In early March, former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo made his bid to re-enter politics and challenge incumbent Mayor Eric Adams. His pitch comes at an interesting time for the Northeast and directs attention to how some of his high-profile issues have changed course since 2020.
In the year prior to his 2021 resignation, Cuomo forcefully denied a permit for a pipeline to supply natural gas to Long Island and New York. The hostility towards this project, proposed to run 37 miles, reflected a widespread rejection of pipelines in the Northeast.
Now, in 2025, as he prepares to launch his campaign, the Trump administration has made a renewed effort to expand pipeline infrastructure in the region. New York will once again be in the hot seat when it comes to the pipeline push, and there is mounting evidence other Northeast states are more openly considering these once shunned projects.
New York’s 2020 pipeline fiasco is just one example of the ways in which the Northeast U.S. lacks natural gas infrastructure, as well as any effective plans to develop it. The realities facing the region have been forcing state leaders to reconsider their climate goals against notably high energy prices.
Statistics show that the Northeast region is more reliant than ever on natural gas, but limited pipeline capacity makes it difficult to meet its heating and power needs. The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s residential energy consumption survey estimates that gas accounts for roughly half the power generation in New England and New York, and is a top heating source in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York.
Many gas industry specialists have indicated that the best way to reduce costs is to increase pipeline capacities in the Northeast. An S&P Global study, backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, concluded that expanding pipeline capacity would lower natural gas prices by 27% in Boston and 17% in New York. Many in the region also support this solution – a Fiscal Alliance Foundation poll found that 47% of Massachusetts respondents support new pipeline construction.
Building more pipelines in an effort to get energy to market, and to consumers, is the commonsense solution – and Democrats are beginning to see that. Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont (D) recently indicated that he is open to pipelines and that natural gas could be an area of compromise with President Trump. He then met with senior administration officials about the possibilities of bringing more gas into the state.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul also demonstrated support in February when she green-lit the expansion of a pipeline that would boost the capacity of four natural gas facilities. Utility companies had been arguing the enhancements were needed to heat New Yorker’s homes. Gov. Hochul’s willingness to consider increased pipeline infrastructure is a notable change given her predecessor’s administration’s denial of a previous pipeline permit, though no deals with the Trump administration have come to fruition.
In Massachusetts, Gov. Maura Healey, who fought against a pipeline project as Attorney General, is facing pressure to address the state’s increasing heating bills after the frequent low temperatures this winter. A spokesperson for Healey has stated that she would review every energy proposal through the lens of whether (or not) it would lower costs and move the state closer to energy independence.
Gov. Janet Mills in Maine has resisted calls to impose new restrictions on gas infrastructure. Instead, the state legislation aimed at halting expansion was cut back into a package of studies that would investigate the role of gas in Maine’s energy future.
These moves represent a stark deviation from the 2020 discourse. As Northeastern Democrats grapple with the increasing likelihood of an energy crisis, the benefits that pipeline infrastructure can offer are becoming more and more necessary. Ultimately, enhancing the Northeast’s energy infrastructure is critical to American energy security. Reliability and resilience will always be tied to diversified infrastructure and domestic resource utilization, and the Northeast cannot be an exception.
States in the region must consider a plethora of pipeline infrastructure projects, not just those that lie dormant due to these states’ previous inaction or rejection. The Trump administration has clearly signaled its intent to facilitate the flow of capital into critical energy projects, and there is no place in the U.S. with greater infrastructure needs than the Northeast. Lawmakers and industry stakeholders should work together to develop plans for addressing any future energy shortcomings.
States must be willing to engage the administration’s efforts to enhance energy transportation, or risk facing potential shortages and other longstanding challenges. As we enter the second quarter of 2025, these issues will not be behind us. American energy requirements continue to place obstacles in our path, and pipeline infrastructure may be the only practical solution to address them.
