A new independent analysis reveals that New Yorkers will shoulder the financial burden of a controversial pipeline project, which has been deemed a threat to the environment. According to the report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, the cost of the project is projected to exceed utility company estimates by 17%, bringing the total to at least $1.25 billion.
The federal government’s backing has reignited this pipeline initiative, which had previously stalled. The Trump administration expressed strong support for the construction of new fossil fuel infrastructure in July, paving the way for expedited reviews. The Department of Environmental Conservation concluded a 45-day public comment period last month, despite public outcry for extended engagement and hearings.
Proponents claim the pipeline will increase the supply of natural gas, reduce energy costs over time, and create jobs. However, the financial implications for residents are stark. National Grid estimates indicate that monthly residential bills for customers in Long Island will rise by an average of $7.44, while those in Brooklyn, Staten Island, and parts of Queens will see an increase of $7.61. This is in addition to a pending rate hike that could raise the average monthly bill for Con Edison customers by $26.69, or over 13%.
Many residents are already feeling the pinch, as customers have seen their bills rise by approximately $50 per month compared to three years ago. Over the past two years, National Grid customers have faced increases exceeding $40 in their monthly charges. Rate adjustments in New York are typically determined by the state’s Public Service Commission. However, due to the interstate nature of the pipeline, approval and associated costs will be managed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Critics, including report author and energy policy analyst Suzanne Mattei, argue that the projected benefits of the pipeline are overstated. “The arguments that they’re trying to come up with now are not convincing, and rate payers in New York are not going to benefit from this,” Mattei remarked, emphasizing the negative policy implications if the project is approved.
The pipeline’s backers, including the Williams Company and National Grid, assert that the initiative will enhance winter reliability and provide cheaper natural gas. They estimate that the increased supply could lower prices by $6 billion over the next 15 years while generating additional jobs in the Northeast. The project envisions approximately 17 miles of 26-inch diameter pipes buried beneath the ocean floor near Staten Island and the Rockaways, with an additional 10 miles in New Jersey.
While the pipeline aims to supply enough gas from Pennsylvania to serve over 2 million New York City households, the analysis indicates that only about 9% of temporary construction jobs will be located within New York, as specialized skills are required for offshore installation. Additionally, the compressor stations will be situated in New Jersey, further limiting job opportunities for New Yorkers.
National Grid maintains that the pipeline is crucial for meeting winter heating demands. Alexander Starr, a spokesperson for National Grid, stated, “NESE will bolster reliability for our customers’ essential energy needs, while also lowering costs and reducing emissions.” He emphasized that the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission has confirmed the project’s public benefits and environmental compliance.
Nevertheless, the report challenges National Grid’s justification, asserting that it lacks support from available data. New York state laws mandate a reduction in natural gas usage, contradicting the project’s intent to increase supply. Notably, winter peak demand days last year were limited, and forecasts predicted lower peaks even during a colder-than-expected winter.
In the coming years, numerous renewable energy projects are set to commence, which could provide sufficient energy for over 3 million homes. Among these is the Champlain Hudson Power Express, expected to deliver renewable energy from Canada starting next year, supplying 20% of New York City’s power.
The report, sent to Governor Kathy Hochul’s office, was endorsed by advocates and elected officials urging her to reject the pipeline and accelerate investments in renewable energy. Ken Lovett, senior communications adviser for energy and environment, expressed that the Governor is focused on a balanced approach prioritizing affordability and energy reliability amidst federal pressures against renewables.
Initially proposed in 2017, the pipeline has faced significant public opposition. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation previously denied the project multiple times for violating water quality standards. Critics remain skeptical, with some stating, “The pipeline is not better the second time around,” reiterating the concerns surrounding its potential impact.
As the debate continues, New Yorkers face the prospect of higher energy costs amid a shifting energy landscape, highlighting the complexities of balancing fossil fuel infrastructure with the urgent need for sustainable alternatives.