THE JANUARY 22 opinion piece (“CLF’s contradictory philosophies”) by Anthony Buxton, an attorney for the energy company Kinder Morgan, argues that the Conservation Law Foundation’s (CLF) policy positions on MBTA fare hikes and electric consumer-funded natural gas pipelines are somehow contradictory. The problem with Attorney Buxton’s argument is that increasing gas pipeline capacity would neither ensure energy savings nor address our widespread carbon emissions, but it would certainly line his client’s pockets.

Before we explain why the world of savings he imagines does not actually exist, it is worth noting that there are lots of ways one could theoretically improve the MBTA’s balance sheet in the short term—the MBTA could sell drugs on the trains, for example, or stop performing maintenance on their brakes, or turn off all the lights. But all of these proposals, just like Mr. Buxton’s, would be terrible ideas, even though they make or save the MBTA money.

Attorney Buxton’s client, Kinder Morgan, an energy company that operates a large network of natural gas and refined petroleum products pipelines around the country, has not been shy about its desire to increase New England’s existing pipeline capacity by more than 50 percent. Its plan would result in the expenditure of $6 billion to $8 billion on one or more new, long-lasting, natural gas pipelines.  Unfortunately for New England’s consumers, Kinder Morgan and its gas industry compatriot, Spectra Energy, are insisting that the electric consumers of Massachusetts and the rest of New England pay for 75 percent of the bill. This kind of forced consumer investment in highly volatile gas markets is unprecedented, and for good reason: it is rife with risk and downside.

The massive pipeline proposed would contribute nothing (literally, nothing) to our energy grid for over 300 days a year. As currently managed, our existing infrastructure provides more than enough capacity year-round except for a few dozen peak days each year, and those peak days can be addressed with improved management that includes fixing leaks to our current pipelines, better utilizing the liquefied natural gas (LNG) and gas storage we already have available, and building out our renewable power alternatives. A CLF study by gas consultant Skipping Stone concludes that this approach will meet our gas needs through 2030 and save consumers $340 million a year and $4.4 billion over 20 years.

So why does Kinder Morgan, which in 2014 already had one-third of the natural gas that moved in the United States pass through its assets, really want this pipeline? Transporting this much gas through a region where it won’t be needed sets up Kinder Morgan to use this pipeline to export gas to Europe, further padding the company’s pockets on the backs of Massachusetts residents.

More importantly, Attorney Buxton’s ideas have already been tested around the country and the results have been less than ideal. Pennsylvania and New York are both regions that have seen an enormous proliferation of gas and pipelines, yet last winter energy prices in both areas surpassed those in New England. It didn’t work then, and it won’t work now.

A growing body of evidence—topped by a November 2015 report done on behalf of the Massachusetts Attorney General—demonstrates undeniably that more natural gas capacity is not needed and any claims to the contrary are more fallacy and delusion than sound economics. Why would we lock ourselves into decades of the dirty fuels of yesterday at a time when clean solar power and wind are getting cheaper each day and clean energy technology, such as grid-scale battery storage, is fast emerging? Investing in natural gas line capacity will make New England over-reliant for the foreseeable future on a fossil fuel and impede our path to clean energy.

It is true that 16 years ago CLF supported the development of new natural gas power plants. At that time, New England’s power sources were over 40 percent coal and oil and the associated air pollution was literally killing people. In the intervening years, natural gas plants helped to displace those dirtiest generators, but their role has grown from 15 percent of our fleet to over 50 percent. In 2010, ISO-New England, the organization that governs our energy grid, warned that we were already in danger of being over-reliant on natural gas. We have reached that point today and any further increases will present a reliability risk and considerably limit our ability to diversify our options at a time when climate change is our most urgent environmental priority and the need for clean, carbon-free energy has never been greater.

On top of the countless economic arguments against further build-out of gas pipelines, the environmental impacts of Kinder Morgan’s proposal would be equally disastrous. Spending billions of dollars on pipeline expansion will beget more gas plants, more gas leaks, and more carbon dioxide spewing into our atmosphere for generations to come. As a matter of public health, and as a matter of law, we must reduce our carbon emissions in every sector dramatically over the next few decades. At 40 percent of total emissions, the transportation sector is a critical piece of that puzzle.

Therefore, both of CLF’s positions—on fare hikes and natural gas line capacity—are quite consistent. They seek to protect the pocketbooks and environment of Massachusetts residents.

Greg Cunningham and Rafael Mares are vice presidents of the Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation. Cunningham directs CLF’s Clean Energy and Climate Change program and Mares directs CLF’s Healthy Communities and Environmental Justice program. 

Editor’s Note: Anthony Buxton represents many clients in favor of increasing the region’s natural gas pipeline capacity. They include the Industrial Energy Consumer Group and the Coalition to Lower Energy Costs. His firm, PretiFlaherty, also represents Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan.

4 replies on “Kinder Morgan’s pipe dream is economic nightmare”

  1. Great article Greg and Rafael! Here’s another point: We can all see the writing on the wall, this pipeline is all about export! KM says this pipeline will tie into the existing Maritime pipeline that runs up to Canada. They have already applied to have the flow of the pipeline REVERSED, so instead of bringing natural gas from Canada to New England, they now want to reverse the flow to EXPORT the gas to Canada! The pipe connecting the end of the KM pipeline to the Maritime pipeline is KM’s pipeline lateral, which is named the Lynnfield Lateral and Peabody Lateral, which is a 24″ dia. pipeline (most of the capacity of the main pipeline!)

    Here is one of the many problems with this pipeline, and taking land from homeowners. From Wikipedia, ‘The Fifth Amendment imposes limitations on the exercise of eminent domain: the taking must be for public use and just compensation must be paid’, the key word here being PUBLIC USE. Most of the gas through this pipeline is slated for EXPORT. The Lynnfield Lateral and Peabody Laterals is a 24″ Lateral which connects the pipeline from Dracut to the existing Maritime pipeline in Danvers, which runs all the way to Canada. Permits are being filed to reverse the flow in this pipeline to EXPORT the gas. So while we already had a pipeline coming to feed gas to New England from Canada now they are reversing and turning it and the Lynnfield / Peabody Laterals into an EXPORT PIPELINE!!

    So now, they are citing Eminent Domain to take land from homeowners, BUT AN EXPORT PIPELINE IS NOT PUBLIC USE, AND THEREFORE THE TAKING OF LAND FROM HOMEOWNERS FOR AN EXPORT PIPELINE VIOLATES THESE AMERICAN CITIZENS FIFTH AMMENDMENT!!

    Here is some more information on the Fifth Amendment and Eminent Domain from Wikipedia:

    James Madison, who wrote the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, had a more moderate view, and struck a compromise that sought to at least protect property rights somewhat by explicitly mandating compensation and using the term “public use” rather than “public purpose,” “public interest”, or “public benefit

    While an EXPORT PIPELINE may be considered public interest or public benefit, if the pipeline is an export pipeline, I challenge anyone here to tell me that an export pipeline is public use!

    Also see this article :

    http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/01/tennessee_gas_seeks_pre-condem.html

    This is insane, and the citizens of New England are going to take all the risk for no benefit!

  2. Please note that in its filing for MA DPU docket 16-07, National Grid claims that 750K decatherms, or about 0.75BCF, of natural gas capacity in the pipeline will be available for release into the Maritimes Northeast pipeline “near Dracut.” This puts a number on the export capacity. 0.75BCF is 58% of the capacity of the Kinder Morgan NED pipeline as currently configured!! That is a huge percentage of the project.

  3. Exactly the point we’ve been trying to make since the get-go. Furthermore, when we discovered Kinder Morgan was the Son of Enron we figured there were all sorts ulterior motives for their pipedream, none of which had the least thing to d with public benefit.

Comments are closed.