After years of opposing gas pipelines, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey asked President Trump’s energy chief to fast-track a natural gas expansion to cut household bills.
Story Snapshot
- Healey urged a speedy federal review of Enbridge’s Algonquin pipeline expansion to lower costs.
- Her office says the project could serve 600,000 customers and save about $40 million each year.
- Critics cite her 2022 boast that she “stopped two gas pipelines,” calling the move a flip-flop.
- The project expands an existing line, aiming to replace pricier imported liquefied natural gas.
What Healey Asked Washington To Do
On October 1, Governor Healey sent a letter to United States Energy Secretary Chris Wright. She asked the administration to move fast on federal reviews and permits for the Reliable Affordable Resilient Enhancement project on the Algonquin system. Her office framed the request as an affordability push to help households before the 2028 in-service date. State coverage and the governor’s release say the proposal would add capacity and reduce winter price spikes that strain family budgets.
The governor’s office said the project could supply about 600,000 customers and cut gas bills by roughly $40 million a year. The administration also said the developer, not ratepayers, would cover construction costs. The letter to Secretary Wright highlighted a shared goal to bring more United States natural gas into New England to replace higher-cost imports and improve reliability during cold snaps when demand surges and prices jump for homes and small businesses.
Why Critics Call It Hypocrisy
Opponents pointed to Healey’s past record on gas infrastructure. As attorney general and a 2022 candidate, she said she had “stopped two gas pipelines” and opposed new gas buildouts. That stance won praise from environmental groups and aligned with a climate-first agenda. The new request to speed a gas project now has sparked charges of a reversal driven by politics and price pain. Commentary and headlines labeled the move a flip-flop that undercuts earlier promises.
Supporters of the hypocrisy charge argue the facts are plain: Healey publicly touted blocking pipelines, then asked Washington to “step on the gas.” They say families paying high energy bills have long warned that blocking supply raises costs, and that leaders are changing course only after prices spiked. While the rhetoric is sharp, the core claim rests on her 2022 remarks and this month’s fast-track letter. The clash is less about legality than trust and consistency in energy policy.
Healey’s Rationale: Affordability, Not Abandoning Climate
Healey’s team frames the action as consistent with an “all-of-the-above” approach. They argue the RARE project is a modest expansion of an existing line, not a new greenfield route. The point, they say, is to cut reliance on expensive imported liquefied natural gas and stabilize winter bills. State utility regulators previously approved related gas contracts, and reporting ties the expected savings to displaced imports at the Everett marine terminal that often set higher winter prices.
Massachusetts rules channel these choices through utility contracts, state review, and federal permits. That structure lets leaders say yes or no based on ratepayer impact rather than ideology. The governor’s release stresses customer savings and that developer funds, not ratepayers, would cover project costs. Backers say that meets the test that past proposals failed: lower bills without shifting risk to families. Skeptics counter that any new gas capacity risks locking in fossil fuel use longer than planned.
What It Means For Families And The Bigger System
New England’s energy map is tight in winter. When cold hits, demand for heat and power jumps, and pipelines face bottlenecks. Imports of liquefied natural gas fill gaps but can be costly. Adding firm capacity on a line many customers already use could blunt those spikes. The state projects about $40 million in annual savings across roughly 600,000 customers. That is not a cure-all for high prices, but it could ease pressure during the most expensive months.
The politics reflect a broader public mood. Voters across the spectrum are tired of leaders who promise one thing and do another. They also want bills they can afford and power that stays on when it is zero degrees. This case shows how leaders often pivot between climate goals and near-term cost relief. The test now is execution: clear permitting, transparent costs, and real savings on bills. If that happens, trust can grow. If not, the anger at a system that serves elites first will deepen.
Sources:
statehousenews.com, thegatewaypundit.com, boston.com, yahoo.com
