge that the state's resources be developed for the maximum benefit of Alaskans. In this, an election year, it is nearly beyond comprehension that an already unpopular governor could be hanging his re-election hopes on such a deal.

So it is not surprising that a sizable field of gubernatorial hopefuls, bolstered by former governors and legislators, is challenging both the plan and the man who is touting it as the future of Alaska. Led by a new generation of bright, energetic problem-solving Alaskans - like the Valley's own Sarah Palin and fellow candidates Eric Croft and Andrew Halcro - those who oppose this plan are asking legitimate questions that deserve answers.

Risk - in particular the excessive amount expected to be assumed by Alaskans - was a big theme of Wednesday's hearing. We are expected to deal away our constitutional right to tax without getting any guarantees in the form of jobs, revenue, regulation rights or even an actual pipeline in return. In essence, industry has handed off all of its risk - to us - while retaining the rewards.

Part of the plan, for example, is a decades-long freeze on tax rates. Somehow, the governor and industry think this is perfectly reasonable. Yet no one would suggest with a straight face that industry freeze gas and oil prices for decades.

Without a doubt, a gas pipeline represents a large piece of the puzzle for Alaska's future. But this should not come at any cost. And it should certainly not mean that we be hasty about closing a deal.

To insist, as the governor seems to be doing, that the only choices are &#8220now or never” and &#8220take it, or leave it” on his plan, is short-sighted. There are competing plans for a gas line. It is high time they got the same attention and consideration as the Murkowski proposal.

Once all plans are on the table and have been given a thorough going-over by Alaskans, then a real and responsible choice can be made.