One natural gas pipeline — Kinder Morgan’s so-called NED — has been withdrawn; but the Access Northeast pipeline that would go through the south of the state through Weymouth to the bay, is still alive. The utilities, and the Baker administration, want ratepayers to pay for it.
The Attorney General is trying to put the brakes on:
Last year, state Attorney General Maura Healey, a Democrat, released a study saying additional gas capacity was not needed. Assistant Attorney General Kerry Strayer read a statement from Healey. Strayer says the companies’ requests raise a host of legal issues and urged the DPU to delay going forward with them.
“On May 5, the Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments regarding the department’s [DPU] authority under state law to approve gas contracts executed by electric companies,” Strayer said. “Given the legal uncertainty regarding the department’s authority the Attorney General’s Office has moved the department to stay these proceedings, DPU 15-181 Eversource and DPU 16-05 National Grid, until the SJC issues its decision. The department is yet to rule on the AGO’s motions and is moving forward with these proceedings.”
via Mass. AG And Opponents Fight Electric Bill Charge To Fund Pipeline | WAMC.
Now, some 91 legislators opposed a pipeline charge for the NED. Yet somehow all the House amendments — bipartisan! — that would have prevented those charges to pay for the Spectra pipeline, were stripped out.
So the “pipeline tax” doesn’t seem that popular. A bipartisan group of legislators opposes it. The necessity of the pipeline itself is dubious. There’s vigorous local opposition.
What’s the point again, Governor?
My understanding is this will not benefit us. Shouldn’t those getting the fuel pay for it’s delivery? Even taxation, which everyone loves to hate and actually does have its issues, is ostensibly an exchange of money for public services rendered back to the taxpayers.
And it’s definitely a non-partisan one drawing opposition from Republicans like Bob Hedlund and Patrick O’Connor to many local Democrats and obviously is a big priority for our UIP town committees.
Nobody wants this station. Nobody.
I can’t tell you if the gas company is doing this to try and play people, but for the past year Columbia Gas has issued a three year moratorium on new gas connections for residences.
That needs to be addressed on a statewide basis to be equitable. It isn’t fair for Eastern MA residents to vote in a way that makes them feel environmentally responsible when the impact of those votes is borne by people in Western MA.
I understand that Cape Cod is suffering a similar moratorium (though I bet many people like that because it prevents development…)
It’s more affordable and more environmentally friendly and it creates more local jobs and revenue. It’s really a no brainer, what’s the policy reason to pay more for dirtier out of state energy? It seems to me either lining the pockets of contributors or an ideological opposition to clean energy. Both of which seems out of character for this self described non ideological problem solver governor. It just confuses me.
Your problem isn’t the lack of sufficient interstate gas pipeline capacity. Your problem is the lack of capacity in the Northampton Lateral (on the map, it’s the northbound pipe that begins east of Southwick (the MA tooth into CT). You don’t have enough capacity to get gas from the interstate pipelines into your corner of the Commonwealth.
The TGP Northeast expansion would run pipeline along the northern portion of MA and, in addition to providing gas to Dracut, serve as a de facto second lateral into the South Hadley / Amherst / etc area, thereby solving your problem.
And so turn it on its head: why should the entire state suffer the financial and environmental consequences of a major gas pipeline just so your region can duck paying for its own local natural gas infrastructure?
The solution is simple:
1. Invest heavily in heating-related energy efficiency, to allow for existing customers to require less natural gas during the coldest hours of the year (the timing for which the gas company must plan for).
2. Invest heavily in converting folks in that area from natural gas heat to electric powered air source heat pumps, thereby reducing demand for gas.
3. To the extent that those actions aren’t enough, build a new lateral or “loop” the existing lateral to provide more capacity.
It seems to me that for all three items, it is the ratepayers of Berkshire Gas who should foot the bill, not the entire state’s electric ratepayers. I’m perfectly happy for state programs to contribute “their share” to items 1 and 2.
If you can build something with other people’s money and the DPU says you are guaranteed to make money on it, you will build it.
Th argument is, But it won’t get built if we don’t do this! And the answer is, Maybe the market is trying to tell you something.
He could really be a visionary and allow the free market to continue to drive the cost of solar and wind down by permitting Cape Wind and raising the solar cap, two things he is currently opposed to doing while trying to tie us to more expensive and dirtier fuel sources from out of state that even local Republicans are opposed to housing in their towns.
The first proposal uses the invisible hand of the market to drive down costs on products that create jobs in Massachusetts and protect our climate, the other uses the ham handed arm of government intervention to force a product nobody wants that is more expensive to consumers in the short term and to our climate in the long term while creating fewer jobs. It’s hard not to conclude he has a self interest, either politically or fiduciary, in pursuing this protectionist policy. Nothing is less Republican than picking winners and losers, and this is worse since its government picking a loser.
If pipelines are blocked from being constructed, the hope is that the state is obligated to build solar panels and electric wind mills.
It’s a ‘starve the beast’ strategy. If state consumers are ‘starved’ of bad energy, we’ll be obliged to either consume less, or to find alternative sources of energy.
While Spectra’s Access Northeast Expansion project may be the only pipeline project left in the works that ratepayers are being asked to pay for, there are three other projects at various phases of approval:
1. Kinder Morgan’s CT Expansion project that has already been approved, but is held up until July 29th by a court battle over Otis State Forest land in Sandisfield, since Kinder Morgan never got a two-thirds vote from the legislature to gain the land preserved by Article 97 of the MA Consitution. The AG just last week won an appeal by KM to waive the deadline.
2. Spectra’s Atlantic Bridge project which received an environmental review by a company hired by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that has a conflict of interest, as reported by DeSmogBlog.com’s Itai Vardi. Warren and Markey are asking for a do-over and a full Enviromental Impact Statement free of any conflict of interest. This project would be the first compressor station in Weymouth and includes an application for the reversal of flow in the Maritimes & Northeast pipeline from Dracut, MA to the Canadian border through ME and NH. FERC has until July 31st to approve or deny the project, otherwise Spectra has to start all over again with the application.
3. Spectra’s AIM project, which includes the West Roxbury Lateral, which has been approved and is being appealed in federal court by Boston, Dedham and a coalition of groups and individuals from four states, including Food & Water Watch. Briefs are due in the case by July 29th, but construction is proceeding as protests and arrests continue at the site, updates here.
Spectra’s Access Northeast Expansion project has 50 miles of pipeline, two massive LNG storage facilities in Acushnet and a second compressor station in Weymouth.