House Energy Committee hears HJR 27; geothermal and geologic hydrogen developers outline projects and seek state support

The House Energy Committee convened Jan. 2 to introduce House Joint Resolution 27, a resolution urging a coordinated state energy and economic strategy, and to hear invited testimony from geothermal and hydrogen developers about projects that proponents say could become large new Alaska industries.

Representative Kai Hall introduced HJR 27 as an effort to pull together interim work and last session's presentations into a single framework. Timothy Truer, an aide to the sponsor, told the committee the resolution calls on state agencies to coordinate planning and pursue benchmarks through 2035 — including, the resolution text cited, the creation of “1,200 new scalable ventures and associated jobs” and measures to attract the roughly 30,000 working‑age residents the state has lost over the prior decade and a half. Truer said HJR 27 is intended as a message to federal agencies, state commissioners and state enterprises, and as a tool to identify policy gaps that may require statutes or future bills.

“We are highly fragmented right now in these issues,” Truer said, urging alignment across agencies, the university and state enterprises so the state can better target investments and permitting support.

Three invited witnesses then described commercial projects that they said HJR 27 would help enable. Paul Craig, chief executive officer of GeoAlaska LLC, said the company holds geothermal leases on Augustine Island and has converted state permits into 10‑year geothermal leases. Craig said GeoAlaska modeled a project that would deliver about 200 megawatts to the Beluga Power Station, and that the company’s internal economics — he said — show a 34 percent internal rate of return without tax credits. Craig added that a 30 percent tax credit for baseload geothermal was included in a recently referenced bill that took effect July 4, 2025.

“Today the grid will not accept anywhere near 200 megawatts of power at Anchor Point without upgrades,” Craig told the committee, arguing that the state or a state entity could play a role in financing or owning the transmission corridor. He described a submarine high‑voltage direct current (HVDC) cable concept to Beluga, and asked for state financial support to help advance the project from early development toward commercial readiness. Craig said GeoAlaska estimated total project CapEx at roughly $850 million and that a Series A of about $12 million would be needed to get the work underway. He projected commercial delivery in the 2029–2031 window, while acknowledging technical and permitting risks.

Committee members pressed Craig on transmission bottlenecks and on volcanic risk at Augustine Island. Craig said geothermal production is effectively sustainable over multi‑decade timeframes and that Alaska Volcano Observatory monitoring, engineered surface design and remote operations would limit risk to people and infrastructure if Augustine’s alert level rose.

Paul Fuse, former mayor of Unalaska and a former commerce commissioner, urged that any energy strategy include workforce development and curriculum to reduce Alaska’s reliance on outside labor for resource projects. Fuse described the state economy as heavily dependent on oil and gas revenues, underscoring that resource development revenues fund budget items such as Medicaid matching and contributions to the Permanent Fund corpus.

Dr. Lorna Ortiz, founder and chief commercial officer of GeoKiln Energy Innovation (calling in from Houston), described an engineered subsurface hydrogen approach that uses controlled thermal stimulation to accelerate serpentinization and produce hydrogen in place. Ortiz said GeoKiln’s manufacturing approach targets roughly $1.50 per kilogram at the wellhead, described a phased validation plan (she said a phase‑1 test was planned in Kansas in May with Breakthrough Energy funding), and said the company is pursuing offtake and finance discussions. Ortiz urged the committee to consider permitting pathways that would rely on existing oil‑and‑gas frameworks where appropriate, requested state mapping support to identify candidate formations, and said partnerships with firms such as Chiyoda and national labs were in progress.

Committee cochairs and members asked about market uses for hydrogen, export pathways, and whether manufactured hydrogen and geothermal development are complementary. Dr. Ortiz and Mr. Craig both said the technologies could co‑exist and that Alaska could supply feedstocks for value‑added products (for example, green ammonia or sustainable aviation fuel) or export electricity, hydrogen or other derived products to markets outside the state.

Cochair Holland closed by saying staff would consider adding language to HJR 27 about hydrogen regulatory gaps and about how to defragment state energy policy management. The committee set the resolution aside for further consideration; no formal vote was taken. The committee scheduled its next hearing for Jan. 27 to hear proposals for two natural‑gas import facilities in Southcentral Alaska.

Notes on attribution: direct quotes and project economics are attributed to the witnesses who provided them at the Jan. 2 hearing. Where figures were given inconsistently in testimony (for example, different hydrogen production rate or annual tonnage numbers provided by a single witness), the article flags the discrepancy rather than reconciling it.