GOV. CHARLIE BAKER is continuing to push for a new natural gas pipeline into the region, but at a conference on Monday with fellow New England governors and Canadian premiers he got some mild pushback from Gov. Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire.
Recently passed energy legislation in Massachusetts gave Baker the opportunity to pursue imports of Canadian hydroelectricity and the development of an offshore wind industry. But a Supreme Judicial Court decision shot down the administration’s novel bid to tap ratepayers of electric utilities for the funds to purchase long-term natural gas contracts, which would be used to help finance new pipeline infrastructure.
The Baker administration and the state’s utilities say a new natural gas pipeline is needed to bring down gas prices, particularly in the high-demand winter months. They say any money spent to finance the new pipeline would more than be offset by lower electricity prices. But Attorney General Maura Healey, most Massachusetts lawmakers, and state environmental groups say a new pipeline isn’t needed and electric ratepayers should not be asked to pay for a project that will only increase the state’s and the region’s reliance on a fossil fuel.
Matthew Beaton, the governor’s secretary of energy and environmental affairs, said on Monday at the conference that the administration is continuing to pursue a new natural gas pipeline. He said one option is the long-standing approach of having natural gas utilities purchase the long-term natural gas contracts necessary to finance pipeline expansion, but he acknowledged that process would be slower and wouldn’t be as effective.
“We are confident that something will move forward,” Beaton said. “We’re going to continue to work with all parties involved.”
The sensitive pipeline issue didn’t surface during a panel discussion on energy issues in front of the governors and premiers at the Hynes Convention Center. But Baker brought it up immediately when the panel session opened to questions. He asked the panelists, who included Beaton and top officials from National Grid and Eversource Energy, about the cost to consumers of a limited natural gas pipeline network in the region. He said he thought the extra cost ran into the billions of dollars.
Marcy Reed, president of National Grid Massachusetts, said the cost was $7 billion over the last three to four winters and added that the estimated additional cost going forward is $1 billion a year. At times during the winter months, when demand for natural gas rises to heat homes and keep power plants operating, the lack of pipeline capacity in New England means the price of natural gas can spiral upward. That higher price shows up on consumer utility bills in the form of higher rates.
Reed assured Baker that expanding the region’s natural gas pipeline infrastructure remains a high priority for her company. Penni McLean-Conner, a senior vice president at Eversource Energy, said additional pipeline capacity is needed as a backstop for the development of renewable energy and to allow customers heating their homes with oil to shift to natural gas.
National Grid, Eversource Energy, and Spectra Energy of Houston are partners in a company called Access Northeast, which is seeking to expand an existing pipeline into the region. Executives recently sent a letter to New England policymakers stressing the need for a new natural gas pipeline, but they didn’t say how they would bring that about in the wake of the Supreme Judicial Court decision.
Hassan raised concerns about the negative environmental consequences of increasing reliance on fracked gas. She pointed to recent research, apparently at Colorado State University, suggesting that high levels of methane gas are emitted in the development of wells that draw natural gas from the ground using a process called fracking. She questioned whether the process is environmentally sustainable.
Reed didn’t address the research directly, but suggested natural gas is a bridge fuel that the region needs to transition to a cleaner energy future. “The fact is we’ve all been using fracked gas for decades,” she said.
At a press availability after the panel discussion, Hassan said she wasn’t necessarily signaling opposition to a new pipeline by raising concerns about emissions from natural gas wells.
“What I was raising is relatively recent science that indicates the fracking process can leak methane and can contribute to carbon emissions and, therefore, global warming,” she said. “I think it’s very important that we take that into consideration in that it seems natural gas may not be as clean as people thought it was prior. And that should inform all policymakers.”
Demand for electricity is relatively flat and projected to stay that way. The main reason demand is rising for more natural gas in the winter, is the early retirement of baseload power from nuclear and coal. The early retirement of baselad power is attributed to the projected state and regional mandates for renewable energy from wind and solar. intermittent, variable and largely unpredictable wind and solar cannot provide baseload power to replace coal and nuclear without firming from natural gas.
The state and regional mandates for renewable energy have created this problem. We now have a choice between more natural gas, or flickering lights.
Unless mass energy storage becomes available for firming wind and solar, which is very doubtful, we are on a path to becoming hostage to the availability of natural gas (so much for diversifying the fuel supply), little to no avoidance of carbon emissions (Global Warming), and skyrocketing rates.
All these guys know all this, and it’s time to tell environmental lobbies they cannot give them what they want.
If we get another gas pipeline we will end up with higher gas and electric rates because overseas shipment of much of the gas will drive up costs, coupled with the large capital investment in the pipeline that at best will be needed only a few days a year. We can use LNG at a similar cost with no stranded infrastructure for the few days a year — if any when more gas is needed — until we transition to more renewable energy. Adding more fossil fuel capacity will result in increased carbon emissions, moving us away from meeting state emissions targets. The Baker Administration is constantly giving short shrift to solar (especially rooftop solar), which will create more local jobs, meet demand, and help make the grid more resilient because it is distributed generation. The big utilities do not make money on solar — and they have the Governor’s ear.
Governor Maggie Hassan
(in a teeny tiny effort) questions whether fracked gas is actually the
“bridge fuel” policymakers have been pushing. The policy pushing
“natural” gas as lower carbon emitting on burning predates the research
revealing the global warming potential of methane (83 times that of
Carbon for the first 20 years). The lobbyists want to distract them
from this very disappointing reality and keep them on track to expand
fracked gas markets.
NortheasternEE, this is ALL about money. Wholesale electricity prices from natural gas fired generators is now so low that small hydro, nuclear, coal and oil can’t compete. Nuclear power doesn’t pollute, but it’s more expensive than natural gas. If this were a retirement fund, we’d be watching our portfolio stripped without regard to individual stock potential and everything invested in a single fast rising stock.
The utilities need to fix all their gas leaks and get serious about investments in energy efficiency and a smart grid so that they can “see” the power produced/stored behind the meter. I wish our governors would issue a mandate to that effect…no new franchises or pipelines until they fix the problems. Otherwise, we are destroying our diversity and making the problem of climate change bigger. Replacing nuclear plants with gas will actually raise our carbon emissions.
No! It is not all about money. The wholesale price of electricity is driven low by the laws and regulations that give wind and solar top priority as price takers on the wholesale market. Wind and solar are allowed to bid at zero, even though wind and solar cannot guarantee power availability 24 hours in advance like other conventional bidders. When Beacon Hill talks about market carve outs for renewable energy to 50% and more, What is left can only support dirty peaking power from natural gas. While that may look attractive with today’s low price for NG, tomorrow, when NG becomes the only reliable and dependable power generator on the grid, monopolistic prices will skyrocket.
Do not believe the talk of diversifying the fuel supply with wind and solar. Just the opposite is true. We are headed for a grid whose stability can only be guaranteed by more and more natural gas. That is why Beacon Hill is pushing for more pipelines at any cost.
As for the leaks, new pipelines mean more leaks, and as long as it is easier to raise the price to cover leak losses, they will never be fixed.
Tell Beacon Hill to stop pushing renewables. The technology to a clean energy future does not exist.
And by stopping the push for renewables, the technology to a clean energy future will never exist. Fossil fuels have received 150 years of subsidies and government deference, and it’s time to put them at a disadvantage, because we all know now that fossil fuels are killing us. This isn’t about the “environment” anymore, it’s about humanity’s future.