Pipeline study loved, hated, - By RICHIE DAVIS (Pub in print: Dec. 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. recorder/…/149313…/pipeline-study-loved-hated
Posted on: Wed, 24 Dec 2014 12:42:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015