Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey said her state needs more gas during a debate, years after she took credit for stopping two pipelines while serving as attorney general.
“We need more gas,” Healey said Thursday during her debate with Republican challenger Mike Minogue. WCVB hosted the event with WBUR and The Boston Globe. The candidates’ exchange focused on energy bills, but it also exposed a sharp tension in Healey’s energy record.
Healey said she supports both gas and clean energy, naming wind, solar, hydropower and geothermal power. In her view, backing climate policy does not require Massachusetts to abandon gas. She said the state needs every form of energy and called gas a cleaner source of energy.
When asked to answer plainly whether Massachusetts should roll back its aggressive climate goals, Healey said they should remain in place. She argued that the important issue is how those goals are put into practice. That position allowed her to defend the climate framework while also arguing for continued gas use.
The Pipeline Fight Returned
Minogue made Healey’s earlier pipeline decisions the centerpiece of his attack. He argued that Massachusetts should bring in natural gas from Pennsylvania, saying Healey had stopped that supply as attorney general.
Healey responded with a cost argument. She said a pipeline developer wanted ratepayers to finance the project instead of covering the expense itself. Her defense relied on a study and a November 2015 statement from her time as attorney general, when she argued that the state did not need more gas capacity for electric reliability and that customers should not pay for extra pipelines.
Her current position is different in one important respect. Healey said she has asked the federal government for permission to expand existing pipelines. In an October 1 letter to Energy Secretary Chris Wright, she urged the Trump administration to move urgently on its review of a planned expansion of the Algonquin gas pipeline system.
Why It Matters
Healey’s comments put a practical energy question beside a political record. Massachusetts voters are hearing support for cleaner sources and gas at the same time, while the pipeline dispute forces attention on how energy policy gets paid for. The key divide is not simply whether gas has a role. It is whether additional supply, pipeline construction and reliability needs justify costs that could fall on ratepayers. That makes the issue relevant to people paying utility bills, because the argument reaches beyond climate targets and into the price and dependability of electricity.
The open question is how Healey’s stated support for gas will translate into policy. She has said climate targets should remain, and she has also sought federal review of pipeline expansion. That leaves voters with a clear test: whether the new position means support for added infrastructure, support only for a limited expansion of current systems, or a defense of gas alongside other energy sources. Minogue’s attack keeps the earlier pipeline decisions in the debate, while Healey’s response points to affordability and responsibility for project costs. The dispute gives voters two competing measures of energy policy: the supply Massachusetts needs and the bill ratepayers should be asked to carry.
WCVB said the debate was the last before the Nov. 3 election. Healey was the heavy favorite because Massachusetts has a strong Democratic lean. Her campaign did not immediately answer the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
That leaves the campaign with a consequential contrast: Healey’s earlier pipeline record is now being tested against her current call for more gas and federal review of an existing system. The debate did not erase the old position. It put both sides of her energy argument in the same spotlight.
Source: The Liberty Daily
