Alaska State Sen. Cathy Giessel has two faces when it comes to Alaska’s energy economy and fiscal stability. She campaigns as a champion of resource development. But in Juneau, she has become one of the most pugnacious roadblocks to the biggest energy project Alaska has seen in a generation. Possibly ever.
On her campaign website, Sen. Cathy Giessel says she supports “responsible development and utilization of all Alaska’s natural resources” and claims “energy independence is key to our country’s security.” Those are fine words. But Alaskans should judge politicians by actions, not website slogans crafted by consultants. And Giessel’s actions tell a very different story.
These days, she is the face of Senate opposition to Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s and President Donald Trump’s Alaska LNG vision. At a time when roughly 80% of Alaskans support moving the gasline forward, Giessel has positioned herself as the legislative choke point, bogging the project down with conditions, tax schemes, doubts, and uncertainties, along with government demands that send the wrong signal to investors. The gasline bill is stuck in her Natural Resources Committee and with two weeks left in session, the timing could not be worse.
This week, the White House itself gave full-throated support to Alaska LNG and the state’s broader resource future. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum also announced one of the largest Alaska land transfers in years — 1.4 million acres along the Dalton Utility Corridor — specifically tied to Alaska’s strategic transportation and energy future. The transfer advances state control over lands connected to the proposed Alaska LNG corridor, and Ambler Road.
The message from Washington is unmistakable: Alaska is central to America’s energy future.
Americans for Prosperity-Alaska has also been pushing hard for policies that would make the gasline economically viable, arguing that Alaska cannot regulate and tax its way into prosperity. AFP has consistently supported stable, competitive tax structures, streamlined permitting, and reducing the political uncertainty that has historically driven away investment capital from Alaska projects.
Our organization has warned repeatedly that investors will not commit billions of dollars to a project if lawmakers appear hostile to development or are determined to renegotiate terms every step of the way. In many ways, AFP’s position reflects the broader sentiment among working Alaskans: Build the gasline before the opportunity disappears again.
Yet in Juneau, Giessel is the nemesis to progress. Instead of helping clear the runway for investment, she keeps demanding more government promises and protections, more revenue skimming, more conditions, and more uncertainty.
Smart investors do not spend tens of billions of dollars in banana republics where politicians constantly move the goalposts.
Alaska has already learned this lesson the hard way: For years, the state’s unstable tax policies and anti-development rhetoric scared away capital while North Slope production declined.
Now, when Alaska finally has momentum again, with support from the White House, international interest in LNG exports, and growing urgency over Southcentral Alaska’s looming natural gas shortages, Giessel is slowing the project down inside the Senate with less than two weeks left in the regular session.
Alaskans in the Railbelt are staring at a future of dwindling gas supply, rising utility costs, and potential energy insecurity. The Cook Inlet decline is not theoretical anymore. Utilities have warned about it repeatedly. The gasline is increasingly viewed as essential infrastructure for Alaska families and businesses.
But Giessel appears more focused on maximizing government extraction than making the project economically viable.
She has even invoked memories of the original oil pipeline era as justification for her resistance, warning about prostitution and social decay that accompanied pipeline construction decades ago. That argument may resonate in activist circles, but it sounds increasingly disconnected from modern Alaska realities. Most Alaskans understand that economic stagnation carries social costs too — outmigration, declining opportunity, unaffordable energy, shrinking private-sector jobs, and communities shriveling up.
No major project comes without impacts. But Alaska was not built by people who looked at opportunity and immediately searched for reasons to stop it.
Ironically, Giessel’s political operation reflects the same ideological drift. Her campaign is managed by Ship Creek Group, a consulting firm deeply associated with Democrat campaigns and left-leaning political operations in Alaska. Increasingly, Giessel governs like the very consultants she hired — anti-development, pro-government expansion, and enemies of the very industries that fund Alaska’s economy.
That may explain why her campaign rhetoric sounds pro-development while her governing record looks increasingly anti-development.
Alaskans can see this contradiction unfold in real time:
- The Trump administration is opening land, expediting access, and framing Alaska resource development as a national security priority.
- The Dunleavy administration is pushing aggressively to advance Alaska LNG. Investors and foreign partners are paying attention again.
- The state finally has an opportunity to reclaim economic momentum after years of drift.
- And then this: One of the Legislature’s most powerful Republicans, who has thrown in her lot with the anti-development Left, seems determined to stand in the doorway demanding more conditions before Alaska can move forward.
At some point, voters have to ask a simple question: If Sen. Giessel truly supports responsible resource development, why does she keep acting like the opposition?
Brett Huber is Alaska director for Americans for Prosperity and is a longtime Alaskan.
14 thoughts on “Brett Huber: Who is Cathy Giessel and why is she working against Alaska?”
Just a few questions that Alaskan’s deserve to know. What is the total cost of gas line? Who is going to finance the gas line? Are there signed long term contracts signed. What will the price of a unit of gas to Alaskans? Is the legislation necessary to build the gas line???
Total cost of the Prudhoe to Kenai line is in the neighborhood of $44b for the line itself. Processing facilities on either end will add another $12+. Shorter options cost less.
Line is privately financed. There may be some federal help.
There was a report a month or so ago that 12 of the 14 necessary long term contracts had been signed.
I don’t know the unit costs. Suspect they may be detailed in the contracts but don’t think they have been released to the public yet.
Enabling legislation to establish tax regime, regulatory regime, long-term treatment by the state and local communities the pipeline goes thru is necessary. Giessel and her fellow travelers are using that legislation to strangle the project in the crib, which is weird for a group of politicians who pretend to represent unions in this state. Cheers –
Bob is correct the state should be asking questions. Foremost why was Glenfarne chosen? If the gas line is critical to America’s future and is the largest project for a generation in Alaska why is a company with no history of LNG exports in the united states building it? Glenfarne has failed to meet their own FID goals on their two other projects and neither have hit the construction phase. Glenfarne was awarded ownership of the gas line in March of 2025. At that time they announced an FID would happen by the end of the year. They should of understood the tax structure at that time.
I found it interesting that at the end of February Total Energies signed an off take agreement with Glenfarne for an offtake of two million tonnes per annum (MTPA) of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Alaska LNG. Than a month later Trump hands them a check for a billion dollars and they invest in a competitor of Glenfarne’s Texas LNG, Next Decade. What is also interesting is FERC on April 25,2023 issued approval for both Glenfarne’s Texas LNG project and Next Decade’s Rio Grande project. Next Decade announced they would have an FID by June they announced one in July. Glenfarne announced they would have an FID by the end of 2023 and start commercial operations by 2027. They have yet to make a Financial Investment Decision on the project.
AGDC has been around for about 16 years and Dunleavy has been governor for almost 8. Seems like there was plenty of time to come up with a workable tax structure rather than slam it down the legislators throat the last two weeks of the session. Maybe Glenfarne is qualified to build the gas line. But a company with no known track record other than a failure to meet there own FID deadlines should not be holding all the cards. If they want the state to partner with them the state need to be on the same page as any other possible investors.
Giessel has strong union roots from Dad’s side. Mom was a dominant force in the family and wore the pants. Cathy was first child, and doted over by her parents. She treated her siblings like pawns to be moved around, out of her way. A very selfish woman and a dominant mother like her own was. We could get into Freudian psychology all day, but I no longer live around her.
This is SO accurate.
Who is Cathy Giessel? Why, she is AK’s very own Nurse Ratched.
Alaska is a Natural Resource State. We have been blessed with an abundance of minerals and energy . Sadly we have neglected development of our resources which has harmed our greatest resource, our human potential. What I mean is, our people are being deprived of personal enrichment when we dont develop our State. Projects such as a Gasline will employ thousands of young Alaskans, giving them an opportunity to be trained and to earn good wages. I know this is true, as a young man I worked constructing the Oil Pipeline between 1974 to 1977. That experience was a masterclass in Construction and launched me into a lifelong rewarding career.
Let’s build the damn Gasline.!
Well. Neither does her opponent. Both are feathers from the same bird.
She’s been there too long – out of touch with reality. Doesn’t know how hard it is for young people to stay here without opportunities. This is a once in a generation project – needs to happen!
Who is she? Murkowski Lite.
Greasy Giessel has an opponent in the upcoming election. We need to get rid of her so Alaska can prosper. She’s a RINO and very power hungry. She reminds me a Murkowski with her constant need for attention.
Just wondering why did Dunleavy introduce his gas bill on March 2nd, when the session started mid January??? Seems like Dunleavy should have had the bill at the start of the session. To little to late, Mike.
She’s a truly horrible human being. Ask anyone who’s worked around her in the legislature. I have asked. So far it’s been unanimous that she is a condescending, arrogant, holier than thou witch.
You have no idea how bad.