Should States Rely More on a Utility Model to Boost Power and Reduce Costs for Consumers? All Signs Point to ‘No.’
Outrage over skyrocketing utility prices has triggered legislation to remake New Jersey’s market for energy. Ohio is taking a different, market-oriented approach. And new research warns New York against reverting to expanded reliance on regulated utility companies – as opposed to competitive energy providers – to meet its climate targets.
In New Jersey, critics worry that the proposed law would make power even less affordable. Assembly Bill 5439 pushes the state toward a Fixed Resource Requirement (FRR) model that encourages regulated utilities to build more power plants and sidesteps the competitive market for electricity. As Politico reported, the bill would allow PSE&G and other utilities to build their own power plants for the first time in a quarter-century. “The goal is to spur someone to quickly build new power plants to meet rising electricity demand.”
But this FRR/utility model typically results in significantly higher costs compared to the prices generated through PJM Interconnection, the non-profit regional transmission organization (RTO) that manages a wholesale electricity market and grid for New Jersey and all or parts of 12 other states and the District of Columbia.
A thorough study by the Independent Marketing Monitor for PJM in 2020 looked at several scenarios involving the creation of FRRs in New Jersey and found that consumer costs would rise significantly.
An R Street Institute report in December examined Appalachian Power’s FRR capacity rate compared to PJM’s base residual auction clearing price, which had just risen sharply. Despite the PJM increase, its price was roughly $200 per megawatt day cheaper. R Street concluded:
Vertically integrated utilities using the FRR alternative, such as Appalachian Power, typically have higher costs due to limited competition and suboptimal resource allocation. In contrast, PJM’s Base Residual Auction (BRA) clearing prices demonstrate how competitive forces promote cost efficiency, even under challenging system conditions.
But higher prices aren’t the only problem. The New Jersey bill is unlikely to lead to power plants coming online quickly enough to relieve the shortage that is causing rates to rise. Delays because of slow permitting and supply chain hurdles are especially harmful to an FFR model. Sending competitive power to New Jersey through the PJM grid can happen more quickly.
We have written about permitting delays many times in this newsletter. New federal law has so far had only small effects on a process that involves obstacles such as local ordinances, zoning rules, and arduous Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). In a report on Jan. 28, the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) noted that the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) found that since the federal Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA), 39% of these statements were completed within two years – an increase of 10 percentage points. But 61% still exceed the required timeframe.
“Additionally,” the BPC pointed out, “CEQ data reveals that nearly a quarter of projects that completed an EIS since the FRA’s enactment took more than five years, with some extending beyond a decade.
As we reported in our Newsletter No. 45:
New Jersey consumers this year will see utility bill increases of about one-fifth statewide. On Feb. 12, the state Board of Public Utilities (BPU) completed its yearly electricity auction for New Jersey’s top four utilities. “The board said costs are expected to rise anywhere from 17% to more than 20% for customers of the four biggest utilities in the state: PSE&G, Jersey Central Power & Light, Atlantic City Electric, and Rockland Electric,” reported NBC’s New York TV station.
By comparison, Ohio is moving quickly to pass Senate Bill 2 and House Bill 15, legislation that places a priority on competitive energy and ensures that consumers benefit from market solutions.
The state Senate passed SB 2 unanimously on March 20. Opposed by major utilities such as American Electric Power and FirstEnergy, it eliminates hidden consumer charges and keeps utilities focused on transmission and distribution rather than energy generation, which it emphasizes should be a function of the open market. The legislation aims to entice more data center development for Ohio’s state economy, but it protects the state’s grid for consumers and businesses in the process.
“This is a major step forward in meeting Ohio’s ever changing power needs,” said Senate President Rob McColley, a Republican. “We wanted to do more than just enough to keep the lights on. My colleagues and I prioritized a policy that makes Ohio a net exporter of power.”
Ohio clearly considers this market-based approach a better way to handle the rising demand for electricity than trying to restructure the energy market in an FRR direction and risk boosting electricity prices even higher.
Of relevance to the legislation in New Jersey and Ohio is a new study by the consulting firm FTI for New York’s Affordable Clean Power Alliance. Released in late March, the study found that “the transition to a competitive market has provided significant benefits to New York ratepayers and advanced the goals originally envisioned by state policymakers.”
By contrast, FTI concluded, “Full or partial return to utility-owned generation would expose New York ratepayers to increased risk and higher development costs. New York utilities have a track record of cost overruns for the portions of the grid they control and have passed or attempted to pass cost increases onto captive ratepayers.”
Among the findings – as summarized by a press release from the Independent Power Producers of New York – was that independent power generation “has consistently lowered costs for New Yorkers compared to utility-owned generation. Consumers in New York are paying 35% less for power supply today compared to what they were paying for the power generated by monopolistic utilities.” In addition:
Competitive markets facilitate quicker adoption of innovative, cleaner technologies, resulting in greater environmental benefits. As a result, New York has one of the lowest-emitting energy systems per capita in the country. The energy produced in New York emits less than half the carbon dioxide compared to states with utility-owned generation.
The release continued, “Utilities should continue to focus on transmission and distribution in New York State. Historically, they have had many cost overruns with generation projects, which fall onto the backs of consumers.
“Since New York transitioned to a competitive energy market approach, energy consumers are not burdened with cost overruns on generation projects. Additionally, utility-owned generators would not be able to supply new generation in New York at a lower cost or on a faster timeline than independent power producers.”
The FTI study stated that “progress towards meeting the state’s climate ambitions has been slower than desired, despite consistently high private developer interest in development of new renewables.” Delays have been “driven by factors including supply chain constraints, inflationary pressures, and transmission system bottlenecks.”
The pace of renewable energy development in New York has been so slow, said the study, that it has “led some parties to propose an expanded role for utilities in the development of new generation resources.” However, “the issue of utility-owned generation in New York has been considered multiple times in the years following restructuring, and the idea has been dismissed,” apart from two special circumstances.
Judging from the report, one would have to conclude that more reliance on utilities is not the answer for New York, New Jersey, or other states.
House Committee Hearing Looks at Ways to Cope With Rising Demand for Electricity, With AI a Major Topic
“Scaling for Growth: Meeting Demand for Reliable, Affordable Electricity” was the title of a hearing on March 5 held by the subcommittee on Energy of the House Energy & Commerce Committee.
“In the coming years, said Rep. Bob Latta (R-Ohio), the subcommittee chairman, “it’s critical we produce the power needed to meet the demands of the electric grid, while also powering the data centers that are being built to support the critical advancement of AI technology.”
AI was a major topic. “My concern today is we’re in an arms race for artificial intelligence,” said Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL). “And it’s clear we don’t have the capacity to build the data systems that we need in order to win that arms race with China.” Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY) echoed those concerns, arguing that if the US doesn’t act on energy production, “we’re going to lose the battle for AI to China.”
The hearing focused on how to increase baseload power and support the grid to make energy more available and reliable for consumers and businesses.
Four experts testified about the growing demand for energy in the U.S., but Representatives of both parties “did not indicate that any particular concrete legislation is forthcoming to increase the US energy supply or build AI data centers,” according to a report posted to JDSupra.com.
The hearing took place days after President Trump announced that Taiwan’s largest chip maker, TSMC, would invest $100 billion in semiconductor manufacturing facilities in Arizona. The Administration’s AI Action Plan will be revealed in mid-July.
Noel Black, an official of Southern Companies, one of the largest U.S. electric utilities, testified that “data centers are expected to account for the single largest growth segment” in the energy space, adding “up to 44% of US electricity load growth through 2028.”
PJM (see above), the largest RTO, expects its summer peak to climb by about 50% over the next 15 years. Asim Haque, the organization’s senior vice president for governmental and member services, “told lawmakers that generation assets are retiring faster than new supply is being added,” said a report by Power Engineering.
Renewable sources alone will not be able to meet demand. Dispatchable energy such aa natural gas, nuclear and coal will be necessary. Said Haque: “We certainly have concern with not having dispatchable resources in the generation interconnection queue, and the grid is a machine and it is a machine governed by the laws of physics.” Rep. Julie Fedorchak (R-AL) questioned the other experts, who agreed that they cannot expect to meet higher demand with renewables alone.
All the witnesses said that permitting reform was necessary. Tyler H. Norris of Duke University testified that load growth is “colliding with barriers to timely resource expansion, including supply chain constraints, restrictive intervention procedures, and extended permitting processes.” Todd Brickhouse, CEO of Basin Electric Cooperative in North Dakota, called on Congress to cut “costly and burdensome regulations to accelerate deployment and maintenance of electric infrastructure.”
Still, none of the members of the House mentioned substantive legislation to address permitting issues. A bipartisan permitting reform package failed last year in Congress, with the Senate controlled by Democrats, supporters have hopes this year for a meaningful reform package from Sen. Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV), who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee. Permitting reform is also a priority of the Trump Administration.
Said Capito at a hearing in February:
Years of changes in guidance and regulations from administration to administration and a complex web of judicial rulings have resulted in an ever-expanding hodge-podge of often duplicative and contradictory requirements. While this confusing and complex body of administrative and common law has grown over the past half century, Congress has not stepped in to provide the holistic clarifications or modernization.
Maybe this year…
‘We Haven’t Seen Growth Like This…For Decades’
Load growth is the hot topic among energy experts as concerns heighten over rising demands for electricity. An article in Utility Dive reported that manufacturers of grid equipment forecast 2% annual growth in load over the next quarter-century. “We haven’t seen growth like this in a very long time — for decades — so we need policy solutions,” said Febra Phillips, CEO of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association during an event sponsored by Axios.
“By the time we get to 2050, [that’s] 50% growth over where we are today,” Phillips said. “In large part, data centers over the next decade are going to be the key driver.” NEMA expects to see 300% growth in electricity demand from data centers, “and the rest coming from electrification of buildings, industrial systems, e-mobility.”
A March 3 report by Cy McGeady of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and three colleagues carried the headline, “The Electricity Supply Bottleneck on U.S. AI Dominance.” The authors wrote that “the basic reality of a surge in data center–based electricity demand has been confirmed by a wide range of work from the private sector, civil society, and national labs. Recent estimates from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory place electricity consumption by data centers at 176 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2023, representing 4.4 percent of total U.S. electricity demand.”
The CSIS authors note that “data from SemiAnalysis, which provides best-in-industry tracking of chip production, chip orders, and individual data center developments, shows that over 80 GW of data center capacity under various stages of development could be brought online in the United States by 2030.” But these facilities won’t make much of a dent with demand growing so quickly.
The authors focus on “speed-to-power,” the time it takes for a data center to receive access to electricity supply. In Northern Virginia – the world’s largest data center market – “speed-to-power is growing worse, as data centers now face electricity supply wait times up to 7 years,” they write.
Some 29 states are expected to see over 100% growth in their data center capacity, says SemiAnalysis. But, according to the CSIS report, “Despite a flight to new geographies, computing capacity will remain regionally concentrated. By 2030 just nine states will host 70 percent of the nation’s data center capacity. Virginia and Texas are the standouts, projected to together represent 34 percent of the nation’s data center capacity in 2030.”
The CSIS report also details the boom in natural gas supply in the U.S., with data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration showing nearly 30 GW in gas generation in development by 2030. This gas supply can also be sited, or “islanded,” to nearby data centers, with ExxonMobil having announced plans to develop 1.5 GW of fully islanded gas generation fitted with carbon-capture technology and co-located with data centers, most likely sited in Texas.
But the thorny issue of who pays remains. Bills in Georgia, California and Virginia seek to place more costs “of data center infrastructure on developers rather than being borne by ratepayers, addressing a concern that the new loads could raise utility costs,” reported E&E News on March 3. “Others would establish new rules regarding how data centers can obtain power.”
E&E notes that “even lawmakers in Texas — a market long known for its hands-off rules — are considering a bill that would raise costs for data centers and potentially force them to power off during a grid emergency.”
This piecemeal, state-by-state legislation is an indication that federal action is needed to keep the grid and energy supply reliable, affordable and secure. Again, stakeholders are looking to the Trump Administration’s “AI Action Plan,” which recently closed a public comment period (8,755 submissions were received) and is expected to be published by the Office of Science and Technology Policy in July.
How Tariffs on Mexico and Canada Hinder the Electricity Grid, Especially in Texas
Tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada, both threatened and enacted by the Trump Administration will make it harder to strengthen and protect the electricity grid – especially in vulnerable Texas.
“Tariffs limit access to essential electrical components,” said a March 6 in GasWorld article, “making it more difficult for key energy states such as Texas to keep developing the resilient power grid it needs.”
For example, transformers produced in Mexico are crucial for stepping voltage up for long-range transmission of electricity and then stepping voltage down for distribution to homes and businesses. There is currently a nationwide and global shortage of transformers, and lead times have surged from 50 weeks in 2021 to 120 weeks in 2024, according to Wood Mackenzie, the energy consulting and research firm, which also notes that the lead time for large transformers reaches four years.
U.S.-produced transformers meet only 20% of domestic demand, and imports have to fill the gap. Mexico supplies nearly half of all high-voltage transformer imports through plants like the one in Chihuahua owned by the U.S. company Virginia Transformers, an 82,000-square-foot facility built in 1995 with the advent of free regional trade under NAFTA.
President Trump announced tariffs on all Mexican imports starting Feb. 4, then delayed them until early March, then delayed them again but imposed 25% tariffs on steel starting March 12 with more tariffs expected April 2. Steel tariffs themselves also hinder grid development.
David Goldwyn and Joseph Webster of the Atlantic Council wrote on March 3:
Tariffs could theoretically push prices of finished goods above 25 percent due to “pancaking” taxes on cross-border shipments of intermediate goods, where each border crossing incurs a fee. Furthermore, across-the-board 25 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum will raise prices of a specialized steel product called grain-oriented electrical steel, which is used in transformers, elevating the price of transformers made in the United States.
Tariffs would further clog the transformer pipeline and raise costs across the border in Texas, which was devastated by outages during Winter Storm Uri in 2021. ERCOT, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, an independent, non-profit organization that manages the flow of electricity to most of the state, has avoided a repeat of the Uri catastrophe only because of greater generation, which rose by 70 terawatt hours (TWH) from 2021 to 2024 even as coal use declined.
Nationwide, advanced energy technologies like solar, wind, and battery energy storage accounted for 91% of new electricity generation capacity from March 2021 to December 2024. ERCOT’s proportion of natural gas generation has increased slightly above its 2006-2024 average of 43%. Over that period, wind, at 24%, has dramatically displaced coal, which has dropped from 27% to 13%. Unlike natural gas, wind is not dispatchable – that is, it can’t necessarily meet emergency needs.
Disruptions to the flow of electricity in Texas have national and even global implications for security. They constrain natural gas pipeline shipments to liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, including Freeport LNG on Quintana Island in Texas. Freeport describes itself as “the first world-scale electric LNG (eLNG) plant in North America.”
Also threatened, according to the GasWorld piece, are such electricity-dependent projects as Avina Clean Hydrogen’s 800,000 ton-per-annum clean ammonia facility in the Texas Gulf Coast and global engineering company Worley’s contract for ExxonMobil’s low-carbon hydrogen and ammonia facility at Baytown, the largest of its type in the world.
Goldwyn and Webster write, “If Texas is unable to construct new incremental electricity generation—particularly for peak summer demand—Houston and the entire state could be plunged into crisis after crisis. Unreliable power is sure to drive away businesses.” They add:
Data centers require uninterruptible power supplies, so any outages in the Lone Star State—or even the credible threat of outages—will render it less attractive to artificial intelligence and technology companies. Manufacturers, aware that Texas’s electricity outage in 2021 caused severe supply-chain disruptions to chip production, will look to other locations if ERCOT’s reliability is in question.
Meanwhile, tariffs threaten the U.S.-Canadian relationship in a different way. The two countries “have shared a robust electricity grid for over a century, with more than 31 cross-border transmission lines connecting the two nations. This interconnected system allows for efficient energy trading, ensuring reliable power supply across both countries,” says a Data Insight Market report. “However, recent tensions over tariffs have raised concerns about the stability of this critical infrastructure.”
Reducing exports of power from Canada would mean increased reliance on local sources, which are often less efficient. Less electricity from Canada would mean a strained U.S. grid, higher energy costs and reduced reliability.
“In response to these challenges, the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) and ISO New England (ISONE) have filed tariff amendments with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC),” said the Data Insight Market report “These proposals aim to allow the ISOs to recover costs associated with any duties imposed on Canadian electricity imports.”
Regulators in Michigan, which receives power from Canada, have taken notice. The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs released this statement on March 10:
We’re concerned about the impacts across the energy sector, including both pricing and reliability concerns. While the vast majority of Michigan’s electricity is either produced by the electric utilities or purchased under long-term power contracts, the imposition of these tariffs could have some impact on prices in the regional energy markets, though the ultimate impact on Michigan customers is likely to be small.
Still, tariffs over the longer term would spell danger for regional markets as grid infrastructure expenses and power costs themselves rise.
The Race for AI Is an Energy Play, Natural Gas Isn’t Just a Bridge Fuel, and Other Thoughts from CERAWeek in Houston
The sudden, rising demand for electric power – fueled by data centers, new manufacturing, and the electrification of transportation – was the talk of CERAWeek, the annual energy conference held March 10-14 in Houston. Organized by S&P Global, and chaired by the company’s vice-chairman, Daniel Yergin, CERAWeek brings together global business executives, government officials, and media representatives.
Jason Plautz, an EnergyWire reporter who covered the conference, wrote that the pressure for more power of any and all kinds “has sped up discussions of how to upgrade an aging grid and whether the work comes in conflict with net-zero goals.
Said Siemens CEO Christian Bruch: “I never liked this narrative of the energy transition to be something separate…. What we’re trying to do is build a resilient energy supply system. What we are trying to do is meet the unprecedented growth in electricity.” Plautz wrote that while Siemens has seen soaring demand for gas turbines, “electricity transmission lines have been the company’s biggest growth area.”
Manu Astana, CEO of PJM Interconnection, addressed the problem grid operators face trying to keep electricity flowing during peak demand periods while holding down costs for consumers. “One of the frustrations you have at PJM,” he said, “is that you’re sort of damned if you do, damned if you don’t with capacity…. Everybody says, ‘Let’s have free markets solve for the price that we need to get to for the capital to flow where it ought to.’ But once you get these high prices, then everyone’s like, ‘Oh wait, we don’t want to pay this anymore.’”
Mark Christie, the new chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), noted the key role natural gas will play as a solution to the grid’s problems. “When it comes to the reliability of the electric grid, we have a rendezvous with reality,” Christie, a Republican, said, indicating that FERC will support gas infrastructure, including new pipelines, to make the grid more secure.
Referring to increasing demand from data centers, Ahmed Al Jaber, head of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. (ADNOC), said “The true cost of AI is not just code, it is kilowatts…. The race for AI is an energy play.”
A much-repeated theme of CERAWeek was that natural gas is back (though it never really left). What could delay infrastructure projects? Certainly, U.S. tariffs, as we noted above, could increase material cost. Then, there are permitting battles and court challenges. According to EnergyWire: “There’s a recognition within the industry that the energy transition is not going to be using natural gas just as a bridge fuel,” said Michael Smith, founder and CEO of Freeport LNG.
“It’s the baseload fuel that is necessary for us to create the electrons necessary for AI and for 7 billion people who, as [Department of Energy] Secretary Wright said, don’t have our lifestyle and want a piece of our pie.”
S&P Global sees global LNG demand growing 40% in the next five years, said Eric Eyberg, who heads the organization’s global gas and power consulting practice. LNG exports from the U.S. should double over that period.
The big change at CERA in the past few years was captured when Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, tugged up his sleeve to show moderator Yergin a blue wristband that read, “Make Energy Great Again.” The audience applauded.
Fink was a high-profile leader for promoting Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investment criteria and advocating net-zero policies. Wrote Plautz and Shelby Webb of EnergyWire:
Speakers throughout the week referred back to the slogan, a signifier of the rosy mood among many energy executives working under President Donald Trump’s energy abundance agenda. With the White House pushing natural gas exports and rising electricity demand driving up demand for power generation from all sources with no federal pressure to drive down emissions, the energy sector is facing a wide-open future
Some at CERAWeek were less concerned about tariffs raising costs than about the need for permitting reform. Alan Armstrong, CEO of Williams Companies, said, “The permitting’s cost is twice as much as we’re spending on the pipe…. It’s the risk associated with having a project stopped after you’ve spent hundreds of millions of dollars on a project that raises the cost of capital and it raises the cost to consumers.”
Also worrying was the forced exodus of federal employees from federal agencies dealing with permitting. Department of Interior Secretary Doug Burgum tried to put those fears to rest. “Anybody that’s involved with permitting, we’re going to make sure that they continue to have their jobs and we give them the tools to go at it even faster,” he said.
Speaking at a National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) breakfast at CERAWeek, Bergum said, “We are looking at everything to try to, for the first time, [have] streamlined government…[and] it’s happening. It’s happening quickly.”
The Administration’s commitment to “low taxes and cutting red tape”— on which President Trump’s recently created National Energy Dominance Council is focusing — “are all things that are going to help lower your cost and create opportunities,” Burgum continued. “Capital is flowing to the U.S. at record levels… I’m very optimistic.”
Said NAM’s president Jay Timmons: “Yes, we care about developing our natural resources to power our economy, certainly through manufacturing, but it’s also about people, here in the United States and around the world. The energy that we export, that is soft power for the United States. That expands our influence. That allows us to export not only our energy, but also our values. So, I think that’s very, very important for our future.”
Trump Administration Approves LNG Projects and Seeks More Natural Gas Pipeline Capacity
As we reported in our Newsletter No. 44, President Trump on Day One of his Administration issued a package of executive orders aimed at making considerable changes in energy policy. One of those orders, “Unleashing American Energy,” directed the Department of Energy (DOE) to resume liquefied natural gas (LNG) export permits, thus ending the Biden Administration’s “deeply polarizing” moratorium, which this newsletter has covered extensively.
DOE quickly approved five LNG-related projects, most recently granting Venture Global approval to export natural gas from its CP2 project in Cameron Parish, Louisiana.
“The benefits of expanding U.S. LNG exports have never been more clear, and I am proud to be taking action to support the American people and our allies abroad with more affordable, reliable, secure American energy,” said Energy Secretary Chris Wright.
Wright also signaled his desire to expand pipeline infrastructure in New England and the Northeast. During an appearance on Fox Business on March 14, he said he thinks it’s “highly likely” that the Constitution Pipeline – along with other pipeline projects – will move forward this year.
“It’s just such a win, win, win,” said Wright, adding in the TV interview:
This will lower costs for people in the New York area, for New England. Not just heating costs, which is a big deal. Old houses are heated by fuel oil; natural gas is just so much cheaper and it burns cleaner. It’d also lower electricity prices, which, of course, everyone would cheer for that as well, and allow businesses in New England or in the New York City area to expand and grow their businesses and grow more jobs.
Transporting natural gas has long been a problem for the region. A study by the Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC) recently found that “a lack of spare natural gas pipeline capacity puts the electric reliability of New York and New England under severe threat during extreme cold weather conditions,” as Natural Gas Intelligence summarized on January 30.
The report “showed New York and New England natural gas infrastructure ‘fully utilized’ during modeled extreme cold weather periods,” Utility Dive reported.
“NPCC’s report is a sobering assessment and yet another call to action in a region that is running close to the edge,” said Jim Robb, CEO of the North American Reliability Council (NERC). “During winter extremes, the electric system in the Northeast is dependent upon reliable natural gas supply. When rare but well-observed contingencies occur, reliability is gravely threatened.”
The 124-mile Constitution pipeline was canceled in February 2020. It was designed to transport natural gas from the gas fields of Pennsylvania into New York. “Its one-time developer, Williams Cos., nixed the project after a water permit denial in New York state,” reported EnergyWire.
Williams welcomes the support of the Trump Administration for the Constitution pipeline but “emphasized that advancing the project hinges on support from state leaders. ‘We certainly are going to require the states to be in support of that as well,’ Williams CEO Alan Armstrong told reporters last week at the CERAWeek by S&P Global conference in Houston,” according to Reuters.
Wright may face an uphill battle getting pipeline projects off the ground and running in the Northeast, but there can be little doubt that the Administration is committed to advancing U.S. energy infrastructure development, as the LNG approvals show. New projects take time to build – especially with current permitting processes – but strengthening energy reliability and lowering costs are clear goals of the White House.