Pipeline Politics: How the Williams NESE Project Could Reshape New York's Energy Future Under a New Federal Landscape

As federal and state authorities prepare for a high-stakes regulatory showdown, energy giant Williams Companies has officially petitioned to resurrect its twice-rejected Northeast Supply Enhancement (NESE) pipeline project, potentially altering New York's energy landscape for decades to come.

The May 29 filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) marks a strategic move by Williams to capitalize on the shifting political winds in Washington, setting up what energy analysts describe as an inevitable collision between federal authority and New York State's ambitious climate goals.

"This project is absolutely essential for energy security and economic stability across the Northeast region," said Williams CEO Alan Armstrong in an exclusive interview. "The regulatory obstacles we've faced have been politically motivated rather than based on sound environmental science."

A Pipeline Resurrected

The Northeast Supply Enhancement project, a $1 billion expansion of Williams' existing Transco pipeline system, would add approximately 37 miles of pipeline infrastructure across New Jersey, New York Bay, and connecting to Long Island. First proposed in 2017, the project faced successive rejections by New York regulators in 2019 and 2020, who denied water quality permits citing potential harm to New York Harbor's marine environment.

Williams' renewed push comes amid dramatically different political circumstances. The Trump administration, having regained control of the White House in January, has moved aggressively to implement its "American Energy Dominance" agenda, appointing fossil fuel industry allies to key regulatory positions and issuing executive orders aimed at expediting infrastructure approvals.

Energy Secretary Rick Perry, speaking at an industry conference last month, signaled the administration's support for overriding state objections to pipeline projects. "States cannot be allowed to obstruct national energy priorities under the guise of environmental protection," Perry said. "The economic security of our nation depends on reliable infrastructure."

The revived NESE proposal is substantially similar to its previous iterations, designed to deliver an additional 400 million cubic feet of natural gas daily from Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale region to National Grid customers in New York City and Long Island. Williams maintains that the project would displace higher-emission fuels and support the region's growing energy demands.

Federal Power vs. State Rights

Legal experts suggest the Williams petition represents more than just another infrastructure proposal—it's a test case for federal authority over interstate energy projects.

"What we're witnessing is a constitutional showdown in the making," said Alexandra Klass, professor of energy law at the University of Minnesota. "The fundamental question is whether FERC can effectively override state permitting decisions when those decisions are made under federally delegated authority."

The legal battle centers on Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, which gives states authority to certify that projects comply with state water quality standards. The Trump administration has already moved to limit this authority through regulatory changes at the Environmental Protection Agency.

FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee, a Trump appointee who previously worked for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, has signaled support for limiting state authority. "We cannot allow parochial interests to obstruct projects of national importance," Chatterjee said in a recent commission meeting.

Williams' petition specifically asks FERC to determine that New York has "waived its authority" under the Clean Water Act by allegedly exceeding statutory timelines for review in previous application cycles—a legal argument that has succeeded in other pipeline cases during the previous Trump administration.

New York's Climate Commitments at Stake

For New York officials, the Williams petition represents a direct challenge to the state's landmark Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), which mandates an 85% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and a transition to carbon-free electricity by 2040.

"This pipeline is fundamentally incompatible with New York's legally binding climate commitments," said New York Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Basil Seggos. "We have twice determined that this project would cause significant water quality impacts to New York Harbor, and nothing in the revised application addresses those concerns."

Governor Kathy Hochul, who faces reelection next year, has vowed to fight the project. "New York will use every legal tool at our disposal to prevent fossil fuel infrastructure that threatens our waters and undermines our climate goals," Hochul said in a statement responding to the Williams filing.

Environmental advocates argue that approving NESE would lock in fossil fuel dependence for decades, pointing to the typical 40-60 year lifespan of major pipeline infrastructure.

"This is a zombie project that keeps coming back from the dead," said Alex Beauchamp, Northeast Region Director at Food & Water Watch. "Building new gas infrastructure in 2025 is like investing in typewriters at the dawn of the internet age—it's looking backward when we need to be moving forward."

The Supply Gap Debate

Central to the controversy is a fundamental disagreement about New York's future energy needs. Williams and National Grid, the region's gas utility, maintain that without additional pipeline capacity, the region faces potential supply shortages during peak winter demand periods.

"The Northeast region continues to experience the highest natural gas prices in the nation during peak demand periods," said Chris Stockton, spokesperson for Williams. "NESE would provide price stability and reliability for millions of customers who depend on natural gas for heating and cooking."

National Grid, which would be the primary customer for the gas delivered through NESE, has supported the project as part of its long-term supply strategy. "We have a responsibility to ensure reliable service to our 1.8 million customers across Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and Long Island," said John Bruckner, president of National Grid New York.

However, independent analyses have questioned these claims. A 2020 study by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis found that "claims of a gas supply crisis in downstate New York are unfounded" and that existing infrastructure, combined with energy efficiency and electrification efforts, could meet projected demand.

Robert Howarth, professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University, who serves on New York's Climate Action Council, agrees. "The alleged supply gap is a manufactured crisis," Howarth said. "It's based on projections that assume business-as-usual growth in gas demand, when state policy is explicitly designed to reduce that demand."

Public Opinion Divided

The pipeline battle has revealed deep divisions among New Yorkers. A recent poll conducted by Siena College found that 58% of New York City residents oppose the pipeline, while 32% support it, with 10% undecided. The poll revealed significant demographic and geographic splits, with opposition strongest among younger, urban residents and support higher among older suburban voters.

Labor unions, particularly those representing construction workers, have voiced support for the project. "This represents thousands of good-paying jobs for our members," said Gary LaBarbera, president of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York. "We can build this pipeline to the highest environmental standards while providing economic opportunities for working families."

Meanwhile, a coalition of environmental justice organizations has raised concerns about the project's impacts on vulnerable communities. "The compressor stations and other facilities associated with this pipeline disproportionately affect low-income communities and communities of color," said Eddie Bautista, executive director of the NYC Environmental Justice Alliance. "This is environmental racism, plain and simple."

The business community appears similarly divided. The Partnership for New York City, representing many of the city's largest employers, has supported the pipeline as necessary for economic growth. "Energy constraints threaten New York's economic competitiveness," said Kathryn Wylde, the organization's president.

However, a growing coalition of businesses committed to renewable energy, including major tech companies with New York offices, has opposed the project. "The future of business is clean energy," said Julie Samuels, executive director of Tech:NYC. "Our members are committed to powering their operations with 100% renewable energy, not fossil fuels."

The Regulatory Path Forward

Williams' petition now begins what is likely to be a contentious regulatory process. FERC must first decide whether to accept the petition and reopen the case. If it does, a new environmental review may be required, potentially including public hearings and comment periods.

The commission's decision will be closely watched as an indicator of how aggressively the new administration intends to pursue its energy agenda. Three of the five FERC commissioners are now Trump appointees, giving the administration a majority on the nominally independent commission.

Legal experts anticipate that any FERC decision favoring Williams would immediately be challenged in federal court by New York State and environmental groups. "This case has all the ingredients to eventually reach the Supreme Court," said Richard Lazarus, professor of environmental law at Harvard Law School. "It raises fundamental questions about federalism and environmental protection that the Court has not definitively resolved."

The timeline for a final decision remains uncertain, but Williams has indicated it hopes to begin construction by early 2026 if approvals are secured. The company estimates the project would take approximately 12 months to complete once construction begins.

Beyond NESE: A National Pattern

The Williams petition is not occurring in isolation. Across the country, previously rejected or abandoned fossil fuel projects are being revived under the new administration.

In addition to NESE, Williams has also filed to revive its Constitution Pipeline project, which would transport natural gas from Pennsylvania to New York's Southern Tier and New England. That project was abandoned in 2020 after New York denied water quality permits.

Similarly, TC Energy has indicated it may resubmit applications for the Keystone XL pipeline, which President Biden canceled on his first day in office in 2021. And in the Pacific Northwest, several previously rejected liquefied natural gas export terminals are being reconsidered.

"We're seeing a systematic effort to resurrect fossil fuel infrastructure projects that were previously deemed incompatible with climate goals or environmental protection," said Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. "The cumulative impact of these projects, if approved, would make it virtually impossible to meet national climate targets."

The Path to Compromise?

Some energy analysts suggest that compromise solutions might be possible. "There are ways to address legitimate energy reliability concerns while still honoring climate commitments," said Susan Tierney, a former Assistant Secretary for Policy at the U.S. Department of Energy now with Analysis Group.

Tierney points to possibilities such as time-limited approvals that would allow the pipeline to operate for a defined period before being decommissioned, requirements for carbon capture or offset investments, or hybrid solutions that combine limited gas infrastructure with accelerated renewable deployment.

"The either/or framing of this debate isn't helpful," Tierney said. "The reality is that energy transitions take time, and managing that transition requires pragmatic approaches."

Others remain skeptical that meaningful compromise is possible. "You can't compromise with physics," said Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org. "Every new piece of fossil fuel infrastructure moves us further from climate stability. There's no middle ground between a habitable planet and an uninhabitable one."

A Defining Moment

As the Williams petition moves forward, stakeholders on all sides recognize that more than a single pipeline is at stake. The outcome will likely establish precedents that shape energy infrastructure decisions nationwide for years to come.

"This case represents a fork in the road for American energy policy," said Jason Bordoff, founding director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University and a former energy advisor in the Obama administration. "The decisions we make now about infrastructure will either accelerate or impede the energy transition."

For residents of New York City and Long Island, the consequences will be particularly immediate. The region's energy future—whether dominated by continued reliance on natural gas or an accelerated transition to electrification and renewable energy—hangs in the balance.

"Twenty years from now, we'll look back at this moment as either the point where we doubled down on fossil fuels or where we finally committed to a clean energy future," said Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University. "The science is clear which path we should choose."

As federal regulators begin their review of the Williams petition, New Yorkers and energy stakeholders nationwide are preparing for what promises to be one of the most consequential energy battles of the decade—a fight that will test the boundaries of federal power, state authority, and America's commitment to addressing climate change in an increasingly polarized political environment.