New England uses a lot of heating oil, one of the few places in the country to do so. It also uses natural gas. With limited pipeline supply Massachusetts also imports LNG from Algeria which is rather expensive.
The governor, Maura Healey, this week asked President Trump to expedite the approval of expanded nat gas pipeline supply. When running for governor she was proud about stopping two pipelines from coming into the state.
Karma, I guess.
“This project will lower costs for 600,000 customers,” Healey said in a statement. “Massachusetts is moving forward with its review, and I’m asking the federal government to do the same — move quickly and keep this project on track so customers can see the savings.”…
Healey’s letter to the federal government lands at a tricky political moment in the state. Massachusetts has legally binding requirements to slash planet-warming emissions — targets that require reducing use of natural gas…
“The Sierra Club is deeply disappointed by the governor’s choices around fossil fuel expansion,” said Vick Mohanka, the group’s Massachusetts chapter president. “We endorsed her when she came into office the first time as governor because she campaigned on being a climate champion. So seeing this about-turn is really hard for us.”
Environmentalists in the state opposed the building of the infrastructure (pipelines) to provide cheap nat gas that most of the US enjoys. However, the need was still there in the winter so they used a 50-year old LNG facility to provide the missing 25%.
But this is an election year and affordability has become more important than environmentalism.
That LNG has historically been imported from foreign sources. Now, foreign LNG prices have skyrocketed. Why? The quagmire in Iran.
Furthermore, the federal government has seriously impacted MA’s transition to clean energy by eliminating funds already appropriated by Congress.
She’s probably betting the quagmire won’t end anytime soon. Given the slashed funding for clean energy projects, she’s probably betting she has a better chance of getting a pipeline approved.
The environmental lobby is strong like bull in MA. It’s quite likely the governor will lose a lot of that support by trying to push through this pipeline.
On one side you have the militant green coalition of the Israel-Iran-US-Houthi alliance and their blockade and siege of fossil fuel supply and infrastructure - and the coalition now grows with the Massachusetts Sierra Club.
On the other side you have citizens pressed into fossil fuel conservation by the high prices caused by the militant greens - as winter approaches.
A militant blockade and siege approach on pipeline and refinery infrastructure is an extreme and expensive tactic for the new green energy alliance, but the signals through the fossil fuel market are clear and dramatic:
“Supply is restricted and prices are dramatically higher - consume less fossil fuel or be pressed into high costs of sourcing fuel elsewhere.”
Militant greens “like the world has never seen.”
Have you ever seen a militant green alliance with this global reach and impact on suppressing fossil fuel supply?
It’s unprecedented.
If the MA Sierra Club were to launch drone attacks on the new pipeline, this militancy will expand.
LNG has always been more expensive than the pipeline stuff (obviously). For example, back in January it sold for more than twice as much per BTU. Massachusetts chose to go with the more expensive setup, and Healey bragged about it.
The new militant greens use drones and naval destroyers to blockade shipping and lay siege to pipeline and refinery infrastructure.
$100s of billions per year in tax and economic costs to the US residents alone (yet more costs from other alliance members), but this green alliance believes the costs are worth the outcome in reduced fossil fuel supply.
That’s part of it, but even now with it suspended, none of the domestic supply is headed to MA. Tanker capacity is low and US suppliers make more money exporting to other countries.
So what? Many of her constituents might not have cared about paying more than twice as much if it meant moving away from fossil fuels. Seems like their pain point is having to pay more than 4X as much…because of the quagmire.
They weren’t planning on paying more forever. The plan was (maybe still is?) to transition to clean energy. New fossil fuel infrastructure isn’t needed, nor wanted if people are willing and able to pay 2X higher short-term costs for LNG. 4X costs might be too much for them to afford.
It may be difficult for you to understand, (no offense intended), but the people of MA may want a clean energy future more than the lowest cost energy.
That could be, but there is clearly a limit on what they want to pay for that future.
It is still not clear to me how either swapping pipeline gas for LNG or the reverse leads to a clean energy future. It is still methane they are burning to heat their buildings.
Agreed, it would appear that paying more than 4X the cost is more than they’re willing to pay.
MA cannot meet all of their energy demand with renewables…yet. I think their plan was shooting for 2050, but I could be wrong. Why would they invest in new infrastructure to swap over to pipeline gas if they’re planning to be completely fossil free by 2050? It makes sense that they’d opt for more expensive short-term LNG using existing infrastructure, as long as consumers are willing to tolerate higher prices.
As mentioned before, the Iran war and federal slashing of appropriated funds has impacted MA’s ability to execute a transition to clean energy. It seems silly to bash the governor for adjusting her plan, given the current realities that are outside of her control.
