As the rest of the world races toward renewable energy mandates, Alaska is being dragged by the liberal legislature into a conversation that ignores our reality. We are not a Lower 48 state. Our vast land, harsh winters, remote communities, and fragile electrical grid demand energy policies rooted in reliability and common sense. Wind and solar may sound good in theory, but they simply do not hold up when applied to our unique conditions.

Instead, we should turn to a solution that matches our resources and needs: Alaska’s vast reserves of low-sulfur coal, combined with modern pollution mitigation strategies. This path is not just cleaner and more cost-effective, it is realistic. At the same time, we must be wary of policies like Renewable Portfolio Standards and carbon taxes that may work elsewhere but threaten our energy security here at home. These rigid ideas are a poor fit for Alaska. Coal with Carbon Storage, coupled with responsible development, gives us a reliable, affordable bridge to the energy future.

The shortcomings of wind and solar in Alaska are clear. Coastal areas may have strong winds, but wind energy is only available when the wind actually blows. That means utilities must rely on diesel generators to back up the system, which drives up costs and emissions. In rural Alaska, where electricity is already expensive, this is no small matter. And in the dead of winter, when people’s lives depend on consistent heat and power, intermittent generation is not just inconvenient, it is dangerous.

Solar energy faces even greater hurdles with our long, dark winters that make solar ineffective when we need energy the most. Even in the summer months, the upfront costs of solar panels and the massive battery banks needed to store that power make it financially unworkable for most communities. Lithium-ion batteries are expensive, have a short lifespan, and are not built for the kind of long-term grid storage Alaska would need. Wind and solar may have a role to play in very specific situations, but they cannot be the backbone of Alaska’s energy system.

Mandates like Renewable Portfolio Standards and individual carbon taxes are pushed by outside interests who do not understand how things work in Alaska. RPS rules require utilities to hit arbitrary percentages of renewable energy, regardless of what works locally. That might fly in a place with massive solar fields or steady winds, but not in a state where every region has its own energy challenges. The Rail-belt has a barely functioning mix of natural gas and hydropower. Forcing fluctuating wind and solar into that system could destabilize it and drive-up costs for working families.

Carbon taxes are no better, and CO2 is generally not a problem in Alaska. Many of our communities depend on diesel for power. There is no other viable option for them. Taxing their only source of energy does nothing to reduce emissions, it just makes it more expensive to live in an already expensive state. These policies assume we have options that we simply do not.

We do not really have a grid on the rail-belt. We have four extension cords plugged in together that run from Homer to Fairbanks. We are not part of an interconnected regional system like states in the Lower 48. When the power goes out here, we cannot borrow electricity from a neighboring state. We have to produce it ourselves. That means we cannot afford to roll the dice on energy sources that only work some of the time.

Coal has powered Alaska for generations, and with emerging carbon capture technology, it can continue to do so while drastically reducing emissions. Our state is sitting on over five trillion tons of coal, much of it sub-bituminous and low in sulfur. This means it burns cleaner than many coals used elsewhere, producing far less sulfur dioxide, which is linked to air pollution and acid rain. Pair that with CCUS, which can capture up to 90 percent of carbon emissions, and you have a base-load energy source that is dependable and much cleaner than before.

I do understand the ire of Alaskans on the 45Q tax credits, and I don’t disagree with their position. But the hard reality is CCUS will be required in any coal fired generation plant, in the USA, in the future. That’s just the nature of the financing and stakeholder’s mindset right now. As I have mentioned before, 45Q tax credits are federal and will cost Alaskans maybe $4.50 a year. If that gives us $.10/KWh power is the trade off there? I think it is.

We also have the right geology for it. Areas like Cook Inlet can safely store tens of gigatons of captured CO2, keeping it out of the atmosphere and putting Alaska in a position to lead in carbon management. CCUS would be using depleted gas fields that contained natural gas for millions of years.

Responsible coal mining practices matter too. With techniques like row mining and concurrent reclamation, we can minimize the environmental impact of coal extraction. This means restoring land quickly and preserving the integrity of our ecosystems while supporting economic development.

Coal with CCUS also creates jobs, keeps energy costs stable, and allows us to reduce our reliance on volatile oil markets. It checks the boxes for both economic growth and environmental responsibility.

We do not need to pick one energy source and ban the rest. What we need is a diversified, flexible strategy that keeps the lights and heat on, keeps prices low, and reduces emissions where we can. Small modular nuclear reactors are on the distant horizon and can provide consistent base-load power in rural areas without relying on fossil fuels. Hydropower continues to serve parts of the state well, and we should support it where it makes sense. Stopping the Susitna-Watana dam was among the worst mistakes we have ever made as a state. Natural gas, especially with CCUS (needed to strip CO2 out before piping to tidewater) is another cleaner-burning option that we should continue to develop. And yes, targeted wind and solar can be part of the solution in the right places and at the right scale.

But no single source should be forced into areas where it does not work. Alaska is too big and too diverse for that kind of strict mandated approach. We need an energy policy based on what is practical, not what sounds good in a press release or speech.

The Lower 48 may be content with energy policies written by progressive climate alarmists, activists, and lobbyists, but Alaska cannot afford to follow their lead. Wind and solar, while useful in the right settings, are unreliable and too expensive to serve as primary energy sources across our state. RPS mandates and carbon taxes may be politically popular elsewhere, but here they threaten to raise costs, destabilize our grid, and actually jeopardize lives.

Coal with CCUS, on the other hand, gives us a way to use the resources we have, in a cleaner and more responsible way. It provides stable energy, good jobs, and a realistic path to lower emissions. Combined with nuclear, hydro, and targeted renewables, it forms the backbone of a truly balanced energy future.

This is not about politics. It is about what works. Alaska must chart its own course based on common sense, local control, and a clear-eyed view of our state’s needs. That is how we keep Alaska strong, secure, and self-reliant

.

Originally published on Substack: https://kevinjmccabe.substack.com/p/alaskas-energy-future-coal-power