THE MASSACHUSETTS COMPETITIVE PARTNERSHIP, a group representing the top executives of the state’s largest employers, released a letter on Tuesday urging the state’s top three political leaders to push for an expansion of the region’s natural gas pipeline infrastructure.
The letter was dated March 12, but not released publicly until Tuesday because officials with the partnership first wanted to reach out personally to Gov. Charlie Baker, House Speaker Robert DeLeo, and Senate President Harriette Chandler. Officials did not disclose how those personal conversations went.
The letter from the Massachusetts Competitive Partnership broke little new ground on the divisive pipeline issue. It said more natural gas capacity was needed to stabilize energy prices in the region, particularly during peak demand periods when demand for natural gas outstrips available supply.
Dan O’Connell, the president and CEO of the partnership, and Bryan Jamele, the chief operating officer, said in the letter that the organization supports the shift to hydro-electricity and renewable energy. “The reality is that the region is still years away from the benefit of relying solely on renewables for the majority of our electricity generation needs,” the letter said.
The two officials went on to call for a “balanced energy approach” that increases access to natural gas while bolstering the state’s renewable energy portfolio. The letter did not address how additional pipeline capacity would be financed, a major roadblock.
The Massachusetts Competitive Partnership has 17 members who are all influential CEOs. The chairman is Robert Reynolds of Putnam Investments, who with O’Connell reached out to the political leaders. Other members of the group’s board include Abigail Johnson of Fidelity Investments, Robert Kraft of the Kraft Group, Michael Dell of Dell Technologies, James Judge of Eversource Energy, David Torchiana of Partners HealthCare, and John Fish of Suffolk Construction.
Officials said the partnership is also now a member of the Coalition for Sustainable Energy, an organization made of Massachusetts business groups that is pushing for more natural gas capacity. The group announced its formation in February.
For many years renewable energy advocates have been telling us, and some still tell us, that mass energy storage for firming the volatile and unpredictable nature of wind and solar power is unnecessary. With about 5% wind and solar mandated penetration, the disruption of the wholesale market for electricity, administered by ISO-NE, is forcing the early retirement of baseload power from coal and nuclear. Without seasonal energy storage, which does not exist, the market is replacing baseload with the more flexible natural gas. Continuing down this path will destroy the competitive wholesale market in favor of an electric grid of wind and solar mandates supported by crony multi-year contracts for natural gas, the only flexible source of power for firming wind and solar.
It is amazing that the state’s top executives do not understand that the call for more natural gas capacity is going to lead to skyrocketing electric rates, a less reliable grid, and an economic downturn. Just look at Germany and Australia.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/major-blow-top-german-economist-shows-energiewende-can-never-work/amp/
https://stopthesethings.com/2017/08/20/appetite-for-destruction-wind-power-obsessed-nsw-energy-minister-deluded-dangerous/
The forced use of taxpayer and ratepayer money to finance the path to a clean energy future is economically suicidal!
“It is amazing that the state’s top executives do not understand that the call for more natural gas capacity is going to lead to skyrocketing electric rates, a less reliable grid, and an economic downturn. Just look at Germany and Australia.”
Do not Understand? Hardly. They know, but won’t admit it due to fear and a desire to be liked. They fear their companies being protested, their brands damaged, and they, themselves, being blacklisted if they rip off the mask and show how deceitful the so-called ‘green power’ cartel is. By playing along, they’re perceived as being part of the herd and so are liked. This gives them power. Calling for ‘highly polluting’ coal or ‘dangerous’ nuclear would do the opposite, so they thread the needle by calling for more Nat Gas.
Further there is no real downside to them for playing along When prices start to shoot up, they can use it as an excuse for a later missed revenue forecast to their investors. A small increase would be a rounding error to their expenses and lifestyle, so it doesn’t impact them, personally. In the likely case of massive, sustained, price spikes they can move their companies to another part of the country safe in the knowledge that the company will pay their moving expenses. This, of course, won’t apply to the poor schmuck worker bees who will lose their jobs.
Small modular nuclear is the way we should be going, but that just isn’t going to happen in the short term since for the decision makers the immediate term social downsides outweigh the long term risks that they’ve hedged against.
If the imperative to transition to clean energy were included in the conversation, the “need” for more fossil fuel infrastructure would never be mentioned. If we care about our children and grandchildren, then the choice is clear: improve our energy use efficiency and pick up the pace with wind and solar. Check out the Attorney General’s report at: http://www.mass.gov/ago/news-and-updates/press-releases/2015/2015-11-18-electric-reliability-study.html
Getting beyond 10% from wind and solar without backup firming from seasonal energy storage which does not exist, is impossible.