Alaska Editorials

Here is a sampling of Alaska editorials:

July 21, 2018

Ketchikan Daily News: Ethics

The week ended well in terms of ethics.

Gov. Bill Walker signed House Bill 44, which is the most significant ethics reform legislation out of the state Legislature in at least a decade.

Walker’s administration highlighted several points in the bill following the application of his signature.

Walker is particularly pleased with the increased accountability provided in the new ethics law.

Since becoming governor in 2014, Walker has expressed and visibly shown frustration with the Legislature’s delays in addressing state finances.

The bill will increase the Legislature’s incentive to pass an operating budget within its constitutional deadline, which is the 121st day of a legislative session. If it doesn’t, then lawmakers lose their per diem payments of as much as $295 daily until the budget is done.

This and other aspects of the bill appeal greatly to the public, as well. A ballot initiative pertaining to ethics had been signed by 50,000 Alaskans in a state with about only 739,000 people. With approximately a quarter of the population being under 18, that figures to be about 10 percent of the adult population.

The bill also requires that legislators disclose financial interests that they - or members of their families - have in regard to issues that come before the state House and Senate for a vote. For example, if a bill comes before the Legislature that affects an aspect of the oil industry and the income of the spouse of a lawmaker, that should be divulged before any vote.

Two other points in the bill reign in legislative practices, as well. The first bars lobbyists from buying meals and alcoholic drinks for legislators. This speaks only to lobbyists, but they aren’t the only ones who attempt to sway legislators’ actions. Others do, too. Legislators should make a point of always paying for their own food and drink and eliminate the appearance of being bought. Whether it’s a meal at a fast-food joint or a five-star restaurant, the appearance of a free lunch is damaging when it comes to the public’s trust.

Another point in the bill is the elimination of state-funded junkets. It’s surprising that this hasn’t been done away with before. But, the new ethics law requires that any legislative travel abroad, which is often paid for by the state, must be approved and have an official legislative purpose. Again, it’s surprising that this hasn’t been the practice up to this point.

These changes will play well with the public. The public previously limited the length of the regular legislative session in an attempt to get the Legislature to get in, get the work done, and get out. This bill is another attempt at that.

The public also hears about and witnesses the free meals and junkets. Optically, this is a great change.

And, finally, transparency should be the ultimate goal, and the conflict-of-interest rule enhances that.

Gov. Walker and the Legislature served the public well on this bill.

___

July 22, 2018

Anchorage Daily News: The price of Alaska

It’s a refrain echoed by nearly all recent arrivals to Alaska: “Why is everything so expensive here?”

Like many questions, there’s an easy answer and a more complete one. The easy answer is that Alaska is big and sparsely populated, access to many places is difficult and it’s far from places where goods are manufactured. Shipping is, therefore, expensive, and it drives up the costs of everything from gasoline to lumber to finished consumer goods. Hence, everything is more expensive.

But a closer look at the drivers of Alaska’s cost of living reveals more nuance. According to figures recently released by the state Department of Labor, specific types of costs stand out in locations around the state. And although high costs aren’t a positive in and of themselves, knowing what they are can be instructive: If Alaska wishes to make its best progress, it can do so by reducing the aspects of life here that cost residents the most.

In Fairbanks, for instance, utility costs - primarily for heating and electricity - are off the charts, standing at 207 percent of the national average. And if you think that’s bad, it’s actually a marked improvement from last year, when the differential between Fairbanks costs and the national average was almost 16 percent greater.

But as egregious as those utility costs are, they’re a spotlight for policymakers with regard to making life easier for Interior residents: Bring down energy costs. One major initiative is already underway - the Interior Energy Project, which would bring an increased supply of Cook Inlet natural gas to Fairbanks and North Pole, stabilizing and reducing costs for home heating and providing new fuel options for electricity cooperative Golden Valley Electric Association.

In rural Alaska, energy costs can be even more of a burden, and infrastructure serving communities is even less robust. Where new energy sources can be found or alternative, more cost-effective solutions implemented for villages, it will go far toward driving down costs for those communities, their residents and the state as a whole.

Here in Anchorage, housing costs were once a significant, expensive outlier, with rental vacancy at 2 percent and costs far above the U.S. average. The cost of renting or buying a home here is still considerably more expensive than the U.S. average - about 39 percent higher - but the gap is shrinking as Alaska experiences a recession and the Lower 48 continues its economic recovery, driving housing demand down here. If Alaska’s economy recovers in the near future, however, the price differential may go back up, which would be an opportunity for homebuilders to provide more reasonable options for Alaskans seeking homes.

Across Alaska, one standout item driving up the cost of living no matter where you are is health care. That’s no particular surprise: Health care in Alaska has always been expensive here, a fact that has strained residents’ pocketbooks, state Medicaid funds and exchanges set up under the Affordable Care Act. Health care is a complex issue and there is no single action that will bring down Alaska’s high costs, but the statewide nature of the issue and the fact that a substantial portion of state spending each year goes toward health care underscores the seriousness of seeking better, more cost-effective solutions.

Alaska’s options for overcoming the tyranny of distance will always be somewhat limited. Our state doesn’t have the infrastructure to manufacture many of its finished goods, and importing them comes with costs. But a close look at costs of living in communities around the state is instructive: In some aspects of our lives, our cities and our state can make a difference in helping residents live here more affordably, and reducing those costs should be a top priority.

___

July 22, 2018

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner: Avoid shortcuts to drilling ANWR

The administration of President Donald Trump is moving quickly on lease sales in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge now that the decades-long political obstruction of this necessary development has come to an end.

It’s understandable, even desirable, that the administration wants to move promptly to get the oil out of the ground. It’s in the national interest, and such projects take years upon years even in the best of circumstances.

But ANWR, as is well known, is no ordinary drilling prospect. It has been the catalyst for strong money-grabbing opposition by environmental groups, which essentially portray the coastal plain of the refuge as the last heavenly place on Earth and those who want to develop its oil and natural gas as reckless plunderers.

And that is why the Trump administration should proceed with caution with its accelerated ANWR schedule. This is going to end up in court, so the administration must be able to show it has produced a solid environmental review document.

The Washington Post reported Thursday that the Interior Department has signed a nearly $1.7 million contract with a Colorado-based company to conduct an expedited environmental review of the impact of leasing for oil and gas development in the refuge.

The liberal Center for American Progress obtained documents under the federal Freedom of Information Act that show the Trump administration hopes to issue a notice of lease sales next summer.

“That gives the firm three months to complete a scoping report, which will set the terms of how federal officials will gauge the impact of energy development in the refuge,” the Post story reads. “The report must reflect the input of local tribes and the hundreds of thousands of public comments that have been submitted.”

Many Alaskans, including numerous state leaders, have argued loudly year after year for the opening of a small portion of ANWR to the oil industry. The Daily News-Miner’s editorial position has been staunchly behind development of the refuge’s coastal plain, which in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 was denoted as an area of oil and gas potential.

So why, after last year’s vote in Congress and subsequent bill signing by President Trump, should caution be exercised now?

The head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, Kara Moriarty, said it well in the Post’s story.

“There are some who say it should take 14 years to read all the comments because they don’t want to see a lease sale anyway,” Ms. Moriarty said. “And there are others who think they can get the job done in two months, six months, eight months.”

“We want this to be a thorough process because we know it’s going to be challenged in court,” she said.

Ms. Moriarty is 100 percent correct in saying the environmental review will face a legal challenge. Environmental organizations are surely already preparing for the fight.

And because of that, the administration should make sure it isn’t taking any unnecessary shortcuts that could result in a successful legal challenge that would delay the long-sought goal of bringing ANWR’s oil to market.