BAKER ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS checked “all-of-the-above” on the energy front on Tuesday, telling lawmakers on Beacon Hill that they favor expansion of the region’s natural gas pipeline capacity, back the importation of more hydroelectricity from Canada, and support clean energy.
Matthew Beaton, the secretary of energy and environmental affairs, read a statement offering a broad overview of the administration’s priorities and its desire to bring down electricity prices, which are among the highest in the nation. Beaton was emphatic that the best way to bring costs down, and avoid rolling brownouts in the future, is to bring more natural gas into the region.
“It is a simple case of supply and demand, and in peak times we don’t have enough supply,” he said.
Environmentalists are worried that building new pipelines to bring cheap natural gas into the region will undercut efforts to promote renewable energy, but Beaton saw no conflict. “We are fully devoted to a clean energy future,” he said. Alicia Barton, the CEO of the state’s Clean Energy Center, said clean energy is a $10 billion industry in Massachusetts, accounting for more than 88,000 jobs. She said the state is No. 2 in solar jobs, ahead of Arizona.
Beaton and other members of the administration testified at a “state of energy” hearing at the State House hosted by the Legislature’s Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities, and Energy. The committee plans to hear from others on the topic at a second hearing in May.
At Tuesday’s hearing, utility executives adopted positions similar to those espoused by the Baker administration, although they also made a point of saying some of the state’s renewable energy incentives are way too costly and should be scaled back.
Marcy Reed, president of National Grid Massachusetts, said she supports the construction of two new natural gas pipelines into the region to bring down electricity costs and to allow more customers to shift to gas for heating and cooking. She said she would welcome hydroelectricity from Canada, but stressed that the state’s current subsidies for renewable energy are not sustainable.
She said the cost of one form of subsidy, called net metering, is expected to double in National Grid’s service area from $35 million in 2014 to $71 million this year. She said the cost of solar renewable energy credits is expected to rise from $59 million in 2015 to $228 million this year. She estimated the cost of solar subsidies will be borne by the utility’s non-solar customers over the next six years to the tune of $2 billion.
Reed said National Grid supports solar and other forms of renewable energy, but would like to see a more rational approach to financing their development. “We have the most lucrative incentives across 50 states,” she said. “I don’t know why we need to be in that position.”
Patrick Smith, the manager of energy supply for Eversource (formerly NStar), said his utility favors the construction of one new natural gas pipeline. He also lamented the high cost of solar subsidies, saying solar and other renewable energy subsidies cost customers about 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour, or between 9 and 15 percent of a customer’s power cost, depending on the time of year. “Massachusetts is paying more than it needs to,” Smith said.
Anne George of ISO New England, which operates the regional power grid, said New England avoided power shortages this winter by reducing its reliance on natural gas. She said some power plants shifted from natural gas to dirtier fuels such as oil and coal. She also said greater quantities of liquefied natural gas were imported.
George said new natural gas pipeline capacity is needed because oil and coal plants will be shutting down in coming years and be replaced by and large by natural gas plants. She also said LNG cannot be counted on as a reliable fuel. Without action to address the shortage of natural gas pipeline capacity, George said, a winter problem could become a year-round problem.
Sen. Benjamin Downing, the cochair of the committee, was skeptical about the push for more natural gas pipelines, noting that the region already gets more than half of its electricity from gas-fired power plants. He asked several panelists whether it was wise to increase that percentage. “Are we putting all of our eggs in one basket?” he asked.
He also tried to downplay the utility concerns about the cost of renewable energy subsidies, saying the state needs to promote renewable energy in the most cost-effective way possible.
The all of the above strategy has resulted in the passage of the Green Communities Act and the Global Warming Solutions Act which has produced policies and regulations to replace coal and natural gas with wind and solar by 2050. In the absence of grid scale energy storage, this is a technical impossibility. As a result, baseload coal and nuclear power are being forced off the grid in favor natural gas. We are becoming too dependent on natural gas, rates are skyrocketing, and carbon emission avoidance is nothing more than an imaginary paper calculation.
The environmentalist fear of Global Warming seems to have frozen policymakers at the controls across the board. It looks like Baker will follow in Patrick’s footsteps and drive the state and the region into the economic disaster that is sure to follow skyrocketing rates and an unstable power grid.
Regrettably, this article did not even mention the main argument against building additional fossil fuel infrastructure in Massachusetts–It is not needed. This is not a “supply” issue. Details of the smart mix/no-build alternative scenario have gotten a little media exposure over the past year, though not nearly enough–Go to massplan.org. Building a huge new natural gas pipeline to meet a modest need–and there was no need this very cold winter just ended–is whacking the mosquito at best, a poor economic choice for all citizens. Maybe not such a bad choice for those wanting to export to lucrative foreign markets–but that will certainly not stabilize our local energy markets, as the governor proclaims it his mission to do.
If the subsidies are going for solar, but don’t make as much sense today because solar is cheap, then the logical next step is to divert some of that subsidy money into storage. Battery storage can fix the issue of fluctuating renewable energy output, it is clean, and it will enable the power plants that do run to make more money because they can run for more hours per year. This is a no brainer… there is no such thing as an ‘all of the above’ energy plan that fails to include more storage.
If Baker favors clean energy why is he promoting fracked gas?? That form of fossil fuel energy leaks methane into the atmosphere from drill site all the way to your door (or your electric power plant). Methane is 80 times worse than CO2 for our threatened climate! (O, and it often EXPLODES in your neighborhood!). The Gov appears to be in the pocket of Corporate America who would just love to ram pipelines all over the Northeast so they can export our natural resources to further fill their overstuffed offshore bank accounts.
The MA wind market bedfellows merit scrutiny. There are too many ENRON figures dominating the playing field as recruited by the Patrick Administration. Wind got its commercial start in the U.S. when GE bought ENRON wind, and the business model remains the same.
ENRON veterans have enjoyed significant and lucrative benefits as beneficiaries of green energy policies
introduced under the Patrick Administration.
ENRON’s Ken Lay’s public policy guru and speech writer for 7 years, Robert Bradley Jr., was with ENRON for 16 years. Bradley makes a compelling case against this business model of wind energy (ENRON’s) as an ENRON insider: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G08bIB2Y9Cg
First Wind CEO Paul Gaynor is former MA Deval Patrick’s appointed Advisor to the MA energy secretary (then Ian Bowles) on green policy under the Global Warming Solutions Act. First Wind CEO has helped craft green policies in MA that benefit his wind and solar businesses in MA.
Pat Wood III is the former FERC Chair tasked by President G.W. Bush to address energy market manipulation that led to the CA Energy Crisis. While, Wood is a long time promoter of ENRON CEO Ken Lay. See FTCR’s Letter to FERC Chairman Pat Wood, III 6/15/04, here-
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/feature/ftcrs-letter-ferc-chairman-…
5/3/08 ‘Enron’s ghost, carried on the wind’ Robert Bradley is a 16-year veteran of ENRON, seven of which he spent as a speech writer for Ken Lay. “As Bradley sees it, most of the “green energy” programs that are all the rage now date to initiatives supported by ENRON.”
Senator Carl Levin, below, was addressing the future Director of First Wind, Patrick Wood III, then FERC Chairman charged by President George W. Bush to address corporate fraud by ENRON.
While ENRON execs, more than a decade following the CA Energy Crisis their energy market traders triggered, dominate the on and offshore wind energy markets in New England.
Senate Government Affairs November 12, 2002 ASLEEP AT THE SWITCH: FERC’S
OVERSIGHT OF ENRON CORPORATION–VOL. I
107th Congress transcript states-
Senator Levin: “The Enron scandal began by exposing dishonest accounting at a number of major U.S. companies that, unbeknownst to most, had begun to eat away at the reliability of their financial statements.
It has since exposed the conflicts of interest that have made investors distrust investment reports issued by leading U.S. financial firms. It has exposed how those firms have become unwilling participants in shell
companies, phony trade deals, and complex financial transactions used to inflate earnings, hide debt, and increase stock prices..”
Levin: “corporate executives have walked away from corporate disasters with millions in their pockets, often from exercising stock options, while pension funds, investors, employees and creditors have lost everything.”
[cut]. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107shrg83483/html/CHRG-107shrg834…
http://self.gutenberg.org/article/WHEBN0000010166/Enron
First Wind Steve Vavrik Vice President, Origination was with ENRON in London in a project
development and gas trading capacity. His role at ENRON included trading natural gas forward contracts and negotiating structured power deals.
UPC First Wind President Michael Alvarez is responsible for First Wind operations and assets. After
beginning his energy career with GE Capital, he joined ENRON in London…
In 2002, GE with CEO Jeffrey Immelt, spent $358 million to buy the assets of the bankrupt ENRON Corporation, Zond Wind, founded by James Dehlsen in 1980. Months later, GE petitioned the courts for the return of
over half the money they spent on ENRON assets claiming the value of these assets wasn’t worth the price GE paid. GE’s Immelt led President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.
Mike Cutbirth is former head of Global Finance for Zond Corporation and ENRON Wind. He served 4 years as the first CEO of Clipper Windpower formed by ENRON.
The first customer of the $40 million dollar, publicly-funded, Charlestown, MA Wind Turbine Testing Center WAS Clipper Wind, founded by ENRON Director James Dehlsen. Clipper Wind has since filed for bankruptcy
protection. MA Wind Turbine Testing Center Executive Director Rahul Yarala is a staffer at MA Clean Energy Center (MassCEC), , and the former Director of Engineering at Clipper Windpower, Inc. formed by ENRON.
ENRON Energy Services Chris Wissemann is Fishermen’s Energy Chief Executive Officer and General
Manager of Freshwater Wind. Wissermann is Chief Operating Officer of Winergy Power, LLC and the Founder of DeepWater Wind, and past President of Garden State Offshore Energy. Wissermann spearheaded legislation to create long term power purchase agreements for DeepWater Wind which he founded.
http://www.fishermensenergy.com/leadership.php
Patrick Wood III was Chair of the Texas Public Utility Commission PUC when the model for states’ statutes was adopted that mandate renewable energy, in 1999, the Renewable Portfolio Standard RPS.
Wood’s failure to address the US most notorious case of corporate fraud by ENRON as FERC Chair is documented. His role as FERC Chair was to address ENRON energy market manipulation as tasked by
then President George W. Bush.
The Executive Director of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights Douglas Heller June 16, 2004 letter to FERC Chairman Pat Wood III states, in part, link to letter below:
California ratepayers remain at least $7 billion short of what they are due in refunds in large measure because the FERC, under your leadership, has failed to protect consumers from the illegal profiteering of energy
companies and has refused to enforce the law so Californians can recover billions of dollars stolen from the state.
It is, of course, not just the outstanding refunds that you have withheld, but your unwillingness to bring
energy companies to the table for contract renegotiation that is so offensive. The market manipulation began at least as early as June 2000, according to a Department of Justice indictment of Reliant. It continued – as evidenced by Enron’s “Fat Boy/Death Star” memo, the conversations about manipulation involving AES and Williams traders as well as the new Enron tapes and a host of other indisputable proof — through the 2001 blackouts and price spikes. This should provide you with incontrovertible evidence that the contracts must be abrogated or renegotiated.
Although you do not attempt to defend these indefensible tapes, your effort to deflect their relevance in this manner demonstrates your continued allegiance to your long-time promoter Ken Lay. But more importantly, your letter shows that you do not grasp the heinousness of this massive larceny.
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/feature/ftcrs-letter-ferc-chairman-pat-wood-iii
“All of the above” is a dodge uttered by pusillanimous pandering patsies. Does Mr. Baker shop for groceries like that? Medicine? Trousers? How about “all of the viable…all of the affordable…all of the sensible…all of the sustainable?”