By Granite State Report
In 2025, Governor Kelly Ayotte announced support for resurrecting the Constitution Pipeline — a natural-gas infrastructure project shelved in 2020 — even as she has moved to defund and dismantle key state structures promoting offshore wind development. While she frames both moves as part of an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy focused on reliability and affordability, the underlying logic runs into serious headwinds given New Hampshire’s (and the broader region’s) urgent need to reduce carbon emissions and pivot toward renewable energy. What follows is a breakdown of the facts, the policy implications, and why the choices raise red flags for climate goals.
The Facts: What’s Happening
Constitution Pipeline revival
In August 2025, Governor Ayotte publicly expressed support for reviving the Constitution Pipeline project — a plan that would bring additional natural-gas supply from Pennsylvania to New York and indirectly to New England. The pipeline had been initially approved in 2014, cancelled in 2020 amid regulatory, environmental and market obstacles. Ayotte said “we do need more natural gas here in New Hampshire” and argued the pipeline would help stabilize prices. Some climate-advocacy groups in New Hampshire expressed alarm, noting that the pipeline’s developer has not convincingly shown the project would lower costs or materially benefit the region.
Offshore wind development rollback
In 2025 the New Hampshire House passed legislation (and Governor Ayotte signed into law) a bill (House Bill 682) that, among other things, removes explicit language supporting offshore wind development from the state’s energy-office mandate, renames the Office of Offshore Wind Industry Development and Energy Innovation to simply the Office of Energy Innovation, and repeals the Offshore Wind Industry Workforce Training Center Committee and Offshore & Port Development Commission. The New Hampshire Bulletin reported that Ayotte “has said offshore wind projects are wrong for New Hampshire.” Analysts flagged that this move sends both a practical and symbolic message that New Hampshire is stepping back from offshore wind at a time when the Gulf of Maine is among the fastest-warming bodies of ocean globally.
Why This Is Misguided for Climate & Renewable Goals
Let’s unpack why these two moves — reviving a fossil-fuel infrastructure project and winding back support for offshore wind — present a problematic combination, especially from a climate-scientific and strategic standpoint.
1. Fossil infrastructure locks in emissions
Building or reviving a large pipeline means committing to decades of fossil-fuel supply and associated emissions. Even if the pipeline were primarily feeding other states, the increased supply tends to keep carbon-intensive infrastructure alive longer — a phenomenon called “lock-in.” That’s misaligned with the urgent need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions if we’re serious about heading off the worst impacts of climate change.
2. Opportunity cost: Renewables are advancing
The shift to renewable energy — wind, solar, batteries, demand-flexibility — is no longer futuristic. Costs are falling, deployment is scaling, and the climate benefits are clear. By stepping away from offshore wind development, New Hampshire risks foregoing job-creation, infrastructure modernization, and emissions reductions. As one commentator put it in The Concord Monitor: “Her lack of courage on climate change will cost us jobs… higher electric bills, more pollution.”
3. Pipeline claim of “lowering prices” is questionable
Governor Ayotte argues the pipeline would help stabilize energy prices. But analysts say the developer has not demonstrated how the project would genuinely reduce costs for New Hampshire consumers, especially given market dynamics and the region’s existing gas-infrastructure constraints. There’s no guarantee that building more supply leads to lower cost — especially if it prolongs reliance on volatile fossil-fuel markets.
4. Contradiction between “more supply” and “clean energy path”
If the policy goal is to reduce carbon emissions and transition to clean energy, doubling down on gas while pulling back from wind is contradictory. New Hampshire’s energy strategy appears to be backing both fossil and renewables (“all of the above”), but in practice the moves tilt heavily toward fossil. That risks undermining long-term climate resilience.
5. Regional climate risks are real and growing
New Hampshire and the Gulf of Maine are experiencing rapid warming, coastal changes, and ecosystem impacts. The state has reason to embrace clean-energy leadership to mitigate both local and global climate risks. Retreating from offshore wind — which could harness solid marine wind-resource potential — seems misaligned with this context.
What the Governor Could Do Instead (or Should Consider)
As your nerdy mentor bot, here are some alternative approaches or adjustments that might better line up policy with both affordability and climate imperatives:
Focus on accelerating offshore wind and onshore renewables: By reinvesting in the workforce, ports, and infrastructure for offshore wind, New Hampshire could position itself as a clean-energy hub rather than stepping back. Prioritize grid modernization + battery storage + demand management: These investment areas can improve reliability and cost-control, sometimes more cost-effectively than building large fossil pipelines. Use carbon-accounting when evaluating pipelines: Require full lifecycle emissions assessments and binding assurances on consumer price impacts before pipeline resurrection. Adopt just-transition frameworks: Recognize the impact of shifting energy systems on workers and communities, and align fossil infrastructure decisions with a clear transition plan. Emphasize regional coordination: New Hampshire’s energy system is interconnected with New England. Renewable strategies should leverage regional grids, offshore zones, and shared infrastructure rather than defaulting to new gas supply.
Final Thought
Governor Ayotte’s support for reviving the Constitution Pipeline and simultaneous rollback of offshore wind marks a puzzling cleaving of New Hampshire’s energy future toward fossil supply at the expense of renewable growth. From a climate-science perspective, stepping back from wind while embracing new fossil infrastructure is a gamble — the kind the planet cannot afford. If the goal is to protect the climate, reduce carbon emissions, and promote clean-energy jobs, the policy choices should reflect an urgent and clear transition strategy — not a half-step.
The decisions made now will shape the state’s energy infrastructure for decades. If New Hampshire wants to avoid being left behind in the clean-energy race — or worse, locked into high-carbon pathways — the pendulum should swing toward renewables, not fossil revival.
