Pipeline Flip? Healey’s Gas Plea Stuns

Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey, who once bragged she stopped two gas pipelines, just asked President Trump’s energy chief to fast-track a natural gas expansion that her office says will cut customer bills.

Story Snapshot

Healey urged speedy federal review of Enbridge’s Algonquin expansion to add gas supply.
Her office says the project serves 600,000 customers and saves about $40 million a year.
Critics highlight her 2022 remarks claiming she stopped two pipelines as proof of a U-turn.
Supporters call it a limited upgrade focused on affordability and winter reliability.

What Healey Requested From Washington

On October 1, Governor Maura Healey sent a letter to United States Energy Secretary Chris Wright asking for a faster federal review of a regional gas pipeline expansion. The project is Enbridge’s Reliable Affordable Resilient Enhancement, tied to the Algonquin Gas Transmission system in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Healey said she and Wright share a goal to bring more United States natural gas into New England to lower costs and reduce reliance on imports.

Healey’s office framed the request as basic consumer protection. The administration said the expansion would deliver supply to about 600,000 customers and lower gas bills by roughly $40 million each year. The state also said the developer, not ratepayers, would fund construction. A January release from the Massachusetts government used the same figures when describing the project’s benefits to households and businesses.

Why Critics See Hypocrisy

Opponents point to Healey’s past pipeline fights. In 2022, during a candidate forum, she said, “Remember, I stopped two gas pipelines from coming into this state,” naming Kinder Morgan and Access Northeast. She also touted opposition to new gas infrastructure. Those quotes now fuel claims that her support for a gas expansion marks a reversal under pressure from high energy costs and politics.

Commentary across outlets repeats the charge that Healey made a career moment out of blocking pipelines and is now asking the Trump administration to “step on the gas.” The line lands because the past statements are clear and on tape. To many voters, that looks like one more example of leaders shifting when the heat rises on bills and winter supply.

How Supporters Defend the Shift

Healey’s team says the stance is consistent with an “all-of-the-above” plan that backs projects that lower costs and rejects those that do not. Supporters call this expansion a limited upgrade to an existing line, not a brand-new build. They argue it targets peak winter needs, reduces dependence on pricier imported liquefied natural gas, and smooths bill spikes. State reporting pegs the savings at about $40 million annually for Eversource customers over a decade.

The process also runs through state and federal checks, which can filter costs and risks before approval. In Massachusetts, utilities submit long-term transport contracts to the Department of Public Utilities. The department approves deals when they are in the interest of gas ratepayers. Federal regulators then decide on interstate pipeline permits, which shapes what gets built and who pays.

What This Says About Energy Policy Now

New England’s energy debates often center on affordability and reliability in the coldest months. Leaders of both parties end up backing near-term supply fixes when prices jump, even if they campaigned against pipelines. That is why a Democrat governor who once sued a major oil company can now push a gas upgrade, while a Republican White House oversees the review. The shared message is simple: lower bills and keep the heat on.

The deeper worry for many Americans is trust. People on the right see leaders talk climate, then scramble for gas when shortages loom. People on the left see promises on clean energy, then delays and detours. Both sides suspect the system serves insiders first. This case shows how shifting rules, complex approvals, and political timing can leave families caught between high costs today and long-term goals tomorrow.

What To Watch Next

Watch the federal timeline and any conditions attached to the project. Look for how the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission weigh consumer savings against future climate targets. Track winter price swings to see if savings appear on bills. Finally, see if leaders pair this gas move with faster grid upgrades and local energy projects, or if the state slides into another cycle of short-term fixes without lasting relief.