Robert Seitz: Cook Inlet gas impediments include new taxes

4
400

By ROBERT SEITZ

We still do not have a clear path forward to enable new drilling to allow increase in production of Cook Inlet gas.  After years of our federal government blocking all our attempts to increase our oil and gas economy, we have legislators adding additional taxes onto HB 50 to further stifle our current attempts to get increased Cook Inlet gas production and to provide for ways to help develop energy resources which could eventually be the replacement for Cook Inlet gas.

As stated in many of my earlier commentaries, there is no action more important than to ensure the immediate increase in production of Cook Inlet Gas. Next to that the most important thing is to do nothing which will discourage future investment in Alaska’s oil and gas production.  

An additional income tax on Hilcorp can only discourage investment in developing new production or enhanced production on the fields for which they are responsible.  Now is when we are trying to add flow to the pipeline to add to what Willow and Pikka will contribute once they are in production.

I encourage Alaska residence to show lack of support for this proposed tax and stand behind the concept of increasing revenue by increased use of our resources.  We want to build wealth, make many more jobs and increase the number of viable businesses within the State. I encourage everyone to contact your legislators and voice you disapproval of this new tax and voice support for “revenue by resource extraction.”

A part of SB 217 is the Integrated Transmission Planning and the formation of the Railbelt Transmission Organization, which will require each of the utilities to give up that portion of their physical plant through which power flows between the different utilities that make up the Railbelt Utility System.   

It seems to me that this might be difficult to do cleanly at this time, and that the RTO would be more meaningful once the new transmission line which is intended to be separate from the individual utilities. Maybe the wording should soften the penalty (Sec 44.83.740 (c )) against the individual utility which might not clearly define what part of their system is transmission and not distribution. I can see this transition being used to a position not in the best interest of their ratepayers.  

It is my hope that all these energy bills be adopted to be much more positive than they are negative. 

Robert Seitz, is a professionally licensed electrical engineer and lifelong Alaskan.

4 COMMENTS

  1. Our legislators don’t give a damn about the voter or people. The end cost for the consumer is going to be really high as prices are going to go up and up because people are not smart enough to vote for their pocketbook. The same gang will be voted back into Juno. That’s doing this to the people and the people don’t get it. What a wonderful education mass from our educational system.

  2. Well our legislature members are not exactly the brightest bulbs in the pack. Maybe cut some of their spending. They should not be traveling anywhere but Juneau, they are not diplomats and the state budget isn’t for them to go wander around God’s green earth.

  3. Maybe those impeding the process should be the first homes in the State to go without heat and electricity when this issue comes to a head. Reveal all names.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.