Trump’s Push to Revive the Constitution Pipeline: A Game Changer for Northeast Energy Costs?
On March 13, 2025, former President Donald Trump took to social media to spotlight a long-stalled energy infrastructure project that he believes could dramatically lower energy costs for families in New York, Connecticut, and New England. His post reignited a contentious debate over the Constitution Pipeline, a natural gas project that has been mired in regulatory battles for over a decade. Below is the full text of Trump’s statement on Truth Social:
If New York, Connecticut, and New England had their Pipelines, savings from Heating alone would go down $2,300 per family — When you add Air Conditioning, and other things, you would have a $5,000 savings per family. All we need is a simple approval from New York. Every other State in New England, plus Connecticut, wants this, in order to help the Environment, and save BIG money. We only need the final approval from New York State, whose people all want it. Otherwise, we’ll have to use other authorities. New York State has held up this project for many years, but we won’t let that happen any longer. We will use federal approval!
This statement reflects Trump’s renewed focus on energy policy as he seeks to leverage federal authority to bypass state-level resistance. But what exactly is the Constitution Pipeline, why has it been stalled, and could it truly deliver the savings Trump promises? Let’s dive into the details.
The Constitution Pipeline: A Brief History
The Constitution Pipeline is a proposed 124-mile natural gas pipeline designed to transport up to 0.65 billion cubic feet per day of gas from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale region to New York and parts of New England. First proposed in 2013 by Williams Cos., alongside partners Duke Energy, Cabot Oil and Gas, and AltaGas, the project aimed to alleviate energy supply constraints in the Northeast, a region that relies heavily on natural gas for heating, cooling, and power generation but faces high costs due to limited pipeline capacity.
The pipeline received approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in 2014, with construction initially slated to begin shortly thereafter. However, New York State’s Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) denied a critical water quality permit in 2016, citing risks to streams, wetlands, and trout-spawning habitats. This decision, upheld by federal courts including a 2018 Supreme Court refusal to hear an appeal, effectively halted the project. By 2020, Williams Cos. abandoned the pipeline, writing off a $354 million loss as regulatory delays and legal challenges drove costs up nearly 40% from the original $700 million estimate.
Trump’s Case: Savings and Energy Dominance
Trump’s post centers on two key claims: significant cost savings for families and broader support across the region. He asserts that the pipeline could reduce heating costs by $2,300 per family annually, with total savings reaching $5,000 when factoring in air conditioning and other energy uses. These figures appear to draw from broader estimates tied to his administration’s energy agenda, which has touted cuts of 50% to 70% in Northeast energy prices through increased natural gas access.
The Northeast’s energy woes are well-documented. Despite sitting near the gas-rich Marcellus Shale, the region struggles with supply bottlenecks. New York, for instance, has banned fracking since 2014, limiting local production, while opposition to new pipelines has forced reliance on pricier imported fuels or existing, overstretched infrastructure. During cold snaps, this has led to spiking natural gas and electricity prices, with some areas even resorting to LNG shipments by sea. Trump’s argument is that the Constitution Pipeline would unlock cheaper, domestic gas, driving down utility bills and boosting economic competitiveness.
His mention of environmental benefits—“in order to help the Environment”—is a nod to the idea that natural gas, which emits less carbon dioxide than coal or oil when burned, could displace dirtier fuels in the region’s energy mix. This aligns with his broader “energy dominance” platform, which prioritizes fossil fuel expansion over renewable transitions.
New York’s Resistance: A Green Agenda at Odds
New York State, under Democratic leadership, has been the primary roadblock. Governors Andrew Cuomo and now Kathy Hochul have championed aggressive climate goals, including a fracking ban and a target of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The NYSDEC’s permit denial was rooted in the Clean Water Act’s Section 401, which gives states authority to protect their waterways from federal projects. Environmental groups like Riverkeeper and Earthjustice hailed the decision as a victory, arguing the pipeline threatened 251 water bodies and locked in decades of fossil fuel dependency at odds with decarbonization.
Trump’s claim that “New York State’s people all want it” oversimplifies a polarized reality. While some upstate communities see economic potential in gas infrastructure—jobs, royalties, and lower energy costs—urban and environmental constituencies fiercely oppose it. New York’s recent approval of a “climate superfund” law, taxing fossil fuel companies $75 billion to fund green projects, underscores this divide. Critics argue this policy, alongside pipeline rejections, raises energy costs for residents, a point Trump seizes on.
Federal Override: A Trump Card?
Frustrated by New York’s intransigence, Trump threatens to “use federal approval” or “other authorities” to push the pipeline through. This could involve several strategies he’s tested before. During his first term, he issued executive orders to streamline pipeline permitting and curb states’ Clean Water Act powers, though legal challenges limited their impact. Now, with a declared “energy emergency” in 2025, his administration might lean on FERC waivers, eminent domain, or new legislation to sidestep New York’s veto. Posts on X suggest he’s already meeting with regional governors to build momentum, claiming “almost all of the permits” are in place—a bold assertion given the project’s cancellation five years ago.
Williams Cos. has remained cagey, noting in 2020 that existing pipelines and expansions offered better returns than “greenfield” projects like Constitution amid regulatory uncertainty. Reviving it would require fresh investment and political will, both of which Trump seems intent on marshaling.
The Savings Debate: Fact or Hyperbole?
Can the pipeline deliver $5,000 in annual savings per family? The Northeast’s high energy costs—driven by supply constraints and seasonal demand spikes—lend credence to the idea that more gas could lower prices. Posts on X from figures like SEC Lutnick echo Trump, suggesting the pipeline could “halve” East Coast gas prices. However, precise modeling is scarce. The $2,300 heating figure might stem from comparisons with regions like Pennsylvania, where abundant gas keeps costs down, but air conditioning and “other things” add variables harder to pin down. Critics argue Trump’s numbers are aspirational, not actuarial, and that market dynamics—global LNG prices, weather, or renewable growth—could dilute the impact.
Environmental and Political Stakes
The pipeline’s revival would intensify a clash between energy affordability and climate priorities. Proponents see it as a pragmatic bridge fuel; opponents, a step backward from renewables. New York’s recent approval of expanded capacity on the Iroquois Pipeline hints at pragmatic concessions to avoid shortages, but Constitution’s scale—650 million cubic feet daily—raises the stakes. Grassroots resistance, which killed the project once, could resurge, especially if federal overreach galvanizes activists.
Politically, Trump’s gambit tests his influence in a region that largely rejected him electorally. Bypassing New York could alienate blue-state voters while energizing his base with a win for fossil fuels. For New England and Connecticut, where governors have signaled openness, the promise of savings might outweigh ideological qualms.
A Pipeline to the Future or the Past?
Trump’s push to resurrect the Constitution Pipeline is a bold bid to reshape Northeast energy markets. If successful, it could ease the region’s cost-of-living crunch and cement his legacy as an energy disruptor. Yet the hurdles—legal, environmental, and political—are formidable, and the savings, while plausible, remain unproven. As of now, the pipeline’s fate hinges on whether Trump can bend New York to his will or wield federal power to override it. Either way, the battle lines are drawn, and the outcome will ripple far beyond the Northeast.