|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Massachusetts families are paying some of the highest energy bills in the country, not because America lacks affordable energy, but because New England lacks the infrastructure needed to deliver it when demand is highest.
During this past winter’s cold snap, natural gas prices in constrained parts of the Northeast surged to nearly 17 times the price in nearby Pennsylvania. The reason was not “volatility.” It was a pipeline system operating at capacity.
As energy costs continue to rise across Massachusetts, some have begun blaming natural gas “volatility” for high utility bills. It is an appealingly simple explanation, but it misses the real issue.
Price volatility simply means prices can move up or down over short periods of time. It does not explain why energy costs in Massachusetts remain consistently higher than in most of the country. The underlying problem is that New England’s energy infrastructure has not kept pace with demand, leaving the region vulnerable during periods of extreme cold.
Across much of the United States, abundant domestic natural gas keeps energy relatively affordable and reliable. New England, however, cannot fully access those supplies because of longstanding pipeline constraints. Even though the Marcellus Shale in neighboring Pennsylvania is one of the largest natural gas production regions in the world, insufficient delivery infrastructure limits how much fuel can reach our region when demand spikes.
When winter heating demand rises sharply, those constraints become magnified. Pipelines fill up, supply tightens, and prices climb rapidly.
That is exactly what happened during Winter Storm Fern earlier this year. Spot natural gas prices in constrained areas of the Northeast approached $179 per MMBtu, while prices near the Marcellus production region remained a fraction of that level. The difference was not caused by global instability or market dysfunction. It was caused by physical bottlenecks that prevented additional supply from reaching New England.
Those same constraints also drive up electricity prices.
Natural gas remains the backbone of electric generation in New England and often sets the wholesale price of electricity. When gas supplies tighten, power prices increase quickly. During periods when pipelines are fully utilized, the electric grid is forced to rely more heavily on less efficient fuels such as fuel oil, biomass, and refuse-to-energy generation.
That has consequences not only for affordability, but also for emissions.
According to ISO New England, natural gas has played a major role in reducing electric-sector emissions across the region over the past several decades by displacing higher-emitting fuels. But during severe winter conditions, those environmental gains can be reversed when the system must turn back to oil because natural gas infrastructure is constrained.
Some argue these challenges are evidence that the region should move away from natural gas altogether. But energy systems cannot be transformed overnight, and any transition must remain grounded in affordability, reliability, and practicality.
Reliable, dispatchable energy resources continue to play an essential role in supporting homes, businesses, hospitals, manufacturers, and the electric grid itself. Moving away from those resources before scalable alternatives are fully capable of meeting demand risks increasing costs further while undermining reliability.
Massachusetts families and employers are already feeling the strain of high energy prices. Addressing that challenge requires an honest assessment of what is driving those costs. The central issue is not “volatility.” It is the growing mismatch between the energy New England needs and the infrastructure available to deliver it.
If we want energy that is affordable, reliable, and environmentally responsible, the solution cannot be to ignore those constraints. It must include practical investments in the infrastructure needed to ensure New England has access to dependable energy when residents and businesses need it most.
José Costa is the president and CEO of Northeast Gas Association.
When are the people going to wake up ?not only are the people moving out of the area so was the affordable power that the state regulated out of doing business here.
Another great reason to remove Governor Healey from office, her support of off shore wind, and her appointed Department of Public Utilities that has let utility companies continue to raise their rates has failed all state residents and businesses. You get the proof every month when the utility bill comes.
Agree except that it is the States added costs to the Utilities that has caused them to have to raise rates. If not they would go out of business or not be able to keep up with any maintenance of the grid and plants. Look at your utility bill and see how much is there for other that generating, transmitting and delivering electric. The regulators say do this, do that and if you don’t (wink, wink) see what happens to any requests to increase rates. All these have regs and programs have a cost.
Problem is that it has went so far that it will be a long and difficult road to get rates back to what they should be.
Curious that “the voice of the gas industry” wants more pipeline access to the Northeast. The state has continuously rejected expensive and environmentally disastorous oil and gas projects and has opted towards putting its money towards new energy solutions, which, unfortunately for José here, will reduce reliance on natural gas. Building more gas infrastructure will only give more leverage for reducing future clean energy build out. This piece is purely industrial propaganda.
You are simply incorrect. Diversity in energy is what is needed and to have that you must allow the infrastructure to get it here. One example is the State pushing for several years to shut down the LNG terminal in Everett. Newest scheme is to build a soccer stadium on the power plant property alongside it, then they can say it must be shut down because of stadium. Many people who depend on gas for heat would suffer greatly.
Many of our power plants were shut down due to over regulation without a plan to replace that power in a timely manner. Green has a place but it isn’t a cure all and it is expensive. Maybe someday but not today. Nuclear is an answer, available today.
When you see an opinion piece like this, look at who’s speaking. In this case, someone who is deeply involved in the gas industry wants is advocating for more gas. Gee, what a surprise.
Natural gas is a diffuse pollution source and significantly contributes to climate change. We would be far better off doubling down on heat pumps for keeping us warm in the winter and a cheaper way to keep us cool in the summer.
We should also build up electrical infrastructure around the cost sources with the lowest levelized cost of energy I.e wind, solar and batteries. With current lfp batteries, it’s a clean, safe way to store power when sewer or wind is producing too much and shift it to when we need it.
As an NB Light donor, it’s disappointing seeing my donations being used to spread fossil fuel propaganda.
The sun shines and the wind blows right here in New England. We don’t need to bring gas from Texas or Pennsylvania to power our electric grid. We need more solar and wind generation. Solar and wind are not only local and environmentally friendlier, they are cheaper to build and operate than fossil fuel plants.
Cheaper, I don’t think so. In today’s mail I got an offer to opt for the Renewable Energy Option. Benefits: Reduce air pollution, Reduce toxic waste, and Promote a healthier future. Under frequently asked questions about Switching to Clean Energy:
Q. what happens to my electicity bills?
A. In short, supporting new renewable energy cost more than polluting energy. Please see offer details for more info……
Even their promotions do not claim that the cost will be cheaper. Which I know is true and has been all along. Someday, maybe but not in the near future.
Everyone is welcome to their opinion, even if they don’t donate to New Bedford Light. I will disagree with a lot of people here and say that our state cannot run on clean energy alone. The energy needs of our state are too great and it will always take a combination of Fossil Fuels, Hydro, Nuclear, Refuse, Solar, and Wind to provide energy at affordable costs for all our cities and towns. To have energy plan that solely relies on Green Energy alone (putting all our eggs in one basket) is shortsighted.
As far as the responsibility of high utility costs, it’s shared by our State Government and the Utility Providers. The Governor and State Legislators throw these adds on to our utility bills and there nothing more than taxes, and hurt all residents. As far as the utility companies 100% there is no sympathy for them when their raking in profits that are close to a billion dollars a year and still requesting price hikes (for me it’s Eversource and the information is on the web), once again these hikes are approved by the Governor’s DPU.
Both parties are failing and hurting all the residents of our state.
The State of Massachusetts needs new Leadership, a new Direction, and a new Vision for our future.