By Ken Cleveland BANNER CORRESPONDENT
With the recent announcement that Kinder Morgan/Tennessee Gas Pipeline will pursue the "New Hampshire alternative" for its pipeline expansion project, many properties in Massachusetts may be safe from disruption, but it is unclear if the proposed local pipeline project will be affected.
The new, main route will carry expanded natural gas supplies into New England and, ultimately, the Dracut terminus, without going through many of the state properties initially slated for a route.
"As currently contemplated, exclusive of laterals, the route would be adjacent to or co-located with existing rights-of-way for approximately 90 percent of the mileage," according to a Kinder Morgan release, leaving open the possibility that laterals such as the North Worcester line would still be built.
The company is in the process of filing more documents with the federal regulatory agency that governs gas pipelines.
Although Tennessee Gas Pipeline sought to use undeveloped lands to simplify development, the company discovered the state's residents are highly protective of their rural and conservation property.
It is unclear, however, if the new route might eliminate a planned North Worcester lateral line through Bolton, Berlin and Boylston to feed supply lines in Worcester or if it would affect plans by Sterling's light and gas company to run a pipeline down the I-190 corridor to feed its planned distribution and possibly tie into an NStar line that was run into Sterling.
"The lateral is still coming at us," Boylston resident Bill Manter said of the north Worcester supply line.
He added that residents who met three weeks ago in Berlin still oppose the pipeline based on other factors as well, including the use of fracked gas and export plans as well as possible subsidies for the pipeline.
He also expressed concerns the alternate routes could again change, potentially back to the original plan.
Opponents have emphasized that the new gas line is not needed, regardless of the path it takes and expressed concern that much of the gas may be headed for export. The main supply issue occurs for a short time in the worst of winter weather, according to numerous reports cited by opponents, and they argue more focus should be on alternative energy such as solar, to minimize the need for more gas to run power generators.
Proponents remain focused on what they say is a need for added supply to meet the energy needs of the region.
According to the opposition group, No Fracked Gas in Mass., responding to the announcement, "this is another proposed, preferred route, even less of a done deal than the original route, because they're starting over with a new resource report to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and without any of the newly-affected properties having been surveyed.
"Our opposition to pipeline expansion isn't a matter of where a pipeline goes, it's that new fossil fuel infrastructure isn't needed. Building it will commit our region to decades of increased dependency on fossil fuels, instead of moving forward toward the clean energy economy."
The groups also said there were concerns about the space needed, even if it runs alongside utility easements, and that several proposed pipelines run to the same terminus, suggesting the goal is to bring gas to the area for export.
"Tennessee Gas Pipeline also noted the proposed route change will enable the company to avoid and substantially minimize the crossing of certain (protected) properties and areas of critical environmental concern in Massachusetts," according to a company release.
"While evaluating the feasibility of possible routes, which is a critical part of the regulatory review prior to building a pipeline, as we committed to do when we started this process, we have listened to stakeholders and taken their comments and concerns seriously," said East Region Pipelines President Kimberly S. Watson.
Using the New York and New Hampshire alternative routes, the company "will be able to construct significantly more of the pipeline adjacent to and parallel with existing utility corridors in portions of New York, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, reduce the need for construction in undeveloped portions of the market path region and lessen environmental impacts."
The new routes are projected to include: approximately 188 miles of new and co-located mainline pipeline facilities, approximately 64 miles of pipeline generally co-located with an existing power utility corridor in eastern Massachusetts, and approximately 71 miles of pipeline generally co-located with an existing power utility corridor in southern New Hampshire, extending east to the proposed Dracut Market Path Tail Station.
****************************************
PIPELINE STUDY LOVED, HATED
by RICHIE DAVIS, Greenfield Recorder Staff
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
Even before its release, a state-commissioned study on the need for additional gas pipeline capacity is being hailed by pipeline proponents and attacked by groups opposing Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.’s proposed Northeast Energy Direct project.
The “low-demand analysis” by Synapse Energy Economics was commissioned by the outgoing administration of Gov. Deval Patrick after pipeline opponents in June questioned New-England-wide data backing the need for additional gas pipelines.
Massachusetts PipeLine Awareness Network (MassPLAN), No Fracked Gas in Mass and Boston-based Acadia Center say the study’s final tone has changed dramatically from this fall.
What was ultimately presented at a Dec. 18 meeting of stakeholders in the process “did not take the shape of the study that stakeholders had seen taking form during the development of the request for proposals and the previous stakeholder sessions,” said Rosemary Wessel of No Fracked Gas in Mass. “As one of the five who originally met with the governor to request this study, the differences were stark and disappointing. The final models used for the study, which were refined during the period of time when public participation was postponed, have many assumptions that are simply not rooted in the real world. Collectively, they render the study useless to anyone looking to this report for energy policy development and useless to the people of Massachusetts.”
In her comments to the state Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Wessel complained that none of the models used in the analysis comply with the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act, and that building more pipeline would pull the state further out of compliance with that law, shifting the burden to comply with it from the electric generation sector to more expensive sectors of the economy. Offshore wind is called unfeasible, even as several projects move forward, she says, and the study doesn’t consider release of methane during normal pipeline operations or take into consideration expansion of energy efficiency programs or incentives for the drastic drop in oil and liquefied natural gas prices — an indicator of the volatility of fossil-fuel prices..
“By recalibrating the study to such tight and unrealistic parameters, the study has been bent into a shape in which the only question to be answered was not ‘is more pipeline necessary,’ but ‘how much pipeline is necessary,’” she writes. “The spirit of the study requested during our meeting with Gov. Patrick was to determine if, and by what measures, peak demands could be met by means other than new pipelines. Given the unrealistic nature of so many of the assumptions in this study, its usefulness seems limited to showing how much distortion of study parameters it takes to show that more pipeline is indeed needed.”
EOEEA spokewoman Mary-Leah Assad said that the report’s final release has been postponed from today to sometime next week.
Meanwhile, the industry-backed organization promoting pipeline development also rushed to praise the incomplete report as “historic” for “clearly establishing beyond any doubt that Massachusetts needs to expand its gas supply infrastructure.”
The Coalition to Lower Energy Costs, pointing to steep increases in the energy supply portions of this winter’s electricity bills, called upon Patrick to reactivate a New England-wide initiative to eliminate the region’s price spikes that it says are caused by inadequate natural gas pipeline capacity.
Group spokesman Anthony Buxton — a lobbyist for the Industrial Energy Consumer Group, who helped draft New England State Committee on Electricity’s (NESCOE) proposals last year for additional energy infrastructure around the region, with funding to come from a new tariff on electric customers — said the study was requested by pipeline opponents but has instead proven “beyond a shadow of a doubt that, even when you put your finger on the scale, Massachusetts desperately needs more natural gas pipeline capacity.”
The new analysis, said Buxton, found that none of the 28 “technically feasible and practical” alternatives to increasing natural gas pipeline capacity could replace that capacity without imposing even more costs on Massachusetts consumers. It also analyzed demand for gas under eight scenarios and the analysis showed that there remained a significant need despite all alternatives.
Under all eight scenarios, Massachusetts is projected to suffer a capacity deficit ranging from 0.6 to 1.1 billion cubic feet of gas on a winter day when demand for the fuel is at its highest, he said. When expanded to New England, these numbers at least double and show a regionwide need for 1.2 to 2.2 billion cubic feet of new capacity even with the anti-gas assumptions used in the study.
But Wessel and others criticize the study’s use of ISO-New England’s energy forecasts as base model numbers, which they say undervalue rooftop solar and other utility-scale wind renewable energy resources. And they warn that if the region’s proposed TGP and Spectra pipelines are built, the market could be “flooded with excess capacity during the 325-350 days a year when demand is below peak,” creating a glut of gas capacity “with nowhere to go but export to foreign markets,” resulting in raising natural gas prices to world levels.
The “low-demand analysis” by Synapse Energy Economics was commissioned by the outgoing administration of Gov. Deval Patrick after pipeline opponents in June questioned New-England-wide data backing the need for additional gas pipelines.
Massachusetts PipeLine Awareness Network (MassPLAN), No Fracked Gas in Mass and Boston-based Acadia Center say the study’s final tone has changed dramatically from this fall.
What was ultimately presented at a Dec. 18 meeting of stakeholders in the process “did not take the shape of the study that stakeholders had seen taking form during the development of the request for proposals and the previous stakeholder sessions,” said Rosemary Wessel of No Fracked Gas in Mass. “As one of the five who originally met with the governor to request this study, the differences were stark and disappointing. The final models used for the study, which were refined during the period of time when public participation was postponed, have many assumptions that are simply not rooted in the real world. Collectively, they render the study useless to anyone looking to this report for energy policy development and useless to the people of Massachusetts.”
In her comments to the state Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Wessel complained that none of the models used in the analysis comply with the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act, and that building more pipeline would pull the state further out of compliance with that law, shifting the burden to comply with it from the electric generation sector to more expensive sectors of the economy. Offshore wind is called unfeasible, even as several projects move forward, she says, and the study doesn’t consider release of methane during normal pipeline operations or take into consideration expansion of energy efficiency programs or incentives for the drastic drop in oil and liquefied natural gas prices — an indicator of the volatility of fossil-fuel prices..
“By recalibrating the study to such tight and unrealistic parameters, the study has been bent into a shape in which the only question to be answered was not ‘is more pipeline necessary,’ but ‘how much pipeline is necessary,’” she writes. “The spirit of the study requested during our meeting with Gov. Patrick was to determine if, and by what measures, peak demands could be met by means other than new pipelines. Given the unrealistic nature of so many of the assumptions in this study, its usefulness seems limited to showing how much distortion of study parameters it takes to show that more pipeline is indeed needed.”
EOEEA spokewoman Mary-Leah Assad said that the report’s final release has been postponed from today to sometime next week.
Meanwhile, the industry-backed organization promoting pipeline development also rushed to praise the incomplete report as “historic” for “clearly establishing beyond any doubt that Massachusetts needs to expand its gas supply infrastructure.”
The Coalition to Lower Energy Costs, pointing to steep increases in the energy supply portions of this winter’s electricity bills, called upon Patrick to reactivate a New England-wide initiative to eliminate the region’s price spikes that it says are caused by inadequate natural gas pipeline capacity.
Group spokesman Anthony Buxton — a lobbyist for the Industrial Energy Consumer Group, who helped draft New England State Committee on Electricity’s (NESCOE) proposals last year for additional energy infrastructure around the region, with funding to come from a new tariff on electric customers — said the study was requested by pipeline opponents but has instead proven “beyond a shadow of a doubt that, even when you put your finger on the scale, Massachusetts desperately needs more natural gas pipeline capacity.”
The new analysis, said Buxton, found that none of the 28 “technically feasible and practical” alternatives to increasing natural gas pipeline capacity could replace that capacity without imposing even more costs on Massachusetts consumers. It also analyzed demand for gas under eight scenarios and the analysis showed that there remained a significant need despite all alternatives.
Under all eight scenarios, Massachusetts is projected to suffer a capacity deficit ranging from 0.6 to 1.1 billion cubic feet of gas on a winter day when demand for the fuel is at its highest, he said. When expanded to New England, these numbers at least double and show a regionwide need for 1.2 to 2.2 billion cubic feet of new capacity even with the anti-gas assumptions used in the study.
But Wessel and others criticize the study’s use of ISO-New England’s energy forecasts as base model numbers, which they say undervalue rooftop solar and other utility-scale wind renewable energy resources. And they warn that if the region’s proposed TGP and Spectra pipelines are built, the market could be “flooded with excess capacity during the 325-350 days a year when demand is below peak,” creating a glut of gas capacity “with nowhere to go but export to foreign markets,” resulting in raising natural gas prices to world levels.
***************************************
RELEASE OF MASS. ENERGY STUDY DELAYED
By Jack Newsham, GLOBE CORRESPONDENT
DECEMBER 23, 2014
DECEMBER 23, 2014
A long-awaited study commissioned by Deval Patrick’s administration to examine Massachusetts’s energy needs for the next several decades has been delayed.
The study was originally scheduled to be released Tuesday. Mary-Leah Assad, a spokeswoman for Patrick’s administration, said the state hoped to release the report next week.
The study, called the Massachusetts Low-Demand Analysis, was commissioned by the state’s Department of Energy Resources after environmental groups said an existing report didn’t give enough weight to alternative energy sources, like wind and solar power. Synapse Energy, the Cambridge-based energy consultancy conducting the study, has said their report would not include policy proposals.
Since October, three stakeholder meetings have been held, and some technical models have been released. Although the final report hasn’t been released, environmental groups and pro-pipeline advocates are already critiquing its methods and arguing over its conclusions.
Massachusetts’s electricity sector has become increasingly dependent on natural gas-driven power plants in recent years. But the region’s growing reliance on natural gas has strained supplies, and limited natural gas pipeline capacity has led to wintertime price spikes. Environmental groups have generally opposed the creation of a new pipeline, saying it would increase greenhouse gas emissions and steer the state away from green energy.
Jack Newsham can be reached at jack.newsham@globe.com.
Follow him on Twitter@TheNewsHam.
The study was originally scheduled to be released Tuesday. Mary-Leah Assad, a spokeswoman for Patrick’s administration, said the state hoped to release the report next week.
The study, called the Massachusetts Low-Demand Analysis, was commissioned by the state’s Department of Energy Resources after environmental groups said an existing report didn’t give enough weight to alternative energy sources, like wind and solar power. Synapse Energy, the Cambridge-based energy consultancy conducting the study, has said their report would not include policy proposals.
Since October, three stakeholder meetings have been held, and some technical models have been released. Although the final report hasn’t been released, environmental groups and pro-pipeline advocates are already critiquing its methods and arguing over its conclusions.
Massachusetts’s electricity sector has become increasingly dependent on natural gas-driven power plants in recent years. But the region’s growing reliance on natural gas has strained supplies, and limited natural gas pipeline capacity has led to wintertime price spikes. Environmental groups have generally opposed the creation of a new pipeline, saying it would increase greenhouse gas emissions and steer the state away from green energy.
Jack Newsham can be reached at jack.newsham@globe.com.
Follow him on Twitter@TheNewsHam.
No comments:
Post a Comment