SEVEN OF THE TOP 10 most expensive states for electricity costs are in the Northeast, including Massachusetts. We pay the sixth-highest retail electricity prices in the nation – almost 50 percent above the national average.
With ample natural gas supplies only a day’s drive away in Pennsylvania, why are Massachusetts and our New England neighbors failing to benefit from those low-cost, domestically produced supplies?
In a word, infrastructure. New and expanded pipelines could connect our power plants to clean-burning natural gas in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus shale, helping to lower both utility costs and emissions.
But legislators are considering a provision that could eliminate an opportunity to cost-effectively fund the infrastructure we need. The Massachusetts Senate passed an amendment to its energy bill that prohibits the Department of Public Utilities from imposing a tariff on electric customers to share the cost of natural gas pipelines needed in our state. Such tariffs, which must be reviewed and approved by independent regulators, are commonly used to fund the addition, maintenance, and improvement of the infrastructure that keeps our lights on and our homes comfortable. To put it in perspective, the pipeline tariff that the Senate is trying to block could save consumers between $780 million to $1.2 billion a year, and the entire cost of the project could be recovered from the cost savings realized from a single cold winter.
Some have tried to label this funding mechanism a “tax,” but no taxpayer dollars are involved when customers are charged for a benefit they receive, and in this case a benefit that lowers their overall costs. Do they also oppose customer-financed programs that directly subsidize renewables, energy efficiency and low-income energy assistance programs?
Further, suggesting we have to choose between natural gas and renewables is a false choice. Natural gas enables growth of wind and solar by providing reliable, affordable power when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.
Sixty percent of our electricity is now generated by natural gas, and our air is cleaner because of it. In New England, natural gas has contributed to significant emissions reductions for nitrogen oxide (65 percent), sulfur dioxide (92 percent) and carbon dioxide (35 percent), according to ISO New England. Nationwide, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) says carbon emissions from electricity generation are at 22-year lows, due largely to greater use of natural gas.
Pipelines are one of the safest, most efficient ways to transport the energy American families and businesses need. The most recent data show the nation’s 320,000 miles of natural gas pipeline transport energy at a safety rate of 99.999 percent.
Blocking energy infrastructure will not magically change our energy needs. According to the EIA, even under optimistic scenarios for renewable energy growth, oil and natural gas will still supply 60 percent of US energy needs by 2040.
Failure to recognize that reality and build the pipelines necessary to take advantage of nearby natural gas has cost the region at least $7.5 billion during a span of three recent winters alone. Unless we update our infrastructure to keep pace with electricity needs, it is estimated that by 2020 our energy bills could jump $5.4 billion, we could lose $12.5 billion in disposable income, and give up 167,000 jobs across a variety of sectors including construction and manufacturing.
Hydropower, solar, and wind all have roles to play in our energy mix, but these options do not substitute the need for additional natural gas. The House and Senate have until the end of the month to resolve their differences and pass an energy bill. As they promote a healthy mix of renewables, let’s hope they don’t push our energy costs over the edge by failing to take into account the need for additional natural gas supplies. The rest of the country is enjoying the benefits of natural gas – there’s no good reason for Massachusetts residents to be left out.
Stephen Dodge is the executive director of the Massachusetts Petroleum Council.
So what should we call a tariff imposed on electric ratepayers by Governor Baker’s Department of Public Utilities specifically to finance a privately owned pipeline the private sector refuses to finance because of the risks?
Natural gas already produces 59% of the electrical energy in Massachusetts. The very last thing we need is more of this poisonous polluting and destructive fossil fuel. It is more noxious than CO2 from other sources, because pipes and infrastructure leak methane (CH4) left and right and everywhere. Considering this leakage, which utilities and pipeline companies REFUSE TO FIX, use of natural gas is WORSE than coal. On top of that, the terms of the federal Natural Gas Act of 1933 emboldens gas utilities and pipeline companies to brutally disregard local interests, and use deceit, tricks, legal maneuvers, payments for consideration, media deceptions, controlling the debate, and strong-arm tactics to advance their causes. If the product was so good, they would not need to resort to these measures.
Why?
Because these companies know their huge investments in natural gas development are at great risk, since the economies of wind and solar are revolutionizing the energy industry. Most states who generated electricity from natural gas have seriously reduced that dependence, as the Union of Concerned Scientists have reported. (See http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/natural-gas-gamble-risky-bet-on-clean-energy-future) They are trying to build markets anywhere and everywhere they can, because the evidence is that, with the plummeting costs of wind and solar electricity, people will bolt from natural gas and oil onto much cheaper electricity. (See https://667-per-cm.net/2016/06/23/still-think-exponential-growth-in-global-solar-adoption-is-mere-extrapolation/)
That EIA study cited is old, from 2013. In fact, the EIA itself just this week has indicated that renewables will overtake natural gas generation past 2040, and have overtaken coal. Right now, they report, that renewables are growing at 4% per year, but natural gas is growing a little over 1/2% per year.
And that’s despite the fact that the EIA is no friend to renewables. Not only is their focus and personnel makeup loaded with fossil fuel favoritism, they’ve had to defend their projections as being biased. (See http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/supplement/renewable/pdf/projections.pdf) Worse, they project trends from the past into the future: They cannot see the explosive development of renewables technology, especially solar, and don’t even have a good number on the total amount of solar PV generation by homeowners. They cannot project the impacts of things like advanced storage technology and efficiency measures or demand response. Neither can ISO-NE, except the degree they are scared by it in their forward planning and control over the energy marketplaces.
If you want to take back control of your energy costs, if you indeed want to take back your democracy (see https://667-per-cm.net/2016/07/06/want-your-democracy-back-take-back-control-of-your-energy-supply/), do three things:
(1) Tell your legislators that the pipeline tax MUST BE BANNED. The conference committee is MEETING RIGHT NOW. Beacon Hill will vote on this possibly as soon as the end of next week.
(2) BOYCOTT natural gas. See https://667-per-cm.net/2016/07/17/boycott-natural-gas-american-or-otherwise/ for how.
(3) Join with your fellow townspeople, your municipal leaders, your sisters and brothers in your houses of worship, to OPPOSE these immoral grabs upon our self-determination, as Debbie Dooley of the Tea Party calls them (see https://667-per-cm.net/2015/07/24/tea-party-member-debbie-dooley-on-solar-power-from-the-guardian/). See what people of faith and principal have been doing and how much they believe in this cause: https://667-per-cm.net/2016/06/30/climate-lamentation-call-response-west-roxbury-ma-spectraalgonquin-explosive-pipeline/
Massachusetts deserves an energy system built for and appropriate to the 21st century, not some 1980s throwback, helping to keep fossil fuel assets by some big money Texans from being stranded. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled WE MUST DO THIS, or we are no longer compliant with the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA, see http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2016/05/18/the-global-warming-solutions-act-requires-massdep-to-promulgate-declining-annual-ghg-emissions-limits-for-multiple-sources-yikes/).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77V_X00XwVU
Let’s have a closer look at Mr. Dodge’s arguments.
1. Massachusetts should get more gas from nearby Pennsylvania.
– Anyone who has watched documentaries about fracking understands the profound misery fracking operations visit upon the communities where they operate. Massachusetts should strive to wean itself off gas in order to minimize our adverse impact on upstream communities.
2. Building more gas pipelines and related infrastructure would save money.
– According to a report commissioned by the Massachusetts Attorney General, energy efficiency and demand response measures are significantly less expensive than expanding gas infrastructure. See: http://www.mass.gov/ago/doing-business-in-massachusetts/energy-and-utilities/regional-electric-reliability-options-study.html
3. Our air is cleaner because of natural gas.
– Natural gas is just as bad for the climate as coal after accounting for methane leaks. Methane is up to 84 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and the gas distribution network in Massachusetts is leaking like a sieve. See: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/08/20/new-law-casts-light-state-natural-gas-leaks/qJJPCjRZITc5ai0JeHNOqO/story.html
4. Sixty percent of our energy comes from natural gas.
– Relying heavily on a single source of energy is inherently risky because we are more vulnerable to future increases in the price of gas. New England should make every effort to diversify its energy portfolio by expanding clean energy sources like wind and solar. Improved energy efficiency should also be regarded as a “source” of energy.
5. Oil and natural gas will still provide 60 percent of natural gas needs by 2040.
– The Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act calls for a whopping 80% reduction in fossil fuel emissions by 2050. The state Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that Massachusetts must pick up the pace in reducing emissions in order to comply with the Act. See: http://www.wbur.org/news/2016/05/17/sjc-ruling-global-warming-act. Even if we get away with violating the Global Warming Solutions Act, we cannot get away with violating the laws of physics. See: http://350.org/about/science/.
6. Pipelines are safe and efficient.
– Spectra has a history of accidents, most recently in Pennsylvania. See: http://triblive.com/news/westmoreland/10447179-74/pipeline-coating-company and http://spectrabusters.org/hazards/spectra-safety-violations/. And as for efficiency, the Attorney General’s report asserts that gas pipelines would cost more than energy efficiency and demand response.
7. Failure to build the pipelines has cost the region $7.5 billion.
– This assertion is based on the assumption that there is no cost associated with polluting the atmosphere with methane and carbon dioxide, and that our grandchildren are worthless.
8. Hydropower, solar, and wind do not substitute the need for additional natural gas.
– The economic vitality of New England depends on that of Boston. The average sea level in Boston Harbor has risen almost a foot over the past century, and it is likely to rise two to three more feet by 2100. We MUST develop clean energy sources and improve our energy efficiency as rapidly as possible to create a sustainable future for our children and grandchildren.
For more information on the future of natural gas, read Snake Oil by Richard Heinberg. See: https://www.amazon.com/Snake-Oil-Frackings-Promise-Imperils/dp/0976751097