Why Governor Kelly Ayotte’s Push to Revive the Constitution Pipeline — and Her Roll-Back of Offshore Wind — Are Misguided for New Hampshire’s Climate Future

Independent New Hampshire Journalism · Northfield, NH

Opinion · By Dexter Dow

In 2025, Governor Kelly Ayotte announced support for resurrecting the Constitution Pipeline — a natural-gas infrastructure project shelved in 2020 — and signed a law that removed offshore wind from the mission of the state’s energy-innovation office and repealed two state bodies set up to promote offshore wind development.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 natural gas from Pennsylvania to New York and indirectly to New England. The pipeline was initially approved in 2014 and shelved in 2020. In a written statement to NHPR, Ayotte said the project “will allow us to strengthen regional energy reliability, without the need for new pipelines in New Hampshire,” and that “by increasing supply, we can help stabilize prices.” Critics questioned the price argument. Jamie Dickerson of the Acadia Center, which advocates for cutting carbon emissions in the Northeast, told NHPR: “We see that it's much more likely that prices would go up rather than go down as a result.” Jeremy McDiarmid of Advanced Energy United told the New Hampshire Bulletin that the idea that “natural gas is going to somehow create a big downward pressure on electricity and energy bills is just not proven out in the data.”

Update: In August 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission published notice of an environmental assessment finding that the 125-mile pipeline would not significantly affect the environment, with a federal authorization deadline of Nov. 19, 2026. New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation opposes that approach, wants a full environmental impact statement, and says the developer needs a new state water-quality certification (ENR, Sept. 2, 2026).

Offshore wind development rollback

On Aug. 1, 2025, Governor Ayotte signed House Bill 682 (Chapter 286 of 2025, effective Sept. 30, 2025), which, 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 in February 2025 that Ayotte “has said she feels the projects are wrong for New Hampshire.” The move sends both a practical and symbolic message that New Hampshire is stepping back from offshore wind. In the same report, Rep. Wendy Thomas, a Merrimack Democrat, said the Gulf of Maine “has already warmed, and is doing so faster than almost anywhere.”

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.

3. Pipeline claim of “lowering prices” is questionable

Governor Ayotte argues the pipeline would help stabilize energy prices. But the advocates and analysts quoted above said the evidence does not show the project would 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)

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.

Decisions like these 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.

Corrections: Granite State Report corrects verified errors promptly and appends a dated note identifying what changed and when. The corrections policy and the corrections register are public, and correction notes are never removed.