No, Natural Gas Didn’t Make Electricity More Expensive

A report produced by the Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis on behalf of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters argues that the state has become more polluted and has more expensive electricity because of the progressive adoption of natural gas over the past 25 years.

Released June 9, the analysis is shallow and it appears that to reach its conclusions, the authors failed to perform an adequate review on the causes of price changes in gas markets or the sources of pollution in the region.

There are legitimate economic arguments against the expansion of natural gas infrastructure, including diversification.

The research in the paper does not focus on these arguments, but rather on a misinformed understanding of how energy flows in the region, and the root causes of environmental degradation in the state. 

Pollution Is Down, Not Up 

The report’s central environmental claim is that air pollution is higher today than in the past due to the increased burning of natural gas.

The authors use CO2 as a proxy for air pollution—however, CO2 is not considered a local air pollutant. CO2 is a greenhouse gas with global impacts, but to suggest CO2 drives local pollution is misguided.

Even if we assumed that CO2 was in fact a reasonable proxy for local air pollution, aggregate CO2 emissions in Connecticut have gone down, not up.

Using U.S. Energy Information Administration data, we can see that total CO2 emissions from power generation in the state are down 13% since 2000, even as in-state generation grew by nearly 50% over the same period.

CO2 emissions from power generation in the state are down 13% since 2000, even as in-state generation grew by nearly 50%.

Emissions per megawatt-hour generated have fallen by more than 40%.

The report ascribes costs per ton of CO2 equivalent emitted to each state, but logically this does not track. The impacts of CO2 emissions are shared globally, so to assign the cost specifically to Connecticut residents does not follow. 

Looking at pollutants that impact local air quality, like NOx or SO2, power plant emissions are down 77% and 99% since 2000 respectively.

This decline is almost entirely due to the displacement of coal and petroleum burning assets by natural gas. 

Sources of Pollution

The report notes that three new gas-fired power plants have been brought online under the state’s energy initiative, and that these have contributed to increasing air pollution.

However, one of the three, Kleen Energy in Middletown, entered service in 2011, before the 2012 initiative the report blames for it existed.

The two plants built since, CPV Towantic in 2018 and Bridgeport Harbor Station 5 in 2019, are among the most efficient generators in the region, and Bridgeport Harbor 5 was built specifically to replace the coal-fired unit it retired.

The state’s other recent additions were fuel cell projects, which produce negligible local air pollutants. 

Connecticut air pollution primarily comes from places like New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. 

The author notes that Connecticut has some of the worst air quality in the country, but this is a well-studied phenomenon with known causes, and which we can confidently say is not a result of natural gas combustion in the state.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s 2023 Good Neighbor Plan from 2023 notes that southern Connecticut sees the worst ground-level ozone pollution in the eastern half of the U.S., but that 90%-95% percent of these pollutants are attributable to out of state sources.

The state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection’s own analysis has pointed out that the primary source of ground-level ozone in the state is from transportation and that only 3% of ozone on the worst days is attributable to Connecticut sources.

Connecticut air pollution, as described on the map included in the report, primarily comes from places like New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. 

Without Natural Gas, Electricity Would Be More Expensive 

The other key argument in the paper is that the adoption of natural gas has led to a more expensive energy market in Connecticut. 

Recent research has shown that the advent of shale gas over the past quarter century has saved U.S. natural gas consumers between $3.1 trillion and $4.3 trillion from 2007-2025, or $164 billion to $227 billion per year.

The CCEA report’s own charts show the stark decline in Henry Hub prices by more than half since 2000. 

While New England is more expensive relative to the U.S. now compared to 15 or 20 years ago, that says more about how the rest of the country was able to more effectively capitalize on falling natural gas prices. 

When we compare Connecticut and US electricity prices, the bulk of our divergence occurred from 2000-2009, before the shale revolution and before the retirement of the state’s coal and petroleum fleet.

Two large renewable energy projects are not providing Mass. the jolt of power they promised. The setbacks signal continued challenges ahead as the state works to shift off fossil fuels while meeting growing power needs and maintaining reliability. https://t.co/cqGMkwLIgW pic.twitter.com/7YpiHX9pRY

— CommonWealth Beacon (@CWBeacon) June 9, 2026

Inflation-adjusted electricity prices (all-sector average) peaked in 2009 before declining and remaining below that peak.

When we think of high New England electricity prices today, the issue is that our electricity prices fell less quickly than the U.S.

While the report’s authors suggest natural gas generation did not lower prices, from 2009-2024 inflation-adjusted electricity prices fell in Connecticut by 7.8%, while in the U.S. they fell by 10.3%. 

Multiple sources, whether EIA or regionaI grid operator ISO New England, note that the primary driver of higher natural gas prices in the state is our constrained supply, especially in winter months.

The lack of available natural gas leads directly to the burning of more expensive, and ironically, more polluting oil plants. 

The Russian invasion of Ukraine certainly increased gas prices for the region, just as it increased oil prices, but the recent conflict in Iran and subsequent disruption of the Strait of Hormuz has (thus far) not resulted in similar price volatility in the U.S.—despite the CCEA’s insistence. 

Who Pays the Costs?

Finally, the CCEA report focuses on Connecticut’s net exporter status as indicative of some kind of “free rider” problem.

This argument heavily rests on the idea that generating assets in our state are major burdens on local health, which we have already dispelled.

Beyond the environmental argument though, this framing is incoherent and suggests that we get nothing from hosting these facilities and that we bear specific economic burdens.

Capacity markets and transmission costs are allocated regionally across the ISO New England region based on load.

For one, capacity markets and transmission costs are allocated regionally across the ISO New England region based on load.

Just because Connecticut might host generating or transmission resources does not mean that only Connecticut residents pay for it.

Massachusetts pays the most of any state in the region on transmission and capacity costs because they are the largest users.

The capital cost of construction for new generation is borne by investors, not ratepayers.

Job Growth Impact

Some of the largest transmission projects in recent memory have been built so we can import more electricity, like the Bethel-Norwalk and Middletown-Norwalk lines, energized in 2009.

Large procurements, like Revolution Wind are located offshore and will enter our market via Rhode Island, but that does not somehow mean we are then “free-riding” on our neighbors to the east.

The report argues that natural gas investment has led to new distribution costs without evidence.

Those arguments rely on the aesthetics of our energy trade rather than the substance of it.

Much like recent arguments on tariffs from the Trump Administration, those arguments rely on the aesthetics of our energy trade rather than the substance of it. 

The report’s authors argue that hosting electricity production has not resulted in more jobs, but the record at the local level says otherwise.

In addition to the direct jobs and construction jobs of building new electricity infrastructure, we also happen to host one of the largest fuel cell manufacturers in the country.

The state economy has struggled to regain lost jobs from the Great Recession, but suggesting that the electricity sector is somehow a major contributor to that is disingenuous. 

All of the Above Means All of the Above 

CCEA’s report is poorly supported and attempts to fit data to a preconceived conclusion rather than the other way around.

The conclusion that natural gas should be disinvested from based on its impacts on price and the environment does not logically follow from the evidence presented.

On the contrary, from a cost or environmental perspective, the evidence suggests we did not invest enough.

Constraints to natural gas supplies are a main driver of higher costs for electricity during periods of grid stress and lead directly to the use of more polluting generation assets. 

CCEA’s report is poorly supported and attempts to fit data to a preconceived conclusion.

Furthermore, there is an underlying insistence that building our grid for the economy of the future means picking between natural gas and renewables.

This is a false choice. New England’s electricity demand could roughly double by 2050 as we adopt electric technologies.

A grid that supports the adoption of these technologies will require significant new generation, which we can fully expect will be supported through renewables like solar, wind, and batteries.

Natural gas supplies roughly half of New England’s electricity today. Even if every megawatt of new capacity in that doubled grid comes from renewables, the existing gas fleet would still provide about a quarter of the region’s power, and we would still lack the pipeline capacity to fuel it reliably in winter. 

Gov. Ned Lamont is right to support an “all of the above” approach, and would be wise to weigh this research accordingly as he strategizes for our state’s future. 

---

About the author: Dustin Nord is the director of the CBIA Foundation for Economic Growth & Opportunity.