Photo by Malkolm Boothroyd
On May 13, I testified before the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority board because AIDEA was preparing to vote on a resolution that could put up to $190 million behind oil and gas activity in the Arctic Refuge coastal plain.
I came to the meeting with a simple message: AIDEA is not investing private money. It is using public financial tools created by the State of Alaska. Whether that money comes through bonds, loans, investments, or project revenues, the risk is carried in the public’s name. Alaskans deserve transparency before public resources are committed to high-risk projects. At this meeting, that standard was not met.
The board moved forward anyway.
Resolution G26-05 authorizes up to $175 million for activities tied to AIDEA’s Section 1002 Arctic Refuge oil and gas leases, including permitting, studies, legal readiness, stakeholder engagement, and seismic work. It also authorizes up to $15 million for AIDEA to participate in the June 2026 coastal plain lease sale. Together, that is up to $190 million in public financial commitment for Arctic Refuge oil development. The resolution passed 6-1, with only board member Mr. Guy voting no.
That vote should concern every Alaskan.
Alaskans asked AIDEA to slow down
I was not the only person asking AIDEA to pause, provide more information, and take public accountability seriously. Public testimony was filled with concern about the resolution, the rushed process, the use of executive session, and the risks of committing public resources to another controversial extraction project.
Joan Franz of Fairbanks urged the board not to vote that day, saying, “I’m asking you actually not to vote today because this meeting was called very quickly. It did not give people time. It is a big decision. The public and also the legislature should be involved with this.” She also asked the board not to go behind closed doors, saying, “Be transparent and accountable for what statements you make about making this decision.”
Jeffrey Gronke, a resident north of the Yukon River and the Northern Center’s Board President, reminded the board that it was discussing public money: “I would also implore that you not use executive sessions to talk about finances as you are using the finances our money. And I believe that transparency in your actions goes a long way.”
Pamela A. Miller of Arctic Connections pointed to the short notice, saying, “There would be more people today if this meeting wasn’t noticed like on a Friday or a Thursday, and here we are at Tuesday. It’s very short notice.” Andrea Feniger, an Anchorage resident, asked the board to postpone the vote and give Alaskans more time to comment, adding, “It’s a big decision, so consider it at least a little bit more.”
These were not extreme requests. People were asking for time, information, and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before AIDEA put nearly $200 million behind Arctic Refuge oil development.
A closed-door session, then a vote
After public testimony, the board voted to enter executive session to discuss ANWR, the Ambler Access Project, Port MacKenzie, AIDEA financials, legislative matters, legal advice, and other issues. When the board returned, the chair stated that no action had been taken in executive session. But the board then immediately moved to Resolution G26-05 and approved it.
AIDEA may argue that it complied with the minimum requirements of the Open Meetings Act. But minimum legal compliance is not the same as meaningful public accountability.
When nearly $190 million in public financial authority is on the table, Alaskans deserve to hear the substance of the board’s deliberation. We deserve to know what risks were discussed, what alternatives were considered, what financial assumptions were tested, and why the board believed this was a prudent use of public resources.
Even one board member said the information was not enough
The clearest red flag came from inside the board itself.
Mr. Guy, the only board member to vote no, said he could not support the resolution as written because he did not have enough information to satisfy his fiduciary duty. He stated, “I have to consider my fiduciary duty to this organization, and without full information regarding what’s being proposed, you know, answers that we’ve gotten that say they don’t know, I just have to say no.”
That should have stopped the vote.
If even one AIDEA board member believed the information was insufficient, the board should have delayed action. Instead, the majority approved the resolution and gave staff authority to move forward.
The board’s own words show its priorities
What I heard from the board was not caution. It was urgency to move faster.
Vice Chair Fogle said, “We do not have the luxury of studying this thing to death.” He continued, “We’ve looked at ANWR for 50, 60 years. We’ve studied it six ways from sideways, and it’s about time that we start moving forward and putting some development together.” He later added, “The time for studying is over. It’s time for development.”
But the public was not asking AIDEA to “study this thing to death.” We were asking for basic financial accountability before AIDEA commits public resources to a project that private oil companies have largely avoided.
Commissioner Sandy framed resource extraction as necessary for public revenue, saying, “We are a resource-rich state. I’m very grateful for that, but again, those resources have no value if they remain in the ground.” She also said the board has an obligation to create return on investment and that she did not think “it’s arguable about the resource that we know is there.”
Another board member, Al, questioned opponents rather than addressing the substance of public concern, saying, “All of the comments, both the pro and the con, I often question where the con is getting their financing to come and present, even though I know they’re still Alaskan-based.” He then asserted that “the rate of return on this project, once it gets going and we’re actually drilling, is going to be inevitably better for the state, for our economy, and for the country.”
That is exactly the problem. AIDEA is assuming success while asking the public to carry the risk.
If private industry will not take the risk, why should Alaskans?
Several members of the public raised the same question I continue to ask: if private companies have decided the Arctic Refuge is too risky, why is Alaska’s public development authority stepping in?
Sean McGuire of Fairbanks said that after decades of promoting Arctic Refuge drilling as a major opportunity, “when they actually put the lease sales up. Nobody wanted them.” He called the new proposal “another $190 million into this boondoggle” and asked, “Oil companies don’t want to deal with this because it’s just too much of a hassle and they get sued. It’s just too much of a problem for them. So if they don’t want to do it, why are you doing it?”
Andrea Feniger made the same point: “There’s a reason that major oil companies weren’t interested. It’s not out of the goodness of their heart. It’s not because they love the environment. It’s because it’s a risky business decision.”
That question should be central to any legislative oversight of AIDEA. If private companies have stayed away because the Arctic Refuge is too financially, legally, and reputationally risky, why should Alaskans be asked to carry that risk?
The Arctic Refuge is not empty land
For Gwich’in communities, this vote is not an abstract financial decision. The coastal plain is sacred and central to food security, culture, and survival.
Kristen Moreland, Executive Director of the Gwich’in Steering Committee, told the board, “For generations, the Gwich’in people have lived in a relationship with the land, the water, and the Porcupine Caribou Herd.” She described the coastal plain as “the sacred place where life begins” and said, “This is not simply land to us. It is the birthplace and calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou Herd, which our people have depended upon for thousands of years for food security, cultural practices, and the continuation of our traditional way of life.”
She added, “When the Caribou suffer, our people suffers. Our songs suffers, our stories, our language, our traditions, and substance practices all connected to the sacred relationship.”
Julianne Warren of Fairbanks also reminded the board, “The lands you’re talking about are public lands. They’re sacred lands to the Gwich’in Nation for time immemorial.”
AIDEA cannot claim to be acting in the public interest while dismissing or sidelining communities that have consistently warned of the harm Arctic Refuge drilling would cause.
This is bigger than one Arctic Refuge vote
The May 13 meeting was not only about the Arctic Refuge. It also showed the broader pattern of how AIDEA continues to advance controversial extraction-related projects with significant public risk and inadequate accountability.
During the same meeting, AIDEA leadership confirmed that Ambler Road work is moving forward. The executive director said, “We also are making progress on the Ambler Road,” and added, “We’re in the field drilling bridge abutments and getting data that we need to design the bridges, which is critical.” He also said AIDEA is working to “advance as quickly as we can.”
That matters. Ambler Road is another massive industrial infrastructure proposal with serious implications for public lands, waterways, fish and wildlife habitat, caribou, wetlands, and communities that rely on subsistence resources. Northern Alaska Environmental Center is opposed to Ambler Road and is currently in litigation over it. The same concerns that showed up in the Arctic Refuge vote — public money, private benefit, ecological harm, rushed process, and limited accountability — are also present in AIDEA’s approach to Ambler.
Lou Brown of Fairbanks connected those issues directly in public testimony, saying, “I, too, oppose Resolution G26-05. I oppose the Ambler Road. I don’t think that money should be spent on development of that project. Local people do not want it.”
AIDEA wants to move faster, not more carefully
Perhaps the most revealing comments came near the end of the meeting, when board members praised staff and urged AIDEA to accelerate.
Vice Chair Fogle said, “I just wanna just redouble our efforts to make sure that we are moving at lightning speed because we’re against the clock on a lot of things.” He urged staff to “go a little faster” and think about “how we can get past a lot of these hurdles.” He also said, “We’re in a time period where we can get waivers and exemptions and push ourselves even quicker because the time of waiting four to eight years to develop projects is in a ridiculous amount of time in this country.”
He then compared Alaska’s pace to countries with weaker environmental safeguards, saying, “We’re up against countries like China and Russia that they wanna build a bridge, do it tomorrow. You wanna take critical minerals out of a mountain, do it tomorrow. They don’t care about environmental impact.” His conclusion was that Alaska needs to “move a lot faster.”
That should alarm Alaskans.
The safeguards some board members describe as “hurdles” exist for a reason. Public process, environmental review, consultation, financial analysis, and legislative oversight are not obstacles to good decision-making. They are tools that protect Alaskans from bad decisions made in our name.
Alaskans deserve better
AIDEA was created to support economic development in Alaska. But economic development should serve the public interest. It should help communities meet real needs: affordable energy, housing, local infrastructure, transportation, schools, clean water, workforce development, and long-term resilience.
At the May 13 meeting, Maddie Halloran of Anchorage offered one example of what a different path could look like. She spoke about a community solar project that cost less than $3 million to build, then told the board that with the $175 million proposed for seismic in the Refuge, “You could build over 50 more of those projects.” She added, “You could be measurably lowering electric costs for Alaskans… with clean and renewable energy.”
That is the choice before Alaska. We can continue allowing AIDEA to gamble public resources on controversial extraction projects that private companies will not carry themselves. Or we can require AIDEA to invest in projects that directly benefit Alaskans, strengthen communities, lower costs, and protect the lands and waters that sustain us.
As I told the board, the public should not be used as a prop for projects that cannot stand on their own.
The Legislature must rein in AIDEA. At minimum, Alaskans deserve real legislative oversight, independent financial review, full transparency, and meaningful public process before AIDEA is allowed to put hundreds of millions of public dollars at risk.
AIDEA’s next board meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 17, 2026. Alaskans should be watching closely. May 13 made one thing clear: AIDEA is not going to impose those limits on itself.