There is more abundant supply of natural gas in Pennsylvania / the Marcellus basin, available at lower prices, that cannot economically get to New England without more pipeline capacity*. The New England utilities must import liquefied natural gas (LNG) in the winter to provide sufficient energy to meet demand in the region. It is not infinite, but it's better. There's also room to drill more in the mid-continent or displace industrial demand by price sensitive consumers (like petrochemical plants and aluminum smelters).

Piping in gas also is more energy efficient and cost effective, because it doesn't have to be chilled to a liquid at -254 F and kept at that temperature for ocean or rail transport.

LNG prices are going to the moon because Europe has replaced most of its pipeline imports of gas from Russia with ocean borne LNG since Russia invaded more of Ukraine this spring. French nuclear production also under-performed this summer, due to weather and technical issues, and this caused Europe to burn more gas than forecast over the summer.

LNG export capacity (and shipping capacity, to a lesser extent) is constrained over the short to medium term. Adding capacity / building terminals takes several years at best. More gas from the mid-continent would be liquefied and shipped (likely to Europe) if the capacity existed today.

The short term impacts of more pipeline capacity into New England would do the following:

• significantly reduce energy prices here,
• slightly increase them in the mid-continent
• might make a significant dent** in global LNG prices which would help importers like Europe and Japan while costing exporters like Qatar and Russia

Not adding more energy supply to New England quickly, whether through pipelines or transmission lines is not just a regional political / economic blunder, but an unforced geopolitical error by the United States. The region skated by on cheap LNG prices for a while after decommissioning a lot of coal power plants, but now that gamble isn't working out.

I support more renewable energy in New England. I'm more skeptical on any greenfield nuclear expansion because there's not a good track record of building nuclear plants in this country that don't require massive bailouts / have cost blowouts in my lifetime. I'd be surprised if a nuclear power site could be agreed upon in less than a decade, given local politics.

I think that the MA political leadership needs to cut a deal with Maine to make the whole transmission line project from Quebec more appealing. Seriously, let anybody with a Maine license plate park at Logan for free, get free Red Sox tickets, let them redesign the MA state flag, or whatever....

I also think the congressional delegation might need to cut some kind of deal to force some more pipeline capacity through New York.

*This might change if gas prices double or triple... then you might see more rail cars and possibly trucks carrying LNG.

**This is due to the extremely tight market for LNG driven by the Russia / Ukraine war and related sanctions.