Why New England must say no to new gas pipelines
New England must protect energy affordability by rejecting the pressure campaign to build new interstate gas pipeline capacity, a 15-year-old idea that fails on all the basic economics — before talking about damaging consequences for climate and public health.
The economic case for a pipeline has never been weaker, even after a major winter storm. Consumers will be worse-off financially, and clean energy solutions have never been more cost-effective. To relieve winter energy constraints, the region needs to diversify generation, build out grid connections and storage and invest in efficiency and demand flexibility.
Not double down on costly, volatile fuels we already rely on too much.
There is simply no need for a massive new pipeline. Gas demand in Massachusetts was flat to declining from 2019-2024. And setting aside Connecticut, an outlier on gas demand, regional gas demand has been flat. If anything, the region needs cheaper, more targeted solutions to relieve scarcity on the coldest days of the year.
Elevated oil generation and power prices don’t justify a new pipeline. Gas and power prices jumped significantly across the country (gas futures were up 70% before the cold snap), even in regions without constrained fuel supply.
And frigid conditions exposed the poor reliability of gas equipment. Even on the peak of the most difficult cold day this winter, almost half the capacity keeping New England’s lights on was zero- to low-emissions, when factoring in energy efficiency.
A bill in Massachusetts sought to saddle electric ratepayers with the costs of a new gas pipeline. This would create a long-lasting charge on electric bills negating potential reductions to power supply costs — unthinkable in the current affordability crisis, especially for an asset that would outlive its usefulness before being paid off.
Pipeline companies won’t build without long-term contracts. No entity (utilities, power plants) is willing to contract for new gas supply because they either have enough, or they buy from the spot market. It’s a financial issue: no contracts means no financing, no pipelines .
If forced, New England ratepayers would pay dearly for a new gas pipeline:
- For the direct delivery costs of a billion-dollar-plus pipeline.
- For the price of the gas supply itself, now forecast to increase 33% year over year (2026-2027).
- For decades of locked-in costs from local distribution pipes.
Those distribution costs — maintaining and repairing aging local gas pipes — are already rapidly rising and cannot be affected by expansions in supply. Repair costs imposed on ratepayers already total billions and billions of dollars, with Massachusetts gas users facing between $23,500 and $31,000 per customer over the life of the program.
The cost of supplying gas is now only one third of a typical bill, with distribution closer to two thirds — the opposite from 10 years ago. A new pipeline is just more of that increasingly costly delivery infrastructure, in pursuit of unlikely savings on the smaller, shrinking supply portion.
This is the core folly behind pipeline arguments.
And why are supply savings unlikely? Much has changed since 2014-2015: America is now the world’s single largest exporter of gas. Given further projected increases in exports, New England will be swimming against a rip tide, with supply prices — both gas and electric — linked to higher international bidding.
So, power and gas demand have both been largely flat, gas supply/import capacity into the region has increased and yet gas and power prices have gone up.
Lowering regional prices is therefore not simply a matter of increasing supply.
Peak winter electric demand was flat between 2014 and 2026 (20.6 to 20.4 gigawatts ). Gas demand has also been flat over the last decade, excepting Connecticut. Meanwhile, gas import capacity has quietly increased through small expansion projects by more than 30% since 2010. But between 2019 and 2024, while gas supply grew by 362 million cubic feet per day, gas commodity prices actually increased in all New England states, including by 33% in Massachusetts.
So, instead of a gas pipeline, let’s keep building two clean energy pipelines: First, larger-scale clean supply resources, such as solar, onshore wind, bulk energy storage, as much offshore wind as can get built and proactively planned interregional transmission projects.
Second, smaller-scale clean demand resources such as energy efficiency, electric and gas demand response, distributed solar and storage, smart EV charging, and beyond.
Efficiency already saved $1 million in one hour during last month’s peak.
States must stay the course and reject a needless and enormously expensive gas pipeline. If anyone asks why?
Tell them the truth: “It’s the economics, stupid.”
Jamie Dickerson is senior director of Climate and Clean Energy Programs with the Acadia Center in Boston. Kyle Murray is director of the center’s State Program Implementation.
To read the article from MassLive, click here.