What follows is a letter from the three top officials of Access Northeast to New England policymakers on the need for new natural gas pipeline infrastructure in the region.
LAST WEEK, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a ruling touching on the critical effort underway across New England to reduce the cost of electric supply for consumers and to improve the reliability of that supply for the entire New England region. In short, the Court found that the Department of Public Utilities (MDPU) does not have the authority to approve long-term contracts by electric distribution companies for increased natural gas infrastructure.
The court’s decision provides no solution to the energy cost, reliability and environmental challenges that the New England region faces today. One thing is certain, the status quo is not sustainable. As such, our work to obtain contract approval will continue throughout the New England states while an alternative path is established in Massachusetts.
Why does the court’s decision matter? Over the past 20 years, as New England moved away from the use of oil and coal to fuel our electric grid, cleaner burning natural gas filled the gap. Making this transition reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric generators located within Massachusetts by 45 percent from 1990 to 2012. Had adequate natural gas supplies been available in the winter of 2014-15 to offset oil and coal-fired generation, New England GHG emissions would have been reduced by 3.4 million tons, which is the equivalent of taking 650,000 cars off the road for a year. However, New England’s natural gas infrastructure has not kept pace with the increased demand. Sufficient low-cost domestic natural gas cannot be delivered to New England during peak demand times to meet the needs of gas-fired electric generators. Consequently, electric customers remain fully exposed to the risk of high prices, diminished reliability and greater environmental impacts, while electric generators continue to reap windfall profits from those higher prices.
What does inaction mean for the region’s energy consumers? Inaction means not just higher energy bills – which are already among the most costly in the US – but also the possibility of power shortages at times of greatest need – such as the cold spells commonly experienced during New England winters. Inaction also means that the energy used by consumers during these periods will come from sources with greater environmental impact like oil and coal – – which generators fall back on when natural gas is not available — challenging the region’s GHG emissions goals.
Why not just increase the use of renewable power to cover the gap? Increasing our use of renewable power sources like hydropower, wind, and solar as part of our energy mix is an important step in securing our energy future. But the truth is these renewable resources will not be available at the levels needed to meet the region’s energy demand for many years to come. Moreover, many of these resources are intermittent sources of power, so that even abundant amounts of these resources requires gas-fired generation as a quick start back-up to fill the supply gap when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing.
Why should electric consumers support gas infrastructure? Prices for electricity are higher in New England than almost everywhere else because the availability of natural gas is limited. When there is high demand for electricity, there is high demand for natural gas to produce electricity, driving higher and higher prices for customers (and greater profit for generators). More gas supply will lower the price of gas and reduce the cost of electricity significantly. In fact, studies estimate that for every $1 of gas infrastructure that customers pay for, the price of electricity would be reduced by as much as $3 to $4 in normal weather. This significant “net benefit” is a good result for homes and businesses across the Commonwealth and the New England region – and a result ignored by the court’s ruling.
Where do we go from here? New England is at a pivotal moment in determining its energy future and the “do nothing” scenario is untenable. Without targeted expansion of natural gas pipeline capacity, New England energy consumers will inevitably bear the brunt of ever-increasing energy prices and ever-diminishing supply reliability.
For this reason, we have put the Court’s decision behind us. We remain firmly committed to our part in solving New England’s energy challenge. There is a sizeable need for natural gas in Massachusetts and throughout New England that is unabated by the Court’s decision. To date, each participating state jurisdiction is progressing independently with its own process to approve contracts for the Access Northeast Project and these processes are unaffected by the Massachusetts process. No individual state jurisdiction will pay more than its pro-rata share of the project and approvals may be conditioned to that effect.
Therefore, our path forward is clear and our mission to reestablish the Massachusetts contribution is full-speed ahead. We are confident that, ultimately, the interests of New England’s consumers will prevail with desperately needed gas supply made available by Access Northeast.
CommonWealth Voices is sponsored by The Boston Foundation.
The Boston Foundation is deeply committed to civic leadership, and essential to our work is the exchange of informed opinions. We are proud to partner on a platform that engages such a broad range of demographic and ideological viewpoints.
“No individual state jurisdiction will pay more than its pro-rata share of the project and approvals may be conditioned to that effect.” Who determines the “pro-rata share?” What mechanisms are in place to protect ratepayers from escalating costs? And does this mean National Grid, Eversource Energy and Spectra will work the back rooms at the State House for legislation specifically forcing Massachusetts ratepayers to finance gas pipeline projects?
Demand for electricity has been relatively flat and projected to stay that way. So, why do we now find ourselves short of natural gas?
The answer is that policymakers in the state and region have legislated mandates for increasing amounts of renewable energy on the promise to replace fossil fuels and avoid carbon emissions responsible for global warming. What is becoming obvious is that intermittent and variable power from wind and solar can only function on the grid with 100% firming from flexible natural gas power. Inflexible baseline coal power has been squeezed out of the wholesale market forcing the early retirement of power plants in Salem, Brayton Point and elsewhere. The same squeeze that is killing coal, is also forcing the early retirement of nuclear power (Vermont Yankee, Pilgrim, and more). Killing coal and nuclear to be replaced by natural gas and renewables (wind and solar) has resulted in an increase of carbon emissions, and increasing rates.
Replacing coal with natural gas does indeed lower emissions. Even replacing coal and nuclear with natural gas can reduces emissions. However, natural gas power plants, running in intermittent and variable mode to supply firming power for renewables, burns with half the efficiency that of natural gas baseload power generation. That is why, emissions are rising and will continue to rise without the reduction from nuclear.
The transition to a clean energy future is not possible without mass energy storage, which does not exist, and may never exist. We do not need more natural gas. What we need is a moratorium on the mandates for increasing renewable energy until mass storage becomes available. Even if more natural gas is made available for firming, the grid can only accommodate about 10% energy from wind and solar before grid instability gets out of control.
Beacon Hill needs to rethink the whole effort on renewable energy if we are to avoid skyrocketing rates, increasing carbon emissions, and eventually global warming. Wind and solar without mass storage cannot do the job.
If the natural gas pipeline people are so sure of the demand in New England they should build the pipeline with their own money not the ratepayers. They then can recover a reasonable profit on their investment per cubic foot of natural gas sold if they sell enough they make money if they do not they lose money. Case closed.
They know they are not competitive with Canadian hydro power without the build subsidies from the ratepayers. Take the value of the subsidies and work on demand reduction and demand shifting to balance supply requirements at peak. A smarter grid and an enabled ratepayer will take us there with a lot lower long term cost. Energy efficiency will help and more money stays in state with less pollution in our air. Thank you for your time.
Your statement, “Demand for electricity has been relatively flat and projected to stay that way.” is not consistent with ISO-NE forecasts of future peak demand for electricity, which have been revised downward several times over the past decade as a result of declining peak demand. See: http://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2016/03/joint_draft2016pvforecast_comments.pdf
Your statement, “Replacing coal with natural gas does indeed lower emissions.” fails to account for over 20,000 natural gas leaks in Massachusetts alone. Methane is 84 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, so if as little as 3% of fracked gas leaks into the atmosphere, natural gas is just as harmful to the climate as coal. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/19/science/methane-leaks-in-natural-gas-supply-chain-far-exceed-estimates-study-says.html.
Greenhouse gases are skyrocketing (see: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/) and so are global and local temperatures (see: http://www.bluehill.org/climate/anntemp.gif). We are literally in a race for our lives to slash carbon emissions from all sources, as reflected by the mandate of the Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act to reduce carbon emissions by a whopping 80% by 2050. If we continue searching for excuses not to act instead of aggressively searching for energy efficiency and clean-energy solutions, our children will suffer the consequences.
The Attorney General’s study determined that alternatives to a $3 billion gas pipeline are less expensive and less harmful to the environment. See: http://www.mass.gov/ago/doing-business-in-massachusetts/energy-and-utilities/regional-electric-reliability-options-study.html
The mandate of the Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act to reduce carbon emissions by a whopping 80% by 2050, together with similar regional legislation is forcing the early retirement of nuclear power and the increase demand for natural gas. Rates are rising emissions are rising. This will continue as long as mass energy storage is unavailable for firming the intermittent and variable nature of renewables(wind and solar). If mass storage fails to materialize by 2050, our children will not only suffer the consequences of Global Warming, they will also be too poor to move to higher ground.
Mass energy storage is and always has been key to any success in carbon avoidance.
Bahahahahaha!! Nice “Narrative” Access Northeast! Very convenient spew of storytelling and spin that only benefits your own selfish interests of export! “Do Nothing”- eh? The Attorney General’s study on our very own state website proves we don’t need more gas capacity for years to come, not to mention that fixing our current infrastructure- the COUNTLESS gas leaks in current pipes, would be a better step “for the best iterest of consumers in New England!” as we are getting poisoned daily from them and losing countless money and gas from them. Awwww consumers won’t pay for your dirty fracked gas pipelines and now wittle babies are crying… bahahahah !!! You’re over fossil fuels. #bridgeFuelMyAss
don’t you agree that the tens of thousands of gas leaks throughout Massachusetts should be fixed and repaired in CURRENT infrastructure, BEFORE installing new pipes?
Time to get crackin visionary inovators. Where there is a will there is a way to world that is not killing us. don’t believe the lies that the BILLIONARES want you to believe. How about that?
Only problem is that the “peaking” gas power plants you and the authors are referring to, which are used to offset drops in supply, such as when nuclear power plants go offline (as Pilgrim just did) are much, much dirtier than the combined cycle gas plants which make up the bulk of the average used to advertise “natural gas is cleaner than coal”. In fact, peaking gas plants are DIRTIER than coal in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. See http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/uses-of-natural-gas.html#.V8IB8flrhNI for the relative inefficiency of peaking plants compared with combined cycle (see also https://www.aep.com/about/IssuesAndPositions/Generation/Technologies/NaturalGas.aspx). This point was also made by NortheasternEE.
Moreover, since Messrs Flynn, Olivier, and Yardley say “Increasing our use of renewable power sources like hydropower, wind, and solar as part of our energy mix is an important step in securing our energy future” and argue elsewhere that natural gas is a “friend” to wind and solar, a “bridge to a renewable energy future”, they clearly are prepared to publicly state over what time frame they are planning to depreciate and eliminate their mammoth pipeline infrastructure, including the existing one. After all, to comply with both the Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA), for which the SJC ruled Massachusetts in violation of in another ruling, these sources need to approach zero by 2050. Are they planning to turn these off and shut them down by then? If not, what will that more rapid depreciation do to THEIR up front costs?
Moreover, since these companies and their representatives are SO BULLISH about wind and solar energy, why not replace their compressors with electrically-powered ones driven by local wind and solar, backed with batteries?
And will these companies agree with withdraw all their funding to organizations like the Associated Industries of Massachusetts who lobby against greatly expanding solar energy caps and maintaining net metering for community solar and commercial solar generation?
While this does not affect the terms of the GWSA, anyone who cares about fossil fuel emissions disrupting the climate also cares about upstream emissions of natural gas, per http://www.collectif-scientifique-gaz-de-schiste.com/fr/accueil/images/pdf/texteschoisis/Busch%20Gimon%20-%20Electricity%20Journal.pdf.
If there is a bridge needed to a renewable energy future, which I remain not convinced about for the reasons stated by many of the other people commenting, while I am not in favor of new plants, extending the lives of existing ones, such as the Pilgrim nuclear plant, until renewables can bear this load seems a very sensible thing.
“… [T]hey will also be too poor to move to higher ground.” Given the lack of will by the so-called Climate Ready Boston group to recommend major changes in zoning on the Harbor and in the development region there, despite their original plans to produce two reports making such recommendations this summer, Even now, when you claim we are not too poor to move to higher ground, there is no willingness to do so. The plan for Boston seems to be to stay in place and take it on the chin.
https://667-per-cm.net/2016/08/08/too-late-there-will-be-no-golden-age-of-natural-gas/
There will be no “golden age of natural gas”. All fossil fuels lost the race for the cheapest way to generate electricity back in early 2015, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
They might as well pack up and go home.
If Massachusetts or any other state signs on board, they are locking themselves in to an expensive and unpredictably priced energy source that’s dirty (ask about peaking plants relative to the average emissions), and more expensive than wind, whether offshore or land-based, and is inflexible and inefficient compared to solar. With energy storage coming online, even in Massachusetts, the utilities and natural gas pipeline companies are trying to sell a sham to the government and the taxpayers, hoping they can “flip” the investment and get out of town.
EXCEPT, at least for those who know better, it is now possible to tell the utility to go away.