With electricity prices expected to rise to record levels this winter, you’d think the candidates running for governor would have detailed plans ready to address the problem. You’d be wrong.

After CommonWealth reported earlier this week on the upcoming electricity price spike, I sent an email to four of the campaigns asking about their stances on expanding natural gas pipeline capacity into the region, importing hydroelectricity from Canada, and pressing ahead with offshore wind and other renewables.

All three are big-bucks issues with major climate change implications. They are also long-range solutions that won’t address this winter’s price spike, so a short-term approach might be needed to deal with immediate supply problems caused in part by the shutdown of coal and nuclear power plants in the region.

The responses I got back from the candidates were extremely vague. Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Charlie Baker seemed to be reading from the same playbook: embrace everything and avoid as many details as possible. Independents Jeff McCormick and Evan Falchuk were more specific, particularly McCormick. The third independent, Scott Lively, is a part-time candidate.

Coakley said she supports the governor’s long-term move towards renewables and, in the short-term, backed energy efficiency, “responsible natural gas expansion,” and industrial wind power, all “while keeping rates affordable for consumers.”

Her website contains a few more details. It accurately portrays the state’s energy predicament, with 9.3 percent of net energy production coming from renewables and 63 percent from natural gas. “This continued overreliance on fossil fuels raises concerns about price fluctuations and unreliability as a result of extreme weather, global market shocks, infrastructure problems, or other factors,” her website says.

But Coakley never spells out what specifically she would support to reduce the state’s reliance on natural gas. She does, however, back a few minor initiatives, including a doubling of the budget for the state’s Clean Energy Center to $50 million and a requirement that each home in Massachusetts undergo an energy audit within eight years.

Baker, who in his last run for office was a big supporter of importing large amounts of hydroelectricity from Canada, seems to take a more vanilla approach this time around. His campaign statement said he would pursue “a balanced approach that includes natural gas, wind, solar, and hydroelectric generation, with a strong emphasis on efficiency.” He would also support the clean energy innovation sector. I couldn’t find anything about energy on his website.

Falchuk takes a fairly clear stand. He said the state is over-reliant on natural gas and he would oppose the proposed Kinder Morgan natural gas pipeline that would run from the New York border to Dracut. He said he would favor solar, small and large-scale hydro, offshore wind, and other renewables, but gave no indication how he would boost those technologies enough to reduce reliance on natural gas.

McCormick was the most specific and direct of the four candidates. He opposes the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline but supports a pipeline expansion project proposed by Northeast Utilities and Spectra Energy that would use existing rights of way and infrastructure. “The nation is going through an energy renaissance with respect to our supply of natural gas bringing down prices for consumers. Unfortunately, Massachusetts consumers have not benefitted from these recent changes because of our location and lack of pipeline capacity,” he said.

McCormick’s website offers few more specifics, but it does raise concerns about the high cost of energy and says the state’s renewable energy program needs to be more transparent and extend beyond solar and wind.

Here is my email to the campaigns and the responses I received.

CommonWealth – I wrote a story today (the link is here) about electricity rates hitting what could be an historic high this winter, and wanted to get feedback from the candidates for governor on what they would do to address these high costs. There seems to be a real policy debate going on as to how the state should respond. Options include expanding natural gas pipeline capacity into the region, seeking out imports of hydro from Canada, and pressing ahead with offshore wind and other renewables. Some favor an all of the above approach while others do not. What solution would your candidate pursue?

Republican Charlie Baker – “As governor, one of Charlie’s top priorities will be ensuring Massachusetts has access to reliable and affordable sources of energy. He will pursue a balanced approach, that includes natural gas, wind, solar, and hydroelectric generation, with a strong emphasis on efficiency to reduce the cost of energy and reduce our carbon footprint. Charlie will also strongly encourage the clean energy innovation sector, which will have a positive benefit both for our economy and our environment.”

Democrat Martha Coakley – “As Attorney General, Martha has spent the past eight years working to reduce the burden of high energy costs for working families in Massachusetts. She supports Governor Patrick’s long-term move towards clean, renewable energy, and believes that in the short-term we need to pursue an energy policy that relies on several different sources including increased energy efficiency, responsible natural gas expansion and industrial wind power, to meet our needs while keeping rates affordable for consumers.”

Independent Evan Falchuk – “Massachusetts is overly reliant on natural gas, and the lack of diversity in our electricity production leaves us especially vulnerable to price variations as well as natural and man-made disasters. This is one of the reasons I am against the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline, and this situation means we must develop solar, small- and large-scale hydro, off-shore wind, and other renewables.”

Independent Jeff McCormick – “Energy prices in Massachusetts are too high for businesses and residents. It is a drag on our economy and contributes to our high cost of living. As governor, I will support the expanded pipeline project proposed by Northeast Utilities and Spectra Energy which will use current rights of way and existing infrastructure. The nation is going through an energy renaissance with respect to our supply of natural gas bringing down prices for consumers. Unfortunately, Massachusetts consumers have not benefitted from these recent changes because of our location and lack of pipeline capacity. With that said, I do not support the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline because building more permanent infrastructure is not a great solution when renewables are becoming more economic year after year.”

Bruce Mohl oversees the production of content and edits reports, along with carrying out his own reporting with a particular focus on transportation, energy, and climate issues. He previously worked...