ALBANY, N.Y. (NEXSTAR) — A proposal to revive the controversial Williams Northeast Supply Enhancement natural gas pipeline fueled legal action and widespread public opposition in New York, where state agencies have little time to decide on the project’s future. The pipeline, which would run beneath New York Harbor, previously received three denials on environmental grounds from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
The NESE pipeline is proposed to run mostly underwater for about 23 miles between New Jersey and the Rockaway Transfer Point in New York. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC—a subsidiary of the Tulsa, Oklahoma-based Williams Company—and other proponents, including National Grid, contend that the pipeline is a timely and practical way to address the unreliability of the state’s power grid, especially downstate New York. They say the benefits could be worth billions.
But a coalition of nonprofits, homeowners, and conservation groups sued over the project in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on October 30, after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission reissued a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the project. FERC first approved NESE in 2019, but its certification later expired and was vacated.
The plaintiffs—including Earthjustice, the Natural Resources Defense Council, NY/NJ Baykeeper, Food and Water Watch, and the Sierra Club—argued that FERC broke the law by resurrecting the abandoned project and that Transco must submit new, updated applications. They said FERC’s evaluation was inconsistent with federal law and their own rules because there is no established legal grounds for processing an expired certificate.
Moneen Nasmith, Director of National Climate and Fossil Fuel Infrastructure at Earthjustice, called the reissuance “a bunch of sorcery” since FERC didn’t have the power to “reanimate a zombie gas pipeline.”
Gillian Giannetti, a senior attorney at the NRDC, agreed FERC had “zero legal authority” to revive the certification. He said the 2019 application needed basic info like current cost estimates, air quality assessments, or plans to avoid violating water quality standards.
Within New York’s purview, the DEC still has to decide on a water quality certification for the pipeline. After Transco reapplied on May 30, DEC outlined a six-month statutory deadline to act on it, so that’s due November 30. Opponents claim they already rejected Transco’s unamended application in 2020, so it poses the same threats.
They also claim the project—allegedly supported by Republican President Donald Trump—is both unnecessary and expensive, particularly after FERC under the current administration reissued the dated certificate. A deal between Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul and Trump to allow the pipeline is rumored but unconfirmed, and critics speculate that she’s rushing the process to minimize public input.
Democratic New York City Mayor-Elect Zohran Mamdani, currently a state Assemblymember, has pushed back on the pipeline. “I’ve opposed the construction of any natural gas pipelines and continue to oppose them,” he said in September. “What we need desperately is the rapid investment in clean energy across the country. That is the exact opposite approach of what we’re seeing, especially coming out of Washington, D.C.”
Hochul endorsed Mamdani months after he defeated former Governor Andrew Cuomo in the June Democratic primary. Although the mayor-elect has not endorsed the governor in her upcoming reelection, they have signaled eagerness to work together despite broad ideological differences.
National Grid’s New York subsidiaries KEDNY and KEDLI hold 15-year binding agreements for 100% of the project’s capacity from Transco. This guarantees National Grid access to the gas, linking the cost of the pipeline directly to the rates paid by gas customers in New York.
The New York Public Service Commission approved a long-term gas plan from National Grid on September 18 that included NESE. PSC Chair Rory Christian called it necessary to address system vulnerabilities and secure service for 2.5 million gas customers statewide. At the time, the PSC—the state agency that that regulates utilities providers—said there is a “reliability need” for NESE.
At the time, Democratic State Senate Finance Chair Senator Liz Krueger criticized the PSC vote as rushed, saying it will burden gas customers with “unnecessary, dirty infrastructure” that costs billions. She argued that justifying NESE as a promising investment could let National Grid pass the costs of construction by raising prices onto residential utility bills.
She and other critics—and the FERC lawsuit—fear the pipeline will contaminate 23 miles of marine habitat, stirring up toxic sediments of copper, mercury, and arsenic in Raritan Bay that could damage fisheries and other wildlife habitats.
Greg Remaud, executive director of NY/NJ Baykeeper, said FERC was wrong to greenlight the contamination for a pipeline the state doesn’t need. Assemblymember Khaleel Anderson said the project threatens endangered species and $79 million in economic activity generated by the Rockaway and Coney Island beaches.
Pipeline opponents also assert that NESE contradicts state climate goals under the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. That’s the polarizing state law requiring New York to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% before 2030 and 85% by 2050, relative to 1990 levels. The target is a zero-emission electric system by 2040.
Democratic Senator Rachel May said the pipeline “would pull New York away from focusing on its transition to renewable energy sources and away from a reliance on fossil fuels.” But National Grid insists that NESE supports emissions reductions. The company estimated the transmission line could reduce GHG emissions by about 12,932 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2042.
The utility company owed these reductions to moving about 13,400 customers from higher-emission heating oil and onto cleaner-burning natural gas, lowering emissions of pollutants like PM2.5, NOx, and SO2. That reduction would be worth about 7,370 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, they said. National Grid added that building the pipeline would result in 144 fewer diesel trucks supplying compressed natural gas, saving another 5,562 metric tons.
Suzanne Mattei, Energy Policy Analyst with the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, cautioned that a utility plan to use NESE partly to convert more homes from oil to gas heat would “expand dependency on gas and undermine the state’s plan to reduce natural gas combustion.”
The potential financial fallout from building the pipeline is also a major source of contention. National Grid estimated the cost to New Yorkers at $2.2 billion, forcing customers to pay over $200 million a year for 15 years. They figured that NESE would increase the average residential gas customer’s monthly bill by about $7.44 or 3.6% on Long Island, and $7.61 or 3.5% in New York City.
National Grid also projected that NESE could generate societal benefits worth up to $4.4 billion over that same 15-year period. They said increasing supply would lower the price of natural gas for generators and lower wholesale electricity costs. Electricity bills statewide would drop $6 billion between 2028 and 2043, they argued, with $2.75 billion directly benefiting residents downstate.
But Krueger said that downstate New Yorkers would be “on the hook for at least $1.4 billion.” And Mattei’s IEEFA report tallied the actual cost as closer to $3.2 billion. She questioned how it could reduce bills when they’re paying for new construction.
Those in favor say NESE would benefit the economies of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, creating the equivalent of 3,186 full-time jobs lasting one year. This would generate about $234.1 million in pay and benefits for workers.
Transco estimated the project would contribute $23.7 million to New York State’s gross domestic product and generate $2.3 million more in state and local tax revenue—another way of saying that it will increase bills for taxpayers. The project would also cost them about $9.8 million underwater land-use fees per year, which would be paid to the state.
But IEEFA countered that the pipeline offers no permanent jobs in New York, and that profits would go to the Williams Company in Oklahoma. They said only about 9% of the total construction jobs, measured over the project’s entire duration, would be in New York.
National Grid maintains that NESE would help solve widespread power grid reliability problems downstate. That’s because the system currently operates without a built-in reserve for emergencies.
In 2024, National Grid theorized that a gas shortage could emerge as early as the winter of 2027/2028. But analysis of their 2025 forecast from the PSC suggested that a slow economy could delay such a shortage until 2041/2042. Regardless, the company still claims that the risk of a catastrophic gas outage is growing because interstate pipelines already carrying gas into New York lack the capacity to meet demand.
Still, the PSC determined that National Grid’s forecast was inconsistent because accurate data on current gas demand isn’t fully available. The state agency gave the utility company 90 days from the September approval to refile updated projections, setting a deadline of December 17.
And the PSC said the public will have the opportunity to weigh in on NESE’s potential impact on their bills at a hearing expected in 2026. But Williams has indicated plans to break ground in 2025. If permits are granted, New Yorkers will be paying.
While the PSC voted in support of the National Grid plan and claimed the pipeline is necessary, the agency has no formal role in approving or permitting construction. Those responsibilities lie with DEC and FERC.
The New York Independent System Operator has said that the state needs more gas supply to prevent electric shortages as soon as winter 2029/2030. NESE would be a reliable source of energy for power plants whenever demand is high.
According to IEEFA, Downstate New York doesn’t urgently need more gas. They cited a PSC consultant report finding that, if existing demand continues, a supply gap wouldn’t be likely until 2041/2042. They insisted that “more flexible non-pipeline methods exist to manage and reduce peak demand.”
A separate proposal for another transmission line—the previously-rejected Constitution pipeline spanning 125 miles from Pennsylvania to Schoharie County—was also revived at the same time as NESE. It raised similar cost and health concerns while allegedly threatening over 250 waterways.
Activists plan to protest in the days before the DEC’s decision on the water quality permit. Their message: “No new pipelines—protect our kids, our climate, and our coast.”
A rally and march to Hochul’s Manhattan office to oppose both pipelines is scheduled for November 11. It’s not out of the question that Mamdani’s influence downstate and among leftists could alter the governor’s environmental trajectory.
The PSC is holding a virtual public statement hearing on November 12 to discuss a related National Grid proposal to rebuild over 50 miles of an existing 115-kilovolt transmission line upstate. It would stretch from the Inghams Substation in Herkimer County to the Rotterdam Substation in Schenectady County and would include a new substation in Fulton County. The PSC will consider public comments until December 19 and then decide on adopting, rejecting, or changing the plan.
And the State Planning Board is scheduled to meet in Albany the following day, November 13, to discuss public comments already submitted on the Draft State Energy Plan. It maps state power demands through 2040 with the goal of balancing supply, affordability, and climate concerns.
Amid ongoing pipeline debate, a larger power struggle remains in play. Hochul has signaled support for more nuclear power—another issue for environmentalists—and the New York Power Authority is looking for upstate communities to hosting one gigawatt of nuclear capacity. They’re accepting proposals through December 11.
Take a look at the lawsuit against FERC below:
And the report from IEEFA, “The Williams and NESE Gas Pipeline Is Not Better the Second Time Around: The NESE Project is Still a Bad Bargain for New York”:
Want more insights? Join Working Title - our career elevating newsletter and get the future of work delivered weekly.
