By Matthew Roy
President Donald Trump’s recent meeting with New York Governor Kathy Hochul has reignited discussion about the Constitution Pipeline. A longtime proponent of the project, Trump sees it as part of his broader push for American “Energy Dominance.” However, the meeting did not yield an agreement to revive the project.
Beyond the politics and speculation about what may have been discussed behind closed doors, the pipeline’s cancellation and the region’s persistent energy challenges highlight a broader economic reality: energy policies that constrain supply drive up costs—not just for energy itself, but across the entire economy—contributing to inflation.
The Context
The Constitution Pipeline was a proposed 124-mile natural gas pipeline designed to transport up to 650 million cubic feet per day from the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania to upstate New York, connecting to infrastructure that supplies New England. Initially approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in 2014, the project faced a major setback in 2016 when New York denied a crucial water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)—a provision that allows states to block federally approved projects if they do not meet local environmental standards.
The companies behind the pipeline—led by Williams Companies—challenged New York’s permit denial in court, arguing that the state had exceeded its authority and was using environmental regulations as a pretext for an outright ban on fossil fuel infrastructure. The case led to a protracted legal battle, ultimately reaching the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which upheld New York’s decision. The pipeline developers petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review, but in April 2018, the Court declined to hear the case, leaving the state’s permit denial in place.
With no legal path forward, Williams officially canceled the Constitution Pipeline project in early 2020, citing regulatory obstacles and the prolonged legal uncertainty. The cancellation underscored the growing challenge of building energy infrastructure in states with aggressive anti-fossil fuel policies.
The Effects
Energy prices are up across the board for all the would-be beneficiaries of the cancelled project, the residents and businesses of New York and New England who rely on natural gas for heating, electricity, and industrial activity.
Since the Section 401 CWA denial in 2016, the average cost of natural gas for New York commercial users has increased by 70%. Over the same period, residential rates have risen 49%. Nearly 60% of New Yorkers use natural gas for home heating, making these price hikes a direct hit to household budgets.
Blocking the flow of gas results in higher electricity prices too. According to the EIA, 46% of the state’s electricity comes from natural gas, generating twice as much electricity as any other fuel source. Natural gas power plants account for approximately three-fifths of the state’s generating capacity. As such, average New York residential, commercial, and industrial electricity prices are up 38%, 30%, 45%, respectively, since 2016.
The data tell a similar story in New England, where high demand coupled with natural gas supply constraints sent city gate and electricity prices soaring.
Restricting Energy is Inflationary
There are a few characteristics inherent to energy products which elevate their influence on broader macroeconomic issues, such as inflation.
1. Energy is the fundamental economic input. Every household, business, school, and institution relies on energy. Our world is so thoroughly structured around access to power, fuel heating, and petro transportation, it’s hard to take stock of the full scope of our dependence on it. It is required at every stage of production for all products—from raw material sourcing to manufacturing, distribution, and final delivery. When energy costs rise, so do the prices of all goods and services. Even relatively small increases in energy prices can have an outsized impact on overall inflation.
2. Energy demand is price-inelastic. Households and businesses must continue buying energy, even at higher prices. Unlike discretionary goods, there is no substitute to heating homes, fueling trucks, or keeping the lights on. Unlike other products, you cannot “switch brands” when energy prices spike—you simply pay more.
3. High energy prices reduce purchasing power. Because energy utilities are indispensable and energy is an input to all products, price hikes leave consumers with less money for other goods and services. This effect is especially severe for low-income and middle-class families, who spend a higher percentage of their income on utilities and transportation.
While inflation is a multi-factor issue, the role of energy shortages and misguided energy policies cannot be denied and should not be ignored.
Rising Energy Costs Are an Energy Emergency
Trump’s “Energy Emergency” framework correctly identifies high energy costs as both an inflationary pressure and a direct burden on working Americans.
The Constitution Pipeline could have alleviated some of these pressures—but its cancellation serves as a cautionary tale. Now, with Trump’s tariffs on foreign energy imports—including a 10% tariff on Canadian natural gas, which New England relies on—there is even greater urgency to expand domestic infrastructure.
At the same time, political pressure is growing on Democratic leaders in the Northeast. As reported by The Washington Post, many low-income, predominantly Black communities in Boston—traditionally Democratic strongholds—are feeling the squeeze of high energy prices and losing faith in their party’s energy policies. A February report by the Progressive Policy Institute warned that high utility costs were a major factor in shifting voter support toward Trump. The report’s author explained that the working class in the Northeast, who are struggling to pay their heating bills, are not moved by the typical Democrat talking points on climate policy or tax credit initiatives to support expensive electrification overhauls.
As for the future of the Constitution Pipeline, the CEO of Williams Transco, Alan Armstrong, stated on March 12 that he is “absolutely in support of building” the pipeline, contingent on “strong support” from regional governors. With a major industry player signaling readiness, the shifting political and economic landscape—including rising energy costs, new import tariffs, and direct backing from the Trump administration—could provide the necessary momentum to revive the project. If regional leaders respond to growing voter frustration and industry support, they may finally be motivated to approve the effort.
Ironically, a current Trump ally—HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—was once a vocal opponent of the Constitution Pipeline. In 2016, Kennedy denounced the project at a protest at the New York State Capitol, calling it an “abomination” and declaring, “we don’t want it, we don’t need it.” But the numbers tell a different story.
The politics may be complicated, but the economics are straightforward: build pipelines, lower costs, and restore economic stability—or continue down the path of self-imposed energy scarcity.
Matthew Roy is an energy industry professional with over a decade of experience in corporate management and strategy. He is currently the Visiting Research Fellow for the Budapest Fellowship Program at the Danube Institute, focusing on energy policy.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just curious whatever happened to the interstate commerce clause?
It was used in the past to justify the USEPA to regulate those persistent wet spots in your backyard by declaring they were “navigable waterways”.
The original intent was to keep one State in the new Union from restricting trade with another State in the new Union as if that other State was a different country.
(Clarifications/corrections welcome.)
Thanks for the response. That’s my general, non-lawyerly. understanding and point. If PA wants to sell gas to New England, isn’t NY restricting trade? I know that’s probably oversimplistic, but still…
That over reach by EPA had nothing to do with interstate commerce. It was around ‘waters of the United States’, not navigable ones.
The restriction on Interstate commerce is obvious , but NY seems to have used an environmental loop hole under federal Clean Water Act thats not directly impinging on commerce.
There was no such thing as a “pipe line” back then. But interpreting a wet spot or a swamp as falling under the the Interstate Commerce Clause because a canoe might me able to get across a state line? Therefore the Feds (via the USEPA) can restrict what you do with it?
Gross misinterpretation of it’s intent.
A pipeline crossing state lines, on the other hand, is “interstate commerce”.
PS Duker, the Clean Water Act has as much to do with this pipeline as the Clear Air Act has to do with CO2 emissions.
PPS It was by defining a “navigable waterway” as any creek or wet spot as “The Waters of The United States” that the Feds and the USEPA gained control.
Tributaries , and adjacent or contiguous to the navigable waters. So it was much broader
I wonder what Hochul would look like with all the makeup peeled off.
I hope that pipeline gets built. There was also another pipe that was going to enter western MA, then I think go slightly up into NH, then towards Boston. It was blocked. Not sure what the reason was. This was several years ago. And, I think, another was also stopped that was going to cross into MA from NY and head to Springfield and maybe further south. So, MA state government doesn’t want more gas pipelines. But now with increasing costs to the public- perhaps the state will wake up to its responsibility of promoting low cost abundant energy.
“I wonder what Hochul would look like with all the makeup peeled off.”
A much younger Pelosi?
What would Trump look like without the makeup?
A much younger Biden…lol
What would any politician look like with their mask peeled off?
Regarding the planned pipeline through NH, it was blocked because towns (yes, we have town government) did not want destruction of their small communities, blasting through granite et al. The better option for NY to MA was to follow Mass Pike (I-90) to I-495, then to a planned terminal near the Lowell-Lawrence area along the Merrimack river. NH was never going to get much of that gas flow.
Regarding NH power, three of the five co-generation (coal and natural gas) plants were closed, leaving us two plus some hydro power managed by ENEL and the Seabrook nuclear power plant. Not to mention that a few years back, Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant was closed. (Eversource still provides climate friendly fuel usage charts with my monthly gas bill statements.)
Lastly, NE (Maine and NH) were targets for Quebec Hydro. That fizzled out because the North Country is a beautiful wild and tourist area that people did want destroyed, with the kicker that Quebec Hydro shuts down all power when performing maintenance.
New York and Massachusetts remain the obstacles to any natural gas pipeline to NE, and then, surprise surprise, the real plan is to ship most of the gas overseas. Good luck with that
You’re right- the pipe should have gone along the MA turnpike. I don’t know why they didn’t consider that. Probably politics not engineering. Here, they shut down a coal power plant in Northampton- right after that company spent 50 million to upgrade its smokestack. Then they knocked it down.
“many low-income, predominantly Black communities in Boston—traditionally Democratic strongholds—are feeling the squeeze of high energy prices”
All of Boston’s neighborhoods are now extremely expensive even the relatively low-income areas. Homes and rents are among the highest in the nation. Low income people care barely keep a roof over their heads- rising energy costs will certainly change their political viewpoints. Low income people in this state (including me in central MA) don’t like the state spending a billion dollars/year on illegals when there is a housing crisis and such high energy costs. Our governor Healey is a lot like governor Hochul.
Matthew Roy – Can you write about energy in the State of Washington? Our governors (now Robt. Ferguson, prior Jay Inslee) believe they are saving Planet Earth from doom and have increased the cost of living in WA by about 35%. [ a rough comparison: gasoline in WA = $4.746; in Idaho = $3.436 // ∆ = $1.31 // Is 38% higher on average ]
And where I am Regular is $2.79 and Diesel is $3.39. There is no excuse for taxes on Diesel being so much higher when we, as a country, burn a diesel that is a lot cleaner than it was a few years ago.
Governor Ferguson and his minions in the WA legislature are intent on raising the WA property tax limit from 1% to 3%. And so if you own a home in WA, it is likely your property tax bill will triple within the next five years. And when that happens, the West Siders in WA will continue to vote for Ferguson (et al) regardless of how high our tax burden increases.
Anyone remotely familiar with modern pipeline construction and operation knows there are no reasonable environmental concerns over the Constitution Pipeline project.
There are two solutions to our energy issues, either one would work. Number one get the government out of the energy business. Number two any rule, regulation or law restricting our free choice of energy or transportation pushed on us by the government must be adopted by all government agencies the day the rule, regulation or law is passed. They want us driving only EVs ten years from now they have to get rid of their ICE vehicles tomorrow. They want us to only have access to wind and solar ten years from now they must disconnect from the grid both electric and gas tomorrow.
Back in September 2024, Governor Hochul sponsored a zero-emission energy technology conference in Syracuse. The afternoon session of the conference focused on the possibilities of employing more nuclear in New York state.
Here in April of 2025, the state maintains that it will pursue the goal of decarbonizing its supply of electricity by 2050. This NYSERDA web page describes where consideration of nuclear now stands:
Master Plan for Responsible Advanced Nuclear Development in New York:
On January 14, 2025, Governor Hochul announced the start of a process to develop a Master Plan for Responsible Advanced Nuclear Development in New York. NYSERDA, working with the Department of Public Service and other State Agencies, leads on the development of the Master Plan. As a first step, NYSERDA published a Blueprint for Advanced Nuclear Energy Technologies [PDF] that sets out the scope of issues to be considered throughout the Master Plan process.
The development of the Master Plan will provide a framework for in-depth examination into the key issues raised by the Blueprint to develop recommendations for implementation of advanced nuclear technologies in New York State. The Master Plan development process is expected to conclude with publication by the end of 2026.
In parallel, New York will also help lead the Advanced Nuclear First Mover Initiative, a multi-state initiative on nuclear energy focused on driving down costs and risk-sharing.
Private interests will not finance new-build nuclear power in New York state. Or anywhere else in the US, for that matter. Expanded nuclear capacity will not be coming to New York unless the state pays for it directly.
As for an expansion of natural gas in the state by private interests, the New York Climate Act of 2019 makes it impossible to even consider the option. As long as that law remains on the books, there is no point for energy planners in New York state to even discuss an expansion of natural gas.
How Soviet of them. A Master Plan that will give every agency in NY state time to figure out how to suck money out of the PLAN which will take at least 10 years to complete said PLAN. Think of the billion dollar PLAN in CA to build a light rail line. Which is heavy on corruption. A billion dollars and NOTHING to show for it. Gosh, I guess they were using melting money aka tax payer money soon to be bureaucrats and their friends money.
The quoted paragraph beginning, “The development of the Master Plan,” is cartoonishly bad writing. You can NOT communicate by foisting such insulting gobbledegook onto the public. The writer uses three times more words than necessary, and even if it weren’t pretentious jargon, the message would STINK.
It’s a disgrace to the English language.
Most New England states have gone absolutely apeshit about environmental and other issues.
Rational thinking by independent STEM professionals is replaced with inane slogans by nincompoops with sign at gatherings, duly reported ad nauseam, by the subsidized Corporate Media.
.
No state can make laws that reach beyond its borders to affect other states, countries, people, companies.
Every state attorney knows this. Every law student knows this.
.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)—a provision that allows states to block federally approved projects, if they do not meet local environmental standards.
That provision may be unconstitutional.
Trump has declared a National Energy Emergency
.
New England needs a new gas pipeline from Pennsylvania to New England.
State trying to stop it may be in violation of interstate commerce laws
.
The pipeline is direly needed to save the near-zero/real-growth New England economy from much higher energy prices.
By now it is abundantly obvious, no additional offshore windmills will be built.
.
New England is one of the worst areas for onshore wind and solar.
The worst solar area is near cloudy/rainy/foggy Washington State
This has been known for at least 4 decades by states and the federal government .
HIGH COST/kWh OF W/S SYSTEMS FOISTED ONTO A BRAINWASHED PUBLIC
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-cost-kwh-of-w-s-systems-foisted-onto-a-brainwashed-public
The IPCC has dubbed CO2 as having magical global warming power, based on its own “science”
The IPCC claims, CO2 acts as Climate Control Knob, that eventually will cause runaway Climate Change, if we continue using fossil fuels.
Governments proclaimed, Go Wind and Solar, Go ENERGIEWENDE, go Net zero by 2050, etc., and provided oodles of subsidies, and rules and regulations, and mandates, and prohibitions to make it happen.
.
MAGA and burn, baby, burn, may lead to a slightly greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere, which is an absolutely essential gas/ingredient for creating: 1) increased green flora to support abundant fauna all over the world, and 2) increased crop yields to feed 8 billion people. What is not to like?
.
The slogan Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to increase command/control by governments, and enable the moneyed elites to get richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people.
New England long ago launched an updated crusade against witches and demons. This time the goal is to prohibit all use of combustion fuels, somewhat like the prohibition of beverage alcohol in the early 20th century.
The use of fire is FAR MORE NECESSARY to civilization than gin or vermouth. Prohibition of fire wont work; it will only cause ruin.
How much misery must these schemes inflict before “the people” get wise?
Before you know it, these boneheads will be burning dried apeshit and calling it “renewable biofuel.”
Just a note to What’s Up With That: Inflation is a technical term meaning too much money printed by the government which act to raise prices always. But not all price rises are inflation. Otherwise, your salary would cause inflation. Any new business entering the market would cause inflation. Inflation is not rising prices but IS always a cause of rising prices.
“Just a note to What’s Up With That: Inflation is a technical term meaning…”
You pay more for what you buy today than you paid yesterday.
The buying power of the money in your savings account has shrunk.
The $20 gold piece my Dad left me is now worth almost as much as my car.
” Otherwise, your salary would cause inflation.”
EVERYTIME a mandatory “minimum wage” is increased, it causes inflation. It lessens the actual value of the work those who actually earned that higher wage.
Wages rise faster than inflation, always have.
Huh?
Deficit spending and printing Treasury bonds to “paper” the deficit is inflationary, because that “out-of-thin-air money” comes with an interest rate and a debt.
Right now, the interest on that debt is more than ONE $TRILLION PER YEAR.
That interest is also “paid for” with Treasury bonds.
On and on it goes, stretching the rubber band.
All that has nothing to do with “quantitative easing”, which involves the federal reserve declaring it has money which it loans to banks and other financial entities that
over-extended themselves on issuing dubious loans.
When I studied finance about 6 decades ago, sanity still prevailed, more or less.
The US is in very deep do-do, and the rest of the world aims to keep the US in it’s do-do.
The medicine would require a long induced coma until the patient rises from the ashes
Ignore for a moment the energy cost involved in gas restriction. Jon Pepper’s book, Hostile Climate, depicts a very realistic scenario of a major cold front hitting NY when the sun isn’t shining and wind isn’t blowing. If the gas supply goes down, PEOPLE WILL DIE. Lots of them. The gas system cannot be restarted overnight when it warms up. It takes weeks to months. Gas is essentially the only card they can play. Such an event would almost certainly cause shortages in all the neighboring states and Canada. Meaning there is no surplus to draw from. A gas pipeline could avoid a catastrophe of global scale.