By Ed Martin Jr.

Alaska has again been ranked near the bottom of the nation for doing business.

Forty-ninth is 49th.

We may debate the measurements or blame geography, high transportation costs, workforce shortages, federal land ownership, and decades of political indecision. But none of that changes the central fact: Alaska is not competing as successfully as it should.

The proposed Alaska natural-gas pipeline could be an important part of the solution. Reliable North Slope gas could strengthen Southcentral energy security, create employment, support industry, and generate public revenue.

But the gasline alone will not carry Alaska from 49th place to economic strength.

One pipeline cannot repair inadequate ports, limited road access, an aging electrical grid, rural utility deficiencies, insufficient broadband, high freight costs, housing shortages, or the infrastructure needed to support mining, agriculture, fisheries, forestry, manufacturing, tourism, and technology.

Alaska needs more than one project. It needs a statewide economic foundation.

That is why I have proposed authorizing the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation to invest up to $10 billion, over approximately 10 to 12 years, in properly secured Alaska public bonds used to finance productive infrastructure.

This would not be a withdrawal from the Permanent Fund, a legislative raid, or a blank check for politically favored projects.

It would be an investment program.

The Permanent Fund already invests billions of dollars in governments, corporations, infrastructure, real estate, and financial markets throughout the world. Alaskans should ask why a carefully underwritten Alaska infrastructure bond should automatically be considered less worthy than debt issued elsewhere.

Every Alaska bond purchased by the Fund should meet the same prudent-investor standards applied to outside investments. It should offer competitive risk-adjusted returns, dependable security, independent underwriting, full disclosure, and a credible repayment source.

The Permanent Fund must remain protected. But protecting it does not require refusing to consider sound investments located in Alaska.

A disciplined bond program could help finance Railbelt electrical improvements, ports, harbors, freight facilities, roads, broadband, rural utilities, resource-development corridors, and industrial sites supporting private enterprise.

The gasline would supply energy.

The bond program would help build the roads, ports, transmission systems, utilities, and communications networks necessary to turn that energy into lasting economic activity.

That combination could reduce the cost of doing business, create apprenticeships and skilled employment, retain young Alaskans, support industries beyond oil and gas, and attract private capital that will not invest where basic infrastructure is missing.

It could also help Alaska secure federal matching funds.

A state bond commitment could provide required matching capital, bridge financing, construction financing, or permanent financing for qualified projects. But the safeguard must be firm: where federal participation is part of the financial plan, no confirmed federal commitment should mean no corresponding Alaska deployment.

The goal is not to spend $10 billion because the money is available.

The goal is to invest in productive assets that lower costs, generate revenue, and expand Alaska’s economic capacity.

There must also be strict protections against political abuse.

The Legislature should establish the lawful framework, maximum authorization, reporting requirements, and public-purpose standards. Legislators should not direct individual Permanent Fund purchases or select favored contractors.

Every project should undergo independent financial review, engineering analysis, cost-benefit review, and public scrutiny. Revenue bonds should be used whenever practical, with repayment tied to identifiable income such as utility payments, port fees, leases, or transportation charges.

General-obligation bonds should receive all constitutionally required legislative and voter approvals.

Each proposed investment should answer three questions:

• Will it lower the long-term cost of living or doing business?

• Will it produce or support dependable revenue?

• Will it expand Alaska’s productive capacity after construction ends?

If the answer is no, it should not receive Permanent Fund investment.

Alaska will not rise from 49th simply by passing another bill, announcing another agreement, or commissioning another study.

Rankings improve when actual conditions improve—when energy is dependable, goods move efficiently, utilities work, workers can find housing, and investors know the rules will remain stable after their money is committed.

There are two ways to misuse the Permanent Fund.

One is to withdraw and spend its principal recklessly.

The other is to become so fearful of investing in Alaska that the Fund finances development everywhere except the state whose people own it.

We should do neither.

The gasline can be part of the solution. A protected and professionally managed $10 billion Alaska bond investment program can help complete it.

Forty-ninth does not have to be Alaska’s permanent address.

Ed Martin Jr. is a second-generation, prior-to-statehood Alaskan. He lives in Kenai.