Ann Berwick, former Massachusetts’ undersecretary for energy and later DPU chair in the Patrick administration, makes a solid case that more gas lines may not be the answer to all our energy problems. In an Aug. 17 Globe Op-Ed she says the Baker Administration, in typical Republican fashion, believes more is better when it comes to gas pipelines, no matter the disruption they cause at the local level. But that logic may be flawed.
“Yes, electricity prices — tied largely to the cost of natural gas — did rise sharply last winter,” says Berwick. “But that wasn’t because of the especially harsh weather. Instead, it was chiefly due to the anticipation of high natural gas prices and shortages that never materialized. The anticipation drove up the cost of natural gas, which had to be secured before the winter started.”
Further, she adds: “Another indication that the “more gas means lower prices” logic may not hold comes from the experience of Pennsylvania during the winter of 2014. Natural gas prices spiked, even though Pennsylvania is in the heart of the Marcellus region — home to the largest supplies of natural gas in the Eastern United States. If Pennsylvania isn’t immune to gas price volatility, it’s worth asking whether New England can get better results by increasing supply.”
And there are environmental issues, too: More gas lines “would exacerbate our dependence on a single fuel with a history of price volatility, bias our future energy use towards a fossil fuel that is far from clean, and increase our reliance on a fuel that depends on fracking,” added Berwick.
So, as with the Olympics, we have a lot of unanswered questions. Let’s hope AG Healey’s timely gas line study will provide those answers before we consumers pay to build a gas line that may only serve to further Kinder Morgan’s export dreams.
