So that is why they are going to reduce. overseas shipments? 
1 Like
In a statement, Eversource spokesperson William Hinkle said the company appreciates “the Governor’s focus on an ‘all-of-the-above’ approach to energy supply” — referring to her support for developing a range of power sources including wind, solar, natural gas, hydroelectric and nuclear.
3 Likes
The commonwealth tells us that a bit over half the homes are heated by natural gas. The infrastructure is already in place, no new investment needed. The pipelines into the state would have been built by the companies involved.
The process of switching millions of buildings from gas to electric will take a long time and be costly. Maybe the commonwealth will subsidize the cost ($10K each?) but that is something that would have to happen whether the customers are using LNG or pipeline gas. In the intervening decades everybody – businesses, homeowners, apartment complexes – are stuck with the higher heating costs of LNG.
Gov. Healey seems to have belatedly realized this with her request for expedited pipeline expansion (if it’s not just election rhetoric).
DB2
2 Likes
A few facts of possible interest…
Looking at the year-end electricity report from the EIA, we see that Massachusetts generated about 65% of its electricity from natural gas in 2025. This is obviously the largest single fuel source for electricity in the state. Adding all of the renewable sources together, including hydropower, is another 32% or so. The remaining 3% are various minor sources, such as petroleum liquids and other miscellaneous fuels.
In the year-end report, we see that total electricity generated in the state in 2025 was 27,223 GWh. This includes 4,173 GWh in small-scale (rooftop) solar generation. However, in this same report, we see that total sales of electricity was 51,741 GWh last year. Massachusetts needed to import almost half of its electricity in 2025.
The Pilgrim nuclear power plant near Plymouth used to generate 670 MW of clean electricity, but they shut that down in 2019.
_ Pete
5 Likes
Except for the pipeline, that ain’t cheap. Do you really think the developer is fronting all the cost without long-term contracts for untilities to purchase their gas?
Maybe she thought the war would be over by now? Lord knows that’s what we’ve all been hearing for months. The recent talk of the bombing starting up again after the midterms might have scared her to take action now.
1 Like
Long-term contracts make sense for the pipeline companies. They also make sense for the utilities, lowering their costs for the products they provide (both heating and electricity as waterfell noted). The LNG suppliers then can switch their sales to Europe so the Europeans benefit as well.
DB2
What’s that old quote? When the facts change I may change my mind.
Perhaps she didn’t anticipate that people would be [redacted] enough to elect someone who would start a new fiasco in the Middle East with the attendant (obvious and predicted) effects on energy supplies and prices.
9 Likes
Which facts, is climate change no longer an existential threat?
Clean Energy Plan: While releasing her comprehensive climate agenda, Healey noted: "The climate crisis is an existential threat to our state and our residents — but there is also tremendous opportunity in our response“
Not sure. I’ll have to ask the Anasazi who unfortunately no longer exist thanks to, you know, climate change. I’d ask the Mayans, but they’re gone too. Too late to ask the Khmer Empire and the Indus Valley descendants, too, but I’m sure they’d have something interesting to say.
No, the vast majority of climatologists not on the payroll of petrochemical outfits agree that the world is warming quickly, and a vast majority of those say the changes are man made, largely by burning a million years of sequestered carbon every single year to power cars, industry, and recreation.
The change, for those who avoid the news, was that we attacked Iran in spite of repeated warnings that their first response would be to close the Strait of Hormuz and threaten a significant fraction of oil supplies to the world. That has really good effects for the green lobby, as the increased prices awaken people to the benefits of less carbon intense energy production, but bad effects for those who are still heavily reliant on oil and derivatives. That will change over time, but the dislocation will be difficult for some to manage. Especially those who stick their head in the sand and pretend it doesn’t exist.
11 Likes
But again, the facts, as I am told, are climate change is an existential threat according to Healey. Is the cost of heating cooling a greater existential threat or is it about a threat to her political survival?
Which facts changed that climate change is not our highest priority? Surely, somebody thought of a bridge to transitioning to green energy? Surely, people anticipated the risk of uncertainty in the Middle East? The saudis built contingency plans 40 years ago, in the event supply chains were disrupted in the strait.
P.S. I have no idea What the Mayan civilization has to do with this matter.
2 Likes
And that hasn’t changed! Not sure you understand.
JimA
6 Likes
Are you seriously saying that you think it will cause the end of our species?
DB2
Yeah, because Iran is a foreign affairs issue. Meanwhile, Iran has been a massive problem all along. Avoiding it does not help.
that’s why it’s called an existential threat, yes. Won’t happen in the next decade, but I wouldn’t bet against a catastrophic collapse of human life in the next century. Probably not extinction, but massive death rate.
6 Likes
I think I do. Healey, as attorney general, blocked the pipelines. She has now changed her tune and asking for an acceleration of their completion. Despite the claims fossil fuels are an existential threat, she’s now prioritizing costs over climate. It seems inconsistent and suggests maybe it was more alarmism than based on fact. Otherwise, isn’t the interim cost increases just the acceptable price of saving the planet?
2 Likes
Conceivable, though not directly. We’re pretty adaptable. If one region becomes uninhabitable (as I was reading a year or two ago regarding parts of the Middle East), we can relocate. The problems will be resources and politics. Those who have will hoard, and those who don’t will become violent. Resource wars. Plus, who’s gonna take all the refugees from whatever areas that become uninhabitable? Remember the chaos around one little nation several years ago (Syria)? Multiply that by 100. Or maybe 1000. There will be wars about that, too. Further, the migration of arable lands as weather patterns shift. More wars (though, arguably, that could be lumped under “resource wars”). Lots and lots of dead people above and beyond those that die directly from natural calamities.
The resource wars will be really brutal. I heard it put very well: if people can’t flush their toilets for 3 days, civilization will collapse shortly after. Most of us can’t/won’t survive without civilization. We don’t know how.
6 Likes
Sometimes I wonder if you are not just a bot! Unable to hold two thoughts at the same time. When the situation changes you need to change with it. Her responsibility is the here and now for the people of MA. Two things can be true at the same time: 1) there is an existential crisis which isn’t going to be solved in the next year or two or by the people of MA by themselves and 2) we need to make sure people are able to stay warm in the winter (despite winter not being what it used to be when I was a kid!).
JimA
5 Likes
Yes, I am! The threat of that exists and based on our behaviours, seems almost a certainty. But not immediately and not in my remaining lifetime.
JimA
3 Likes
Then one of two things are true and thank you for admitting them.
-
it is not an existential threat, as it has been made out to be. If it were, immediate economic expense is a small price to pay to avoid extinction.
-
MA’s policies have almost no bearing on CO2 emissions worldwide. So, the policies restricting use of fossil fuels are nearly pointless and have actually put local citizens at risk to shortages and otherwise avoidable supply chain issues.
2 Likes
Not so fast.
It is an existential threat. Unfortunately, humans tend to be pretty short sighted and generally prioritize immediate comfort and concerns over something that won’t happen in their lifetime.
And it’s true that MA’s policies, if only applicable to MA, are not going to solve global crises. But if those policies are adopted globally, they would be a tremendous step in the right direction.
2 Likes