Connecticut residents are paying more for gas pipelines than for the gas itself, according to a recently released analysis by The Future of Heat Initiative. Whereas gas consumption in the state has decreased by 19% since 2014, average gas bills have risen approximately 7% annually since 2021, a trend the initiative attributes to utility investments in pipeline infrastructure.
The core issue, experts say, lies in how utility companies are permitted to generate revenue. Unlike the price of the gas itself, which utilities simply pass on to consumers, companies profit from investments in infrastructure like pipelines. Connecticut utilities are currently allowed to earn a return of between 7.03% and 7.56% on these investments, creating a financial incentive to expand pipeline networks.
The Future of Heat Initiative’s Connecticut Gas Affordability Primer details how these profits impact consumer bills. The analysis found that 25% of delivery charges – the portion of the bill covering the cost of transporting gas – goes towards utility profits and financing costs, while an additional 18% covers pipeline construction. Combined, delivery charges now account for 69% of the average gas bill, exceeding the cost of the gas itself.
This model incentivizes continued pipeline construction, even as demand for gas declines. Connecticut, like much of New England, relies on interstate pipelines to import fuel from other regions, as the state has no gas reserves of its own.
Community groups are actively opposing further pipeline expansion. The No Pipeline Expansion (NOPE) Northeast coalition recently hosted a workshop at Wesleyan University in December 2025, bringing together advocates from across the region to strategize for 2026. In January 2026, members of the coalition testified against the expansion of the Brookfield Compressor Station, requesting an adjudicatory hearing to allow for community input. They also filed comments opposing the revival of the Constitution Pipeline, a project previously defeated but now being reconsidered by federal regulators.
“Connecticut doesn’t need more methane gas, we don’t need more pipelines,” said Sena Wazer, Volunteer and Outreach Coordinator for the Sierra Club CT, in a statement released by the No Pipeline Expansion Northeast Coalition. “They are also awful for our climate, health, and costs.”
Alternatives to pipeline expansion are being explored, including thermal energy networks, which utilize underground pipes and heat pumps to deliver clean heating and cooling. Connecticut passed legislation in 2025 authorizing a grant and loan program for these networks, but funding has not yet been appropriated. A pilot project is planned for Union Station in New Haven, though its future is uncertain due to recent federal funding cuts.
The No Pipeline Expansion Northeast Coalition is continuing to organize against proposed pipeline projects across the state, and is seeking to hold gas utilities accountable for infrastructure investments that advocates say harm the environment and drive up costs. A forum titled “Pipelines Under Our River: Safety, Costs, and What Residents Should Know” is scheduled for Wednesday, March 25, at 6 p.m. At the Russell Library in Middletown, Connecticut.
