I’ve lost track of how many years it has been since we began banging the drum for more Natural Gas (NG) or even LNG in the Northeast. The need has been obvious and, at times, severe, and even ISO New England, the grand Vizier overseeing the declining grid mix, knows that without reliable energy, everything from growth to basic survival is at risk.
A problem New England Governors don’t seem to care much about. Not really.
Every state in New England has been smitten by the idea that we can shutter carbon-based energy generation and replace it with wind and solar in that order – while electrifying everything. That idea alone is proof of mental illness, but even New Hampshire appeared to hurry the Gulf of Maine Wind project through Biden’s Federal goose despite rising electric rates being our only reward.
As if we need higher electric rates (source: Choose Energy.com), with rate and Rank 50 being the most expensive.
Connecticut 29.15 ¢/kWh (47th)
Maine 26.3 ¢/kWh (45th)
Massachusetts 30.28 ¢/kWh (48th)
New Hampshire 24.39 ¢/kWh (41st)
Rhode Island 28.71 ¢/kWh (46th)
Vermont 25.35 ¢/kWh (44th)
These will only get worse as every state in the regions except New Hampshire pushes some or all of California’s electric vehicle mandates. Thankfully, the rush to Wind is on hold, and many projects will likely be canceled as the Trump administration refocuses priorities, but the stupidity of these Wind projects persists. Local and state governments pine for wind and solar despite the cost and risks when what we need is more nuclear and hydro (technically green but scorned by enviros) and Natural Gas. NG is responsible for most US emissions reductions in the past decade (if you think reducing emissions matters), but lawfare and street activism have all but stopped new infrastructure, without which New England and New Hampshire cannot keep the lights on.
Help In Sight?
Mr. Trump has boldly gone where he tried to go before, but this time, it’s a huge priority. He wants to see the Constitution pipeline built. It would bring Marcellus shale gas from Northeastern PA to a junction in New York west of Albany. From there, it could travel through the existing Tennessee Pipeline into New England and maybe even New Hampshire.
President Donald Trump promised to revive the long-stalled Constitution Pipeline, which would transport natural gas from Pennsylvania to New York, saying the project could reduce energy prices in the northeastern United States by up to 70%.
“We are going to get this done, and once we start construction, we’re looking at anywhere from nine to 12 months, if you can believe it,” Trump said Friday during a press briefing after signing an executive order on energy in the Oval Office.
“It will bring down the energy prices in New York and in all of New England by 50, 60, 70%.”
The President’s price reduction claims sound dubious, but increased supply will lower some costs, and with some of the highest electric rates in the nation, any relief is a good thing. Reliable on-demand energy is essential, whether you’re all in on wind and solar. It attracts manufacturing and other businesses, which creates jobs and wealth while reducing the costs of doing business or heating a home. That frees up financial resources that find their way into other sectors of the economy.
Running your bloated state and local government will even cost a little bit less.
But Wait, There’s More.
The negative cost of wind and solar cannot be emphasized enough. They are incapable of operating without subsidy. Even with those bailouts, the price of the electricity they sometimes generate is a constant drain on fiscal resources in local and regional economies. That money, which could have gone to local investment or a night out and a decent tip for your server, gets consumed by the cost of Left’s impossible-to-achieve net-zero fantasy.
And it’s not just a fantasy but a lie. They exclude energy sources like hydro and nuclear Low to no CO2 emissions) while not counting emissions from plants that burn biofuels, the worst emitters in the region.
Here’s an idea: Why not stop counting emissions from NG and LNG and call it a win all around?
Or not. But at least Natural gas is honest. It is abundant, reliable, and accessible, does not need handouts and prop-ups to compete, can rise to meet demand, and is one of the cleanest fuels with a decent bang for the buck. You get more BTUs per dollar, which means we can use less to get more, and – if you are still obsessed with not-so-renewables it is one of the best backups for them where they’ve managed to take hold.
While You’re at It?
New England needs this pipeline (and a few more), and Mr. Trump wants it. All the permits were approved before 2016. The Trump White House has said that it will do whatever it takes to secure infrastructure (in this instance) so that more NG can get to New England.
While you’re at it, can Congress end the Jones Act? Even the globalists among us ought to support this.
The Jones Act prohibits transporting anything by ship from other US ports unless the ships and crew are American. This policy is bad for the environment (if that’s your thing) because diesel-powered tankers travel thousands of miles from foreign suppliers when we could get LNG from a few hundred miles away.
And the environmentalists ought to as well. Absent other energy options how much more carbon does it take to process, load, and ship LNG from Africa than from the Port of NY/NJ?
Build the Constitution Pipeline, please. We need it.
