Sen. Giessel warns gas line could bring prostitution, social upheaval as lawmakers preview 2026 agenda

By SUZANNE DOWNING

At last week’s Resource Development Council legislative forecast panel, a couple of Alaska lawmakers offered an unusually candid look at how the Legislature’s majorities are thinking about two of the state’s most consequential issues: A long-discussed natural gas pipeline and the future of the Permanent Fund dividend.

The panel, hosted by the Resource Development Council, featured Reps. Zack Fields, a Democrat from Anchorage, Julie Coulombe, and Chuck Kopp, both Republicans, along with Sens. Bert Stedman, James Kaufman, and Cathy Giessel, all Republicans.

But it was Giessel, chair of the Senate Resources Committee, whose comments stood out most sharply, particularly her dire warnings that building a gasline would bring a surge in prostitution and other social problems.

The exchange began with a question from Rebecca Logan of the Alaska Support Industry Alliance, who asked what a gasline would mean for Alaska’s long-term energy security. Giessel responded by noting that the Senate Resources Committee will hold its first meeting of the session on Friday, Jan. 23, and that the committee has engaged Pegasus Consulting to review lessons learned from the construction of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System.

She then turned to the audience.

“How many of you were here during the building of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System?” Giessel asked, scanning the room. After some hands went up, she remarked, “Wonderful. That’s not even 50% of you, however.”

“I was here,” she said. “I know what it’s like when Alaska undertakes a mega project. This is a mega project.”

The rhetorical move is one Giessel uses frequently to establish her longevity and moral authority in Alaska. Born and raised in the state, she emphasized her personal experience repeatedly, including her work as an adult in Anchorage during the pipeline era.

Giessel described the Pegasus consultant company’s report, which is available on the Legislature’s website, as “super interesting” and said it examines what Alaska could have done better during TAPS construction. She said she plans to have the report reviewed again to ensure the state does not repeat past mistakes. She added that at the same Senate Resources meeting, the committee will hear from Gaffney, Cline & Associates, which will provide recommendations based on the Pegasus analysis and input from Glenfarne, the company leading the current gasline effort.

But Giessel’s focus quickly shifted away from engineering or economics and toward social consequences.

“I was a working adult during the building of the pipeline,” she reminded the audience. “I worked at a hospital in Anchorage. And so I saw the impact. The social impact of that mega project. And it wasn’t a pretty picture.”

She said her concern is whether Alaska is prepared for the influx of workers a gasline project would require.

“We don’t have enough people. We don’t have the expertise. We will have a flood of people,” she said, adding that 25% of workers in Alaska already fly in and fly out, a figure she said would worsen during pipeline construction.

“During the pipeline days, and some of you have heard the term ‘Wild Wild West,’ yeah, that’s what it was like,” Giessel said. “Drugs, alcohol, prostitution, just to name a few things. I saw that working in a hospital.”

Giessel acknowledged that a gasline could dramatically reduce energy costs and said Alaska should pursue it, but only if the final product is affordable and if the state is prepared for what she described as the social fallout.

“Yes, this would be a wonderful thing for the cost of our energy,” she said. “Yes, we need to pursue it, if—IF—the cost of the product coming out the end is affordable for Alaskans.”

Her comments demonstrate a cautious and reluctant posture from the chair of the Senate Resources Committee, one that frames economic development as a tradeoff against social disruption and places issues like prostitution squarely at the center of the gasline debate.

If Giessel focused on social risk, Rep. Zack Fields delivered a stark fiscal message that signals where Democratic priorities lie as the Legislature heads into the 2026 cycle.

Fields said Alaska is approaching a moment when lawmakers will have to choose between paying Permanent Fund dividends and funding government services.

“To be honest, we cannot afford as large of a Permanent Fund dividend as we’ve been paying and fund basic services,” Fields said. “We will have a choice in the very near future: Do we have a Permanent Fund dividend, or, like every other state and every other nation in the world, do we fund core services before we tax?”

Fields said he does not support imposing taxes to pay dividends and argued that reducing or eliminating the dividend is preferable to cutting spending or raising new revenue.

“The number one thing my constituents ask me is, ‘Why are schools not better funded?’” Fields said, adding that using dividend dollars to balance the budget would eliminate the need to tax Alaskans to pay for core services.

He echoed Giessel’s language about long-term impacts when discussing potential oil and gas tax changes, saying Alaska’s current tax structure is pro-development and has generated jobs. But he drew a firm line on dividends.

“I definitely don’t support taxes to pay for Permanent Fund dividends,” Fields said.

Taken together, the remarks from Giessel and Fields offer a revealing snapshot of legislative priorities: a Senate Resources chair who is openly reluctant of economic development because of its uncontrollable social consequences, and a House Democrat who is signaling that Permanent Fund dividends are expendable in order to sustain government spending.

For Alaskans, the message was hard to miss. Between caution about prosperity and readiness to redirect dividend checks to fund government, the state’s legislative majorities appear to be preparing the public for a future with fewer dividends—and slower enthusiasm for large-scale development.

The entire panel discussion can be seen here, with Giessel’s remarks after the 54 minute mark.