What you should know about Energy Council

In the past, the media and others have doled out plenty of criticism to the Alaska Legislature for attendance at the annual Energy Council meetings in Washington, D.C.

Alaskans seem to be quite aware legislators attend, but unaware of why they attend. Therefore, the public is left feeling they are kept in the dark about the trip. Last week, I attended Energy Council and now understand why there is confusion. As a legislator who serves my constituents and all Alaskans, my job is to report back the work performed on behalf of Alaska and for the benefit of her residents and to communicate clearly the purpose of the trip. Stated more simply and in keeping with our metaphor, I have the responsibility to shed some light on the subject.

Last week, with colleagues from the state House and Senate, I attended the Energy Council’s 2013 Federal Energy and Environmental Matters Conference, as well as critical meetings on Capitol Hill with various members of Congress from other states and their staffs. As a member of the Energy Committee and Chair of the Economic Development, Trade and Tourism Committee, my knowledge of the current federal issues related to oil, gas, coal and other energy sources; the national and world energy markets; along with current and future energy projects, will be extremely helpful in decision-making to move Alaska forward. My job is to see that Alaskans continue to have opportunities for success. The implementation of plans for affordable energy and economic development is the vital key to Alaska’s future and to ensuring these opportunities.

The Energy Council is a legislative organization consisting of 12 energy-producing states in the United States, four Canadian provinces and the nation of Venezuela, and is led by Alaska state Sen. Bert Stedman. Like Alaska, each of these states and countries seek energy solutions for their citizens. Hearing directly from and meeting with some of the world’s renowned energy experts and leaders allows us to better gauge our next steps and realign our vision and plans as we learn new information.

A few years ago, the realization that a shale gas fracking revolution was beginning in the Lower 48 resulted in our pulling back plans to send our gas through Canada to the Midwest states. This year we heard clearly from administrator Sieminski of the U.S. Energy Information Administration that Alaska’s gas export line and liquid natural gas (LNG) facility was a financially feasible project and should move forward.

The three main themes of the conference encompassed understanding arctic development in a global context, fossil energy trends and policy, and electricity and alternate energy development. As an Arctic state with energy resources, Alaska seeks methods to generate efficient, affordable energy in our own communities while also providing energy resources outside Alaska: oil through TAPS and gas through a near-future pipeline. We must work to keep the backbone of our economy strong.

While in our nation’s capital, my charge was to convincingly explain, along with my colleagues, why opening the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the 1002 region of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and gas exploration and development will benefit the United States and especially Alaska. We shared our concerns directly with the assistant secretary at the Department of Energy and a team at the Department of Interior as well as members of Congress from other states, and the message was well received.

Did you know that the United States spends $38 million per hour importing oil from overseas? Developing resources in Alaska would decrease that spending and help increase federal revenue to address our staggering national debt. We would also rely less on countries that may not be friendly with the United States. Did you also know that half of what oil and gas is produced is not used for conventional energy, but used in products upon which we all rely in our everyday lives such as tires, plastics, textiles, etc.?

I also shared with federal officials the importance of and our support for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) revenue sharing. Legislation is expected to make its way through both chambers of Congress in the near future on this topic to allow states to receive part of the revenue from OCS production.

Perhaps one of the most critical, and definitely one of the favorite, messages I carried was to some of the newly elected Democrats in Congress. Debunking the myth that development and environmental stewardship cannot coexist in Alaska. I gave the example of Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAPS) and the thriving caribou herds. I explained that although our residents face the challenges of the harsh climate, the darkness, the remoteness, we do it because we want live in the midst of the beauty and love the outdoors. We deeply care for the environment and the natural surroundings, and no matter our party affiliation, we are true environmentalists, good stewards of the land that we use and develop.

One remark that surprised federal officials was how small the above-ground footprint would be in the 1002 region of Alaska specifically designated by Congress in 1980 for oil and gas exploration in ANWR. At 3.2 square miles, the area is similar to the size of Reagan National Airport. This information, along with the fact that the combined area of the two northern boroughs of our state is equal to the size of Minnesota and Indiana put together, was attention-getting.

Finally, during these meetings I discussed the need for the federal government to clean up the legacy wells they drilled decades ago and left in shambles. Because the federal government is short of funds and because industry has a good track record as demonstrated by TAPS of being environmental stewards, a good solution to the clean-up problem would be to open up the federal lands to leases and drilling. That suggestion certainly gave the federal officials food for thought. I diplomatically reminded them that 65 percent of Alaska is federal land and they are our landlords; they have a responsibility to remedy the problem.

I am proud that my colleagues and I were able to represent Alaska for what it is, not for how it lives in the imaginations of those who do not live here. As legislators, it is imperative that we strive to do the best we can for Alaska. If we do not advocate on behalf of Alaskans to Congress and federal officials, who will?

Shelley Hughes was elected to the Alaska House of Representatives in October 2012.