A contentious underwater gas pipeline, previously rejected three times in New York, is now back on the table. State officials are reconsidering its approval as a potential solution to bolster the region’s energy supply.
Just last week, the Public Service Commission (PSC), New York’s utility regulatory body, endorsed a long-term strategy for National Grid, which delivers gas to approximately two million customers across New York City and Long Island.
Notably, National Grid’s revised plan now explicitly accounts for the potential use of this pipeline, officially known as the Northeast Supply Enhancement (NESE) pipeline, if it gains final approval.
In a nearly unanimous decision, regulators cited concerns over energy system reliability, pointing to a severe winter storm in 2022 that brought New York City perilously close to widespread gas service disruptions.
Ken Lovett, the governor’s communications adviser for energy and efficiency, commented prior to the decision, “We must explore various avenues to ensure our energy system remains dependable amidst rising demand.”
However, environmental activists and political figures are deeply troubled by the PSC’s endorsement, viewing it as a strong indication that the pipeline could soon become a reality. This comes at a critical time when New York is striving to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions. Critics also highlight that the pipeline’s hefty $1 billion construction cost would ultimately be passed on to utility customers.
State Senator Liz Krueger voiced her strong opposition, stating, “The P.S.C. is dragging us closer to burdening New York gas customers with billions in costs for outdated, polluting infrastructure that isn’t even necessary.”
In May, Williams Companies, an Oklahoma-based energy firm, resubmitted its proposal for the pipeline. The project is currently undergoing a thorough environmental assessment, which will be crucial in determining its future.
Former President Trump has actively promoted increased oil and gas production, a stance that Governor Kathy Hochul, grappling with growing energy demands, appears open to.
Both New York and New Jersey state agencies, responsible for safeguarding water quality, are once again scrutinizing the project. Their final decision is expected by next spring.
Why does this sound familiar?
This isn’t the pipeline’s first rodeo. The project was proposed and subsequently rejected three times, beginning in 2018, during the administration of former Governor Andrew M. Cuomo.
The proposed pipeline would transport natural gas from Pennsylvania to the New York City metropolitan area. It plans to traverse approximately 23 miles beneath Raritan Bay in New Jersey and New York Harbor, eventually connecting to existing infrastructure off the coast of Queens.
Only New York residents stand to benefit from the natural gas supply, not those in New Jersey. Consequently, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy has held off on making a decision, awaiting New York’s final verdict.
However, both states possess the authority, under the Clean Water Act, to ensure the project meets rigorous water quality standards. If these critical standards are not met, neither the federal government nor a private company can unilaterally override the states’ decision.
During its last rejection in 2020, New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation concluded that dredging for the pipeline would stir up toxic sediments, including mercury and copper, into the water. The department also determined that the pipeline’s operation would generate greenhouse gas emissions, directly conflicting with New York’s established climate laws.
New Jersey soon followed suit with a similar ruling.
Why is this pipeline resurfacing now?
With President Trump’s vocal support for fossil fuel industries, and numerous renewable energy initiatives facing delays or cancellations, the pipeline proposal has found renewed momentum.
Last spring, Governor Hochul successfully appealed to the president to preserve a significant offshore wind project. During these discussions, the governor indicated her willingness to explore other new energy ventures.
Seizing this opportunity, Williams Companies decided to re-present its case for the pipeline.
According to Mr. Lovett, Governor Hochul is navigating a challenging economic landscape marked by increasing power demands and a federal government that is not aligned with New York’s ambitious emissions reduction targets.
“In an era where the federal government is actively undermining renewable energy, Governor Hochul is advocating for a comprehensive energy strategy that prioritizes affordability, grid stability, and economic growth,” he explained.
Despite this, other political figures, including Lieutenant Governor Antonio Delgado, are actively opposing this approach.
Mr. Delgado, who is also campaigning for governor next year, asserted that the pipeline infringes upon the state’s climate law and poses a threat to coastal waters. “Nothing about this project has changed—it remains toxic, unnecessary, and simply a windfall for fossil-fuel billionaires,” he stated.
Would the pipeline break New York’s climate law?
The interpretation and application of the Clean Water Act remain flexible, noted Michael B. Gerrard, an environmental law professor at Columbia University. He suggested that “if the governor were inclined to restart the pipeline, state regulators could potentially devise a method to facilitate its approval.”
While New York has enacted one of the nation’s most ambitious climate laws, the Climate Act, it doesn’t explicitly ban the construction of new pipelines.
The Climate Act, signed into law in 2019, mandates that New York reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2030 and 85 percent by 2050 to combat global warming. However, the latest state report reveals that New York is significantly behind schedule in achieving these critical objectives.
Lawyers representing New York City recently informed state regulators that the pipeline would constitute a “significant setback” for both state and city climate goals.
Will more natural gas mean lower bills?
The construction of the pipeline is projected to cost National Grid customers, who bear the expense of infrastructure upgrades, approximately $1 billion, according to the utility company. This would result in an estimated monthly energy bill increase of about 3.5 percent, or roughly $7.50.
Mark Izeman, a senior attorney for environmental health at the Natural Resources Defense Council, warned that “if built, the NESE would burden customers with decades of costs.” The nonprofit also indicated that prices could climb even higher due to increasing supply costs.
Experts agree that until more renewable energy sources become fully operational, natural gas will continue to be a crucial component for meeting surging electricity demands. National Grid’s recently approved gas plan acknowledges the increased costs for consumers to finance the pipeline but also anticipates up to $6 billion in statewide electricity cost savings once the pipeline begins delivering gas.
Sally Librera, President of National Grid New York, emphasized the pipeline’s “vital” role in addressing growing energy demand. She argued that an abundant gas supply could drive down overall energy costs, ultimately saving New Yorkers billions in electricity expenses.
What happens next?
The Public Service Commission’s recent vote does not directly authorize the pipeline’s construction. The commission has also directed National Grid to develop alternative plans in case the pipeline faces another rejection, and to implement strategies aimed at reducing gas consumption.
New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation is now tasked with making the definitive decision on the pipeline’s future by evaluating and potentially issuing a water permit for the project.
A spokesman for Governor Hochul stated that she would respect the final determination.