WE NEW ENGLANDERS are a hardy bunch. We put up with nasty winters, brutal traffic, and we waited nearly a century for our beloved Sox to beat the dreaded Curse of the Bambino. But now many of us are saying uncle to one thing (OK, maybe two if you count this winter) – high energy bills. In fact, according to the Energy Information Administration, only Hawaii and Alaska had higher electric rates than New England this January.
Residents, large and small business owners, communities, and policymakers want affordable, cleaner, safe, reliable, secure, and stable energy. But how do we make that happen?
There are myriad proposals in play right now – gas pipelines, electric transmission lines, wind farms, the list goes on and on. So how do we get to a sustainable long-term energy future where we can still afford electricity and groceries? The inconvenient truth is, there is no single silver bullet that will deliver what we need and want. Rather, it will take a portfolio of solutions.
Let’s start with “affordable.” The region’s current high prices are the result of a basic supply and demand issue. In 2000, 15 percent of New England’s electric energy production was from generators fueled by gas. By 2014, that number had risen to about 44 percent. Meanwhile, pipeline capacity for gas transmission into New England has not kept pace.
As a result, there is simply not enough gas coming into the region to reliably or affordably power these plants and meet the needs of millions of residential and commercial gas customers. As the region’s older, dirtier plants continue to retire and new, cleaner gas-fired plants replace them, the situation will only get worse. In fact, about 63 percent of the region’s 11,000 megawatts of proposed new generation is gas-fired. The problem is so severe that some local gas companies already have been forced to turn away new customers because they won’t have enough gas in a few years to be able to serve them.
Two pipelines have been proposed to bring more gas to New England. There has been much discussion about the design and capabilities of both projects, including whether one or the other might better alleviate high electric prices, maintain continued reliable delivery of natural gas to existing residential and business customers, and allow new customers to make natural gas their fuel of choice over oil.
The inconvenient truth is we need both projects. Some say we can solve the problem by continuing to increase the imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Let’s be clear – there is a role for LNG in helping to shore up gas capacity. But wouldn’t it make more sense to add new pipeline capacity to gain access to the abundant and much lower-priced, domestic gas supplies available just outside our region? Then we could liquefy and store some of that gas, as needed, rather than continuing to gamble on imports from other countries halfway around the world?
It’s also worth noting that imported LNG typically goes to the world’s highest bidders. This winter, because our access to the lower priced domestic gas was constrained, New England was one of the highest bidders for world LNG imports. That is not something to be proud of, nor is it a reliable or economical long-term solution. Next winter someone else could be the highest bidder, which means more upward pressure on regional electricity prices.
Now let’s talk about “cleaner.” New England policymakers have made great strides in enabling the greening of the region’s energy landscape. Solar energy is rapidly increasing in popularity among residents, business owners, communities and utilities and that’s a good thing. Thirty-six percent of the region’s proposed new generation is wind-powered. The developers of Rhode Island’s offshore Deepwater Wind project recently announced that they had secured all of their financing, which means it could be the first-of-its-kind project in the country. Some folks are even pushing to be “all-renewable” by 2050.
Here’s the inconvenient part – while we’ve made very significant progress increasing clean energy resources in the region, we haven’t even begun to make a dent in what’s needed to meet existing state renewable requirements, never mind trying to go all-renewable. To get an abundant, reliable, and stable supply of renewable energy will take time because we need new long-haul electric transmission to access the vast, clean energy resources in northern New England and Canada.
We believe one of our best, and most affordable, renewable options is a combination of onshore wind backstopped by hydropower, such as the proposed Maine Green Line, which is expected to be in service in 2018. Yes, we should aim for an all-renewable regional energy supply but it won’t happen overnight. That being said, action is needed now to get projects such as the Maine Green Line in service as quickly as possible.
Other important energy initiatives in New England are helping to move the ball forward. Massachusetts has its grid modernization effort, designed to create a cleaner, more efficient, and reliable grid that will empower customers to manage and reduce their energy costs. Rhode Island’s Infrastructure Safety and Reliability Plan is intended to achieve a safe and reliable power system. For the fourth consecutive year, Massachusetts has been named the nation’s most energy efficient state, with Rhode Island also in the top 10. Across the Bay State, National Grid is in the process of permitting and building 19 new solar facilities to add to the fleet of five it already owns.
Collectively these programs and initiatives have helped New Englanders save billions of dollars on energy costs and significantly lowered greenhouse gas emissions, enabling us to breathe easier. That being said, perhaps the most inconvenient truth of all is that our energy challenges are regional in nature and scope and they require regional solutions.
But hope is on the horizon. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut recently announced a joint request for proposals for clean energy projects to serve all three states. And next week, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker will host all of the New England governors for a summit on regional energy issues. We hope that meeting will result in a proposal that will make these energy truths a lot more convenient.
Marcy Reed is president of National Grid in Massachusetts.
State and regional policymakers are forcing the early retirement of coal and nuclear power believing that renewable energy will replace them. In the real world, intermittent and variable wind and solar power is undependable for addressing winter and summer peak demand. ISO-NE is forced to turn to natural gas as the only reliable alternative to dependable coal and nuclear.
Building high capacity pipelines, that will only work at full capacity once or twice a year, coupled with high capacity transmission lines, to handle renewable energy that on average generates power around 30% of the time, will result in skyrocketing electric bills. High paying industry jobs will disappear. Replacing coal and nuclear with natural gas will not stop the advance of Global Warming.
In short, the state and regional policies to transition to a fossil fuel free energy future is a failure. State and regional governors need to reassess, and get back to ensuring that our electric rates remain as low as possible. The technology to avoid Global Warming is still far into the future.
Marcy Reed is breathtakingly disingenuous in this piece. She knows better than anyone that the wholesale prices of BOTH natural gas AND electricity dropped significantly this past winter compared to 2013-2014. Commonwealth’s Bruce Mohl covered this: https://commonwealthmagazine.newspackstaging.com/economy/electricity-prices-fall/, as did Reuters and other major media:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/01/energy-natgas-newengland-idUSL1N0W125220150301
National Grid and other electric-distribution companies won high rate increases from the DPU based on the PREVIOUS winter’s gas prices on the spot market. The utility companies and our supposedly neutral DPU betrayed ratepayers by granting these increases, even though they could clearly see that improvements to ISO-NE’s Winter Reliability Program, along with deep drops in oil and natural-gas prices, were going to make any increases to the customers completely unnecessary. All of the utilities and the DPU have highly paid professionals who track markets and who track the impact of ISO-NE policies on future conditions–especially near-future conditions. If they did not, they would not be able to do their business.
The treatment of all of us ratepayers by the DPU and the utilities was scandalous. Ratepayers are due a substantial refund, and our Attorney General should be filing for that. The only explanation for the rate hikes is that it is part of a consistent campaign among the multinational energy-supply and energy-distribution companies–along with ISO-NE officials and the current Governor’s administration–to convince the public that we all “need” more gas pipelines to come into our region, along with massive importation of hydroelectric power from Quebec (also known as “Northern Pass”.
The same corporate owners have seamlessly arranged cut-offs of new natural-gas customers by the “local” gas companies they own, such as Berkshire Gas and Columbia Gas. These companies normally plan and contract for gas supplies for all of their needs–including aggressively acquiring new customers–up to 10 years in advance. “What a coincidence” that they are suddenly “out of gas” when proposals for new gas transmission lines are facing public opposition–when these gas companies never made a peep to the press or public about “short supply” until a couple of months ago.
Matter of fact, just this past November, UIL Holdings [owner of Berkshire Gas, Southern Connecticut Gas, and Connecticut Natural Gas Corp., touted the abundance and stability of its supply for this winter in this industry news release:
http://www.retailenergyx.com/sy.cfm/929/CT-MA-Utilities-Expects-Gas-Bills-to-Remain-Stable-and-Very-Competitive-This-Winter
“We have firm capacity contracts in place to guarantee that both our new and existing customers have access to this inexpensive and environmentally friendly fuel,” said Robert Allessio, president of SCG and CNG, in the release.
That was six months ago. Hmmm…
As for alternatives, dozens of solar projects are ready to go in Marcy Reed’s National Grid territory. They cannot go forward until the utility lifts its net-metering caps–in other words, until the utility agrees to pay new solar owners for the excess power they feed back into the grid for other customers to buy. Is it coincidence that National Grid is leading the charge to keep more solar out of the grid by clamping down on net metering caps? Hmmm….again.
Meanwhile, the penetration of simple energy-conserving measures such as routine insulation and air-sealing of homes, businesses, and factories is pitifully low. I don’t have the data at hand, but don’t believe even 1 percent of the customers of any gas company providing heat, nor any electric company, are insulated. And that is just low-hanging fruit at the top of the efficiency tree.
My own experience is that replacing older gas furnaces with new, 97%-efficient units for two rental apartments reduced the gas used by each tenant by 20 to 30 percent, even when the winters got colder. I am paying for the equipment with a zero-interest loan through the MassSave program. At my home, which is heated by a 40-year-old oil-fired steam boiler, the insulation and air-sealing added last summer at a cost of $7000 has reduced my oil consumption by 30 percent, during one of the coldest winters on record. At this rate, the investment will pay for itself in 2-1/2 years!
And Ms. Reed also conveniently ignores that massive gas leaks throughout all companies’ distribution systems that cost ratepayers $38.8 million or more a year in direct wasted payments, along with the climate costs of all of that leaked methane–a climate-disrupting gas that is 86 times as powerful as CO-2 over 20 years in the atmosphere: http://action.clf.org/site/Survey?ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS&SURVEY_ID=3480
Ms. Reed also conveniently ignores the methane impact of the product she promotes here–natural gas–at the fracking wells where it is extracted. Methane leakage at millions of active and abandoned wellheads has been estimated by indpendent scientists at Cornell, Stanford, and other institutions to change the full-life-cycle climate impact of natural gas to a profile very similar to the the full-life-cycle impact of coal.
No responsible person should suggest tearing up our farms, homes, forests, tourist economy and other resources for natural-gas pipelines–nor exposing any citizen of the Commonwealth to the risks associated with pipelines–nor becoming more dependent on a fossil fuel that is extracted by hydraulic fracturing, which not only creates the climate impacts I mentioned, but is a health disaster for the human beings everywhere that fracking takes place. Especially when it is well-known that most of the gas that comes through new transmission lines will ultimately be destined for export, given that the prices the shippers can obtain for gas from overseas buyers will remain much higher than prices they can charge domestic purchasers. See: http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/fe/
Marcy Reed is in a position to know and understand all of these facts, and more. It is an obscenity for anyone with her knowledge and ability to promote expanded gas infrastructure for the Commonwealth or our region.
For a deeper dig into the reasons behind this winter’s higher electric rates, also see:
http://www.clf.org/blog/clean-energy-climate-change/the-final-word-on-winter-in-new-englands-energy-markets-part-i-the-difference-a-year-makes/
http://www.clf.org/blog/clean-energy-climate-change/the-final-word-on-winter-in-new-englands-energy-markets-part-ii-why-this-winter-was-different/
http://www.clf.org/blog/tag/final-word-series/
And for those interested in the why massive imports of Canadian hydropower for New England would also be more harmful than beneficial:
http://www.clf.org/blog/clean-energy-climate-change/three-ugly-numbers-behind-governors-push-canadian-hydropower/
Marcy Reed says there’s no silver bullet, and yet is advocating that the Commonwealth continue to increase it’s reliance on gas with not one, but two pipelines, on top of what we already have. Yikes. Then she mentions that many are calling for MA to be all renewable by 2050. You can’t build two big gas pipelines and expect that we’re going to be renewable in 2050. Energy infrastructure, like what she’s talking about, is not built overnight and isn’t built for short-term use. Those gas companies are banking on MA (or export facilities) staying hungry for gas for decades and (want to) follow the mantra “if we build it, they will come.” Let’s use that same thinking and apply it to the investments we DO want—clean energy that doesn’t release carbon pollution and require massive land seizure from residents and the state.
Like Reed says, “our energy challenges are regional in nature and scope and they require regional solutions.” Though unfortunately she misses the point; this is no “inconvenient truth,” but a huge opportunity to be seized. National Grid should be talking about one of the most
disruptive things to hit the utility sector—distributed energy. Forget
Canada, look to customers to be the energy developers that are needed to
meet energy needs. Raise the solar net metering cap. Massachusetts is already a leader in many regards, lets not be distracted by the fantasy that more gas pipelines would help us any longer.
New England is ALWAYS in the top 10 for electricity prices…and have been for at least the last 15 years! In fact, our electricity prices (on average…excluding the possibly manufactured spikes in 2013 and 2014) are lower today than they were between 2005 and 2009. Check out the graph in the linked article to see the facts of electricity price history. This is a manufactured “crisis” to push us into building pipelines. http://nhpr.org/post/power-plant-owners-argue-energy-crisis-overblown#.VTAeSQhb-UY.facebook
Wow. This is nuts. You forgot to mention rates will increase as ratepayers foot the bill for the pipeline while the pipeline transport companies make millions/billions.
Marcy Reed’s testimony in the “State of Energy in the Commonwealth Hearing” this past Tuesday was that we need we need all the proposed pipelines combined because if every generator were run at peak output simultaneously there would not be enough pipeline capacity unless we had them all.
This is not the capacity test that anyone in the industry uses; generators rarely run at peak output and there is always a subset down for maintenance, reserve, etc.
National Grid’s capacity test doesn’t make sense to me; it seems like she’s saying we need to double the number of gas stations because we can’t fill everyone’s gas tank simultaneously.
This makes me question Marcy Reed’s credibility; why doesn’t she use industry standard methods to measure required capacity?
Secondly there is no data that shows prices will fall. The reason is the pipelines will change Massachusetts from a last-stop on energy infrastructure into an off-ramp on a gas superhighway to Canada for export. The existing Maritimes and Northeast import pipeline from New Brunswick to Dracut is being reversed and the Bear Head import terminal in New Brunswick is being converted to an export terminal. Massachusetts will be fighting world demand for the pipeline gas and foreign markets pay much more for gas then we do. Even Black & Veatch, the consultants that conducted the “Gas Supply Study” for the New England Governors (NESCOE) justifying incremental pipeline, outright states in their “Bear Head [LNG] Export Project” review that gas prices in New England will rise above last year’s peak rates once export begins. Conversely, there has been no study that I am aware of that looks at aggregate gas demand and states prices will fall.
Marcy Reed’s implications about price have no basis and again makes me question her credibility.
If we’re going to have a debate about the pipelines let’s at least use real data.
The only plausible reason New England “needs” two fracked gas pipelines is so the corporados can export U.S. resources to other nations and fatten their obscene bank accounts even more than they already are. One can only wonder what Marcy Reed is really thinking. Given fracked gas’ massive leaks throughout the infrastructure and the methane’s disastrous effect on our atmosphere (not to mention the inevitable explosions) Reed certainly isn’t thinking about future generations.
Yes, clean energy doesn’t emit carbon once in operation but the
manufacture of clean energy components does actually release significant
carbon to the atmosphere. But the larger inconvenient truth is that
renewable energy cannot replace the high level of reliability of an
always-on electricity resource at a reasonable price. Look… the truth
is that the 90 percent of New Englanders who are living paycheck to
paycheck often wonder how they’ll pay the power of heat bill. They’re
worrying how their job will fare when their company starts looking a
lower-cost energy states as a way to remain competitive. The ugly truth
is that Marcy Reed is absolutely correct. We need and have needed
additional natural gas carrying capacity into New England for the last
15 years. The guys that own the current pipelines are cleaning up at the
expense of the ratepayers. Yes, we’re making the pipeline guys rich.
Adding more renewable energy is certainly necessary but we need old-guard generation to sure up the grid. The facts are that there may be a shortfall in generation capacity as soon as this summer due to retiring generation units and scheduled maintenance. Look, you may not like the truth, but adding natural gas capacity will assist in ensuring that the replacement of retiring coal/nuclear
plants will actually generate affordable power when they come on line. I like the deal that the folks at the Conservation Law Foundation made on
Salem’s new gas generating unit but when they came out in opposition to the pipelines, they totally lost my support. Power must be plentiful, affordable and reliable. Apparently they disagree with this basic premise. Real people with
real paycheck-to-paycheck lives are being impacted here. The change from coal
to gas is a terrific win and it’s a best way forward as a bridge fuel to the
next affordable technology. As a professional in this space, I know the truth and support Marcy Reed’s position. The economic truth may not be popular but it is the
truth.
The only alternative to natural gas on the grid is coal, nuclear, diesel, and local hydro. Wind and solar are supplemental and cannot be counted upon to address peak demand. In fact the variable and intermittent nature of wind and solar is to shift the power mix to more natural gas to backup wind and solar variability.
Net metering is one reason that the grid is shifting from coal and nuclear to natural gas. Raising the net metering rate will only increase the need for the pipelines. The Salem power plant should not have been forced to switch from coal to natural gas. Vermont Yankee should not have been forced into early retirement. Brayton Point power plant in Somerset is been forced into early retirement, and the Pilgrim nuclear plant is under pressure to shut down.
Unless state and regional policies are reversed, we will be forever dependent on natural gas for heat and electricity. Rates will skyrocket. Industry with good paying jobs will go elsewhere, and Global Warming will arrive on schedule.
“Global warming will arrive on schedule”? Where have you been? It’s been here.
I’m also convinced that the spike in energy prices in the last year was in part a planned strategy to “soften” people to the idea of this pipeline infrastructure. Think about it. Rates spike up (I know people who their electric and gas bills climbed as high as 52% in the last 12 months!) and then the pipeline shows up as the hero. So it looks like rates go down, but they’re still higher than pre-spike, so ratepayers feel like they’re being cut a break because of the gas infrastructure, when in fact they’re paying for it. :)
You do not mention Energy Efficiency. EE projects can reduce our electricity usage by 20% across all sectors and do so cost effectively. It would probably take 5 to 10 years of organized implementation, but it would be worth it! Ratepayers would see immediate relief. A program like that would create lots of good paying jobs in NE that won’t go away. EE has 100% capacity…24/7 operation. While we shrink our usage, we can also begin building off-shore wind and lots of distributed solar. I also think our utilities need to be spending a lot more than 0.3% of their operating budget on R&D!!! That is ridiculous in an industry that is changing so rapidly.
Oh! And, yes, we also need to focus attention on storage technologies like compressed air, batteries and pumped hydro. These are all problems that can be solved…and much more cost effectively than to continue pumping carbon into the environment. Coal is not really cheaper than natural gas from what I can tell. Coal in the Mid-West sells for less than $50 per short ton. In New Hampshire coal sells for around $104 per short ton.
Massachusetts is currently at 63% natural gas generation, we have plenty of baseload and there is currently ample spinning dispatch to underpin additional solar and wind.
If we were at ~10% natural gas generation like were were at in 1990 the argument that “the only thing we can replace coal and oil with is natural gas or hydro” could have weight. That is not true now.
Conversely, let’s say that the argument persists that additional pipeline gas is unavoidable here — what percentage gas generation do we need before ‘solar’ and ‘wind’ are acceptable? 70%.. .80%?. . .90%. . .or not until all our eggs are in one gas basket?
Note that this is not even looking at other (admittedly immature) baseload renewables.
Don’t forget flywheels and molten salt, too.
This argument rests on the assumption that prices will fall with the pipelines. The problem is the pipelines are not for us; they’re export pipelines with New England as a secondary market. There is no study that I am aware of that account for aggregate gas demand and states prices will fall.
If one is boxed into a corner and only given one choice it does not necessarily mean that the choice will solve the problem.
Here is a little arithmetic. The capacity factor for wind is about 33%.. Solar is about 15%. That means that to get 1 MW of wind on average you need 3 MW of wind on the grid 24/7. Since natural gas is the preferred flexible technology to balance wind’s variability, you also need to add 3 MW of natural gas for each realizable 1 MW of wind.
So, when policymakers pass legislation mandating 25%, 35%, and in some cases 50% generation from renewables (wind and solar), The future market, overseen by ISO-NE, is forced to squeeze baseload coal and nuclear off the grid.
The dirty little secret is that running natural gas to backup wind and solar consumes as much fuel as if wind and solar did not exist. This is because natural gas runs at twice the efficiency as baseload ,which at the higher penetrations is squeezed off the grid.
If we change the policy for renewables, we can avoid new pipelines. We can avoid skyrocketing rates. And, deal with Global Warming with a stronger economy.
“The dirty little secret is that running natural gas to backup wind and
solar consumes as much fuel as if wind and solar did not exist. This is
because natural gas runs at twice the efficiency as baseload ,which at
the higher penetrations is squeezed off the grid.”
So if I read your post right, gas+solar+wind is twice as efficient as coal and nuclear and that’s a dirty secret?
Agreed; Energy Efficiency is a cornerstone. Germans, for, example, on average 1/10th the amount of power Americans do but pay triple what we do for their electricity. Thus even though their power is more expensive they have lower energy bills.
I also love how the industry fights to build pumped hydro facilities to smooth off off-peak load for nuclear and coal generation but that natural gas is the only solution to smoothing off wind and solar.
Hans, I left quite a long comment on the WMUR website, but it was NOT published. I have tried a second time and hope it makes it through. Please comment at this website if you get a chance: http://www.wmur.com/money/regional-business-leaders-push-governors-on-energy-crisis/32399874
It’s not about today. It’s about tomorrow. If the policy is pushing coal and nuclear off the grid, by the time the pipelines are completed we will need all the gas we can get because renewables have very low capacity value.
Building the pipelines will leave us with all our eggs in the natural gas basket. The only way to diversify is with hydro and storage. While hydro from Canada is talked about, no one is demanding grid scale storage. In 10 to 20 years without grid scale storage and without coal and nuclear, rates will skyrocket and grid stability will suffer leading to blackouts and brownouts.
Hans, I have no agenda on either side of the argument. The facts from the environmental lobby don’t match up with the facts from industry experts (like me). Cherry picking doesn’t work well either. When the costs of the pipelines are depreciated over time, the cost to ratepayers will be less impactful than some have indicated on this Discus board. We absolutely need the pipelines to abate a capacity log jam. This past winter it was a “war” between heating loads and electricity generation resulted in a hammering of electricity ratepayers. You state that the pipiines are not for us….not sure where that comes from. Without additional pipeline capacity the ability to add traditional high efficiency generation units to the grid may be next to impossible. New England is in an electricity capacity shortfall and retiring units need to be replaced. LNG is not the best way forward as its price volatility creates even more electricity price uncertainty going forward. There are several steps that the MA DPU could take to make this a better deal for both natural gas and electricity consumers…1 They could add more conservation dollars to incentive programs that save natural gas; the current pathetic incentive do not inspire customers to evaluate higher efficiency equipment.. 2 they could implement a ruling that ties the pipeline to a zero-leak tolerance regulation so that utilities benefitting from the addition capacity must perform more rigorous pipeline system inspections and repairs. 3 They could move to a “unity power factor” requirement for all commercial accounts; this would increase system capacity by up to 10 percent and herald-in smarter metering (smarter grids). The final point ties to the larger picture that natural gas must be viewed as a bridge fuel with an expiration date (like the deal CLF made with Salem Harbor) as it yields to the next technology of affordable renewables with affordable storage.
I deal with the pricing in the constrained capacity market daily, your dart throwing at a convenient target of a utility executive is understandable. Customers just don’t like or trust utilities… I get that. But on this point, Ms. Reed is spot-on. Capacity prices have nearly tripled on the interstate gas pipelines that feed New England. Customers are furious over the price spikes in natural gas and electricity. It’s partially due to greed, but it’s mostly due to supply and demand. The facts matter here and market forces may soon result in larger companies seeking refuge in lower utility cost states if the pipeline proposals fail. If they move, so do their jobs.
Nia, that’s what interstate pipelines do…they transport gas to the “city gate” where your utility takes possession and then transports it to your home or place of business. They’re not being condescending or challenging your intelligence. Facts matter!
New England has been capacity constrained since 1995. Facts matter!
Gary, I would be interested in learning more. Show me the study that shows prices will fall once export begins (for example, from Bear Head). It appears to be the same problem Ms. Reed found with LNG; gas going to the highest bidder.
I’m not arguing that there is no problem nor that we should ‘do nothing’, but the fact the situation is bad does not mean that the easiest solution will automatically fix it. In my industry there are capacity crises all the time but we need to prove a particular solution will solve the issue before we invest in it. . .
Correct, Gary. The facts Nia is referring to is that the Maritimes and Northeast pipeline from New Brunswick to the Dracut, MA “city gate” is being reversed, the Bear Head gas import terminal in New Brunswick is being converted to an export terminal and the ultimate destination is no longer exclusively New England (I argue our homes and places of business are a secondary market).
“Marcy Reed is President of National Grid in MA.” That’s all you need to know. She’s shilling for Big Energy.
Perhaps Marcy can address this for us: Marcy, National Grid requested a huge rate increase (37%) back in Sept 2014, in anticipation of increased supply costs for the heating season. Despite our brutal winter, those costs never materialized as the Saudi’s yanked the rug out from under energy prices – INCLUDING GAS, by bottoming out oil prices. Yet you kept all the increased funds generated by the rate hike, that you took from MA residents. Last October, you also predicted that you would raise our rates 49% for this summer. National Grid had a market capitalisation of approximately £31.4 billion as of August 2014 – and while they cried fro rate increases, their top executives salaries rose more than 50% – with NONE of them making less than $7,000,000 a year in salary. How many utility bills do MA residents pay just to fill those salaries – long before it starts to pay off the actual energy costs?
Even Kinder Morgan, public enemy and pipeline profiteer/promoter extraordinaire, has stated that MA has only a 25% energy issue in the winter. We’re pretty sure that’s an exaggeration, too, since they’re using that to push for their pipelines (which are really for offshore export.)
Here’s why she’s shilling for pipelines:
National Grid, – (A BRITISH company, by the way) – merged with Lattice Group, owner of Transco — the UK gas distribution business. In February 2006, National Grid announced that it had agreed to buy KeySpan Corporation, a gas distributor and electricity producer in the United States, for
$7.3bn (£4.1bn) in cash. Around the same time, National Grid also
announced the acquisition of the Southern Union Company subsidiary, New England Gas Company in Rhode Island. That acquisition was completed in 2007. National Grid subsidiaries:
New England Power Company;
Massachusetts Electric Company (in Massachusetts);
Nantucket Electric (in Massachusetts);
The Narragansett Electric Company (in Rhode Island);
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (in New York State);
KeySpan Corporation (parts of New York City);
Boston Gas Company (including the former Essex Gas Company in Massachusetts); and
Colonial Gas Company (in Massachusetts)
People of Massachusetts, we’re being shafted by the oligarchy of foreign-owned energy corporations. They are creating high rates and false ‘crisis’ to sell/export their gas – all profiting the same foreign company, and at the cost of forests, protected conservation lands and property owners & residents. We won’t even mention the safety issues.
What we need is a return to truly publicly-owned and state-maintained public utilities. Privatization of essential services benefits only the profiteers. That our state regulators and elected officials are allowing these companies to rape us financially is a huge issue, and they need to hear from us, loudly and unceasingly.
The entire pipeline push is a lie. They’re manufacturing a fake problem so that they can sell us their ‘fix’ and increase their profits even more.
FWIW, I also find lobbies non-helpful. I’m a rate-payer who is fed up with information being misrepresented. You are correct that more gas supply would be needed to add more gas generation to the grid; I argue why do we need more gas generation when Massachusetts is already at 63% gas generation.
I know that, being in the industry, you may not be able to influence the investment choices generators make, but we, citizens of Massachusetts, do have a choice on our electric mix. In fact, it has been deemed our responsibility; FERC does not handle it, utilities don’t handle it, market’s don’t handle it, ISO-NE punts it to the states and it is in, for example, MassDOER’s charter:
“DOER is the Massachusetts executive agency responsible for establishing and
implementing the Commonwealth’s energy policies and programs aimed at ensuring the adequacy, security, diversity, and cost-effectiveness of the Commonwealth’s energy supply within the context of creating a cleaner energy future”
I reject the notion that there is no choice in this matter.
Also your ideas (1-3) are great ideas; please run with them! I had no idea that industrial power factor was not already required! Do you think billing residential for apparent power would help, too, or is the difference negligible?
The way we bill for power makes no sense. Residential customers who use over 500 KWh per month get a discount for KWh above that. How does that align with our goals of conservation?
Pat, I agree there is a *lot* that can be done on the billing side to shave peak electric demand! California, for example, has tiered pricing where the heavy users get charged more.
Also variable rate pricing that changes depending on the time of the day could shift
heavy usage to non-peak times.
Remember the core problem is “peak” resource contention; let’s shave the peaks!
Excellent point; let’s demand grid storage, then. I would love to see a cost comparison with the pipelines; I suspect, for example, a pumped hydro station would be much cheaper. This is an excellent conversation.
The one and only reason we need the pipelines is that the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEOEA) together with federal policies and regulations are forcing the early retirement of coal and nuclear capacity. Texas, where the pursuit of wind energy was started by Enron, has finally begun to realize that wind can’t handle anymore than 10% of the mix, and is now pushing to repeal the RPS mandate for renewables.
http://www.rechargenews.com/wind/1397026/texas-senate-votes-to-eliminate-rps
We need to learn from their experience. Repeal the RPS. Reverse the early retirement of coal and nuclear, and stop state bureaucrats from pushing the pipelines.
No matter how large we make the pipeline, it will never be big enough to satisfy peak demand!
Germany is running at 22.9% wind. Yes, they have had very tough growing pains as they pioneer this new path but their industrial economy certainly has not tanked (they’re the strongest economy in Europe). I’m not saying it is a panacea (heck, they underpin it with brown coal) but I am saying there is not a 10% ceiling on the wind mix.
Beyond that, I agree that early retirement of coal and nuclear are to blame but I’m not convinced renewable portfolio standards (RPS) is the core driver. The core driver appears to be cheap shale gas is undercutting coal, oil, nuclear, LNG (practically everything) and seeing that trend, private investment (the market) only wants to invest in gas power plants. The problem is that the generation mix is market-driven and has absolutely no incentive to diversify our energy portfolio; their only incentive is to minimize cost and shale gas is the cost winner.
I argue RPS is the only thing keeping us from going all-gas generation via one transport method (pipeline) from one location (Marcellus). As any investor knows all eggs in one basket is very risky.
I completely agree with you, however, we need to stop state bureaucrats from pushing the pipelines.
The problem with Ms.Reed’s reasoning is it fails to account for the foreseeable reliability issues that will result in increasing our dependence on natural gas to power our electric generators. Gas has been a boom & bust market since the late 1800’s and may very well spell large stranded costs or rolling brownouts if we over-invest in a system based upon this single fuel. Such an imprudent decision that will be borne on the backs of the most vulnerable ratepayers: those who can’t afford the PV/storage combination that will be ubiquitous in the Northeast 10 years from now. See Generally, http://www.rmi.org/electricity_load_defection
According to this:
https://www.ieawind.org/countries/germany.html
“With a share of 8.9% of total electric generation in Germany (2012: 7.7%), wind energy maintained a strong position as the main source of renewable electricity.”
Germany wind consumption is still less than 10%.
The RPS, together with regulations that give wind and solar top priority on the grid, is artificially biasing the wholesale market against coal and nuclear, giving the advantage to natural gas.
In an unbiased market, the fact that there is not enough pipeline capacity to satisfy all the demand for natural gas, should give the advantage to coal and nuclear without the prospect of rate increases. Instead the system is being manipulated toward funding additional pipeline capacity and ever increasing rates.
Germany has some of the highest electric rates in the world.
Quite a number of measures have already been put in place to address the much touted, but entirely overblown “energy crisis” of the Northeast. There is a TGP NH-NY pipeline already in service, with a capacity of 300,000 dth: Williams Rockaway lateral and Northeast connector (100,000 dth in service, and 547,000 dth coming in 2015); and between the PGNTS non-pipeline option and the likelihood that either the Constitution or AIM will begin contruction this summer- 300,00 to 1, 100,000 dth, that is already signficant capacity and far over the flatlined “needs” predicted for this region. Additionally, National Grid has received permission from the DPU to liquify large amounts of pipeline gas instead of imported LNG. Please recall that capacity on these pipelines is otherwise idle during signficant portions of the year.
The need for two ginormous over built pipelines is ludicrous: except that Piearidae Goldboro’s application listed in the federal register states that “fossil fuel and pipeline companies” will make a quardrillion dollars from LNG exports from Nova Scotia: this is Enron style price gouging, and basically little more than racketeering among gas investment interests to syphon off U.S. assets for private profit.
That is what is being enacted: Enron style price gouging, and a push for an export pipeline on our dime. This woman works for a company that will get windfall profits no matter what horror this visits on our state in terms of ruined property, destruction and squandering of state resources: and she doesn’t give a rat’s fine backside what happens to our economy or our people.
Thanks for stating much more clearly Hans! Yes, this is what I am referring to!
How about we run the new pipelines through your town, neighborhood and yard. Yeah, I thought so.
Easy for her to say we need to do this — it isn’t going through her land nor will it be leaking into her water supply. Considering how many leaks are in the current pipes and how many accidents we’re seeing across the country, it’s only a matter of time. And instead of giving in to this nonsense (peak demand is 30-41 days out of the year), why aren’t we doing more to promote and support (really, really support) insulation, energy efficiency, and alt energies? Despite the lack of support from National Grid, alt energies are on the upswing. Of course, National Grid doesn’t like to have to deal with integrating that energy into their grid; they’d rather promote dirty energy.
You can’t use facts and gas industry in the same sentence. I suggest you watch Gasland 2.