SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
Many people are already using as little power as possible, this will do more than break budgets.
Massachusetts passes sweeping climate law
- Thread starter begreen
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil. -
Super Cedar firestarters 30% discount Use code Hearth2024 Click here
Its highly likely that the 161% is the utility standard offer supply portion of the bill. Firm natural gas prices for January are quite high for this upcoming winter, in some cases double or more than usual, since New England is overly dependent on natural gas and usually supplements with LNG from offshore, the utilities have to price in worse case gs prices.
Looks like CT's deal a few years ago with Millstone paid off. They signed a long term power contract that raised rates but looks like it paid off.
CT somehow has some of the cheapest electricity in New England right now.
Just two years after a state contract to buy power from the Millstone Nuclear Power Station in Waterford led to a surge in summer electric rates, that same contract is a major factor behind a significant drop in rates slated to take effect in September.
Adjusted rates that PURA approved last week are expected to save the average residential Eversource electric customer about $9.78 per month, and $7.72 a month for United Illuminating customers.
That cost savings is driven by the millions of dollars the electric companies saved by buying power from Millstone and the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant at rates that are now below the market average in New England.
From January through June, Eversource benefited to the tune of $210 million, while the United Illuminating benefit totaled $46.3 million, from state’s contracts with Millstone and Seabrook, the companies told PURA.
Controversial Millstone Guarantees Pay Dividends for Customers With Drop in Electric Rates
Just two years after a state contract to buy power from the Millstone Nuclear Power Station in Waterford led to a surge in summer electric rates, that same contract is a major factor behind a significant drop in rates slated to take effect in September. Adjusted rates that PURA approved last...
ctexaminer.com
![[Hearth.com] Massachusetts passes sweeping climate law](https://www.hearth.com/talk/data/attachments/299/299717-66dd4319978c564a1025f1747fffb5b0.jpg?hash=QbhqEcbS-d "[Hearth.com] Massachusetts passes sweeping climate law")
Ashful
Minister of Fire
Our current regulated rates are:
31.68¢ /kwh
$61.57/month fixed fees
That same 893kwh/month in the above post would be $344.47 plus another $17.22 in tax (GST).
There are currently rebates at $1/watt for solar, plus interest free loans available to homeowners through the Federal Government.
Solar PV makes sense here.
31.68¢ /kwh
$61.57/month fixed fees
That same 893kwh/month in the above post would be $344.47 plus another $17.22 in tax (GST).
There are currently rebates at $1/watt for solar, plus interest free loans available to homeowners through the Federal Government.
Solar PV makes sense here.
Wow. Didn't realize electricity costs are that high in Canada. You guys don't have access to Hydro Quebec's cheap power @ 6 cents a kwh?
6.319¢/kWh for energy consumed up to 40 kWh per day times the number of days in the consumption period (1st tier)
9.749¢/kWh for the remaining energy consumed (2nd tier)
We do not bill based on your daily consumption. We take into account your total consumption during the consumption period, which is more beneficial for you.
For example, if your consumption period covers 62 days, 2,480 kWh (40 kWh per day × 62 days = 2,480 kWh) will be billed at the first-tier price. Any remaining energy consumption will be billed using the second-tier price
Our rates for residential customers are indeed the lowest in North America. For over 50 years, electricity prices in Québec have increased more or less at the same rate as inflation.
Last edited:
Hydro Quebec is a very special case, not many places in the world these days that could effectively seize millions of acres of aboriginal land and dedicate it to hydroelectric production to the detriment of the tribes that still live there. If you look at the amount of area impacted by the big HQ project in Northern Quebec it occupies, it is roughly equivalent to starting at the NY Mass Border all the way to the far eastern tip of Maine. That used to be commonplace but obviously looked at differently these days. HQ is the 2000 pound gorilla of the Province of Quebec politics for decades. The deal was as long as the folks who live in areas of Quebec with power lines get cheap power, they could do what they wanted. If a politician wanted to get elected, they had better keep on the good side of HQ. HQ just got bigger and bigger and how they did it was build power projects. The problem was, the demand in the province was not there and in order to keep building power plants they needed bigger markets that were willing to pay more. Nova Scotia and NB bet on coal plants and some hydro and a nuke but HQ is all in on hydro. The ratepayers in Quebec will scream loudly if their cheap hydro goes away so they have encouraged HQ to expand outside their borders.
Up until recently the New England states have not treated HQ as "green" due to legacy of how the dams were built, therefore not a lot of it made its way south and it competed with fossil generation. VT had a similar treatment of HQ power until several years ago when the VT Yankee power plant shut down. Over the years one or two of the large utilities in VT got bought out by Canadian firms and they needed to sell non fossil power to keep the locals happy in VT. So at the last hours of a legislative session prior to the Christmas Holiday with little debate VT changed HQ power from no better than any other carbon emitting generation to "green". The same process has occurred in Mass. Mass used to get a lot of power from VT Yankee and also wanted the Pilgrom Nuke gone plus Salem wanted Brayton point coal plant gone so Mass needed a new source of green power preferably not in their backyard. HQ was waiting in the background and offered "clean green" HQ hydro but Mass had the same ban on HQ power being treated as green. A few years after VT made the switch, Mass do so to and bet their renewable plan on getting rid of fossil generation for a large part on HQ power. The problem was HQ was greedy and wanted to get transmission lines built that they could control through Me, NH or VT. VT actually approved and permitted a mostly underwater line down Lake Champlain and then into NH to tie into mostly existing grid infrastructure. They made sure the locals were compensated fairly for the line going through the state, so it was a win/win. It was also expensive and controlled by the ISO NE grid, not HQ, so HQ went shopping for cheaper alternatives. They thought they found one in NH for a lot less to be built by Eversource but after 5 years of trying Eversource couldn't get a state permit after a lot of grass roots opposition and spent around $100 million on the failed effort. HQ then went shopping to CMP in Maine and to date despite three years of trying and partial at risk construction the state of Maine voters have voted for two citizen referendums to stop it (both thrown out by courts) and another lawsuit where the state legislature violated state law signing away rights they could not sign away to public land for the project unless there was a 2/3rd majority vote (that did not occur). The new line was supposed to be online by the spring of 23 and the way it's looking the court cases will still be on going and there is at least another season of construction.
The joke is HQ will not actually guarantee the power is actual hydro. After a big ice storm in 1998 there was a problem that Quebec was too dependent on hydro power from Northern Quebec (long transmission lines got ice up and broke) so they needed new generation quick. They signed a deal with a private firm to build a 600 MW gas plant in Three Rivers Quebec. They signed a "take or pay" contract with the developer which guarantees the developer payments whether the plant runs or not. Since they prefer to use hydro, that new plant has sat for a long time and has been an embarrassment for HQ to pay for a power plant not to run. It turns out if they sell power to New England, it will probably justify running the plant. HQ will then on paper sell the natural gas generated power to Quebec customers and then sell the same amount of power to New England as "green" at a high price since they do not get premium for green power in Quebec. For those who are aware of three card monte, HQ is trying to pull one off on a long scale worth billions, billions that should be spent on real renewable power projects and just as important energy conservation.
Up until recently the New England states have not treated HQ as "green" due to legacy of how the dams were built, therefore not a lot of it made its way south and it competed with fossil generation. VT had a similar treatment of HQ power until several years ago when the VT Yankee power plant shut down. Over the years one or two of the large utilities in VT got bought out by Canadian firms and they needed to sell non fossil power to keep the locals happy in VT. So at the last hours of a legislative session prior to the Christmas Holiday with little debate VT changed HQ power from no better than any other carbon emitting generation to "green". The same process has occurred in Mass. Mass used to get a lot of power from VT Yankee and also wanted the Pilgrom Nuke gone plus Salem wanted Brayton point coal plant gone so Mass needed a new source of green power preferably not in their backyard. HQ was waiting in the background and offered "clean green" HQ hydro but Mass had the same ban on HQ power being treated as green. A few years after VT made the switch, Mass do so to and bet their renewable plan on getting rid of fossil generation for a large part on HQ power. The problem was HQ was greedy and wanted to get transmission lines built that they could control through Me, NH or VT. VT actually approved and permitted a mostly underwater line down Lake Champlain and then into NH to tie into mostly existing grid infrastructure. They made sure the locals were compensated fairly for the line going through the state, so it was a win/win. It was also expensive and controlled by the ISO NE grid, not HQ, so HQ went shopping for cheaper alternatives. They thought they found one in NH for a lot less to be built by Eversource but after 5 years of trying Eversource couldn't get a state permit after a lot of grass roots opposition and spent around $100 million on the failed effort. HQ then went shopping to CMP in Maine and to date despite three years of trying and partial at risk construction the state of Maine voters have voted for two citizen referendums to stop it (both thrown out by courts) and another lawsuit where the state legislature violated state law signing away rights they could not sign away to public land for the project unless there was a 2/3rd majority vote (that did not occur). The new line was supposed to be online by the spring of 23 and the way it's looking the court cases will still be on going and there is at least another season of construction.
The joke is HQ will not actually guarantee the power is actual hydro. After a big ice storm in 1998 there was a problem that Quebec was too dependent on hydro power from Northern Quebec (long transmission lines got ice up and broke) so they needed new generation quick. They signed a deal with a private firm to build a 600 MW gas plant in Three Rivers Quebec. They signed a "take or pay" contract with the developer which guarantees the developer payments whether the plant runs or not. Since they prefer to use hydro, that new plant has sat for a long time and has been an embarrassment for HQ to pay for a power plant not to run. It turns out if they sell power to New England, it will probably justify running the plant. HQ will then on paper sell the natural gas generated power to Quebec customers and then sell the same amount of power to New England as "green" at a high price since they do not get premium for green power in Quebec. For those who are aware of three card monte, HQ is trying to pull one off on a long scale worth billions, billions that should be spent on real renewable power projects and just as important energy conservation.
Fascinating @peakbagger as usual. But this just reinforces my 30,000' view that the utilities and the politicians in New England are in bed together and totally corrupt, and THIS is why New England pays 2X as much for power as the rest of the lower 48 (outside of NYC).
Both the politician and the utilities will explain that the lack of transmission/pipelines/generation is due to NIMBYs. I think that it is easy to limit or kill such projects and make it look like that. And ofc Eversource was playing games with reserving the gas pipelines during prior polar vortex events, and then canceling the res at the last minute (completely legal) limiting gas flow through the pipelines to well below their capacity!
Enron had nothing on them.
And the legacy of this corruption and profiteering is a large and populous portion of the country that is and will be deeply resistant to electrification of home heating or EVs. And rightly so, given that its hard to argue with a wallet.
Yankees... if you want to be green, you need to start with your politicos. Passing sweeping climate bills with your current rate structure just funnels all that govt incentive money back to the utilities and their shills.
Both the politician and the utilities will explain that the lack of transmission/pipelines/generation is due to NIMBYs. I think that it is easy to limit or kill such projects and make it look like that. And ofc Eversource was playing games with reserving the gas pipelines during prior polar vortex events, and then canceling the res at the last minute (completely legal) limiting gas flow through the pipelines to well below their capacity!
Enron had nothing on them.
And the legacy of this corruption and profiteering is a large and populous portion of the country that is and will be deeply resistant to electrification of home heating or EVs. And rightly so, given that its hard to argue with a wallet.
Yankees... if you want to be green, you need to start with your politicos. Passing sweeping climate bills with your current rate structure just funnels all that govt incentive money back to the utilities and their shills.
No, as the crow flies I am 2100 miles from Montreal. Cross country HVDC powerlines have been proposed in the past, and Quebec generally shuts down the idea quickly due to their inherent desire to always disproportionally benefit from the profit of such a project. Simply put, Quebec usually refuses to play ball with the rest of Canada.
Until recently our electricity prices were much more normal, but a rapid transition from coal to more expensive natural gas, and a lack of new generation capacity have caused these high rates. We do have many renewable projects on the books, including wind farms, solar PV, small geothermal, and even pumped hydro storage, but this will still take years to establish. We have the fastest growing solar industry in Canada, our installed solar PV capacity has almost tripled in the last year.
New England just jumped on the EAP Clean Power Plan early via the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI aka "reggy"). The last administration stopped that plan. Had CPP been in place, New England would not need to do much versus other parts of the country, some with very cheap power, would have needed to spend billions and see massive increases in rates as they are coal and fossil driven. PA just happens to be sitting on the Marcellus so they have cheap natural gas readily available and no reason not to burn it. Put in carbon regs and then PJM is in the same place as New England but in serious need of catch up.
Its not that New England has expensive power, its just partially taxing carbon via reggy while other parts of the country are not. The problem is with no nationwide carbon disincentive, the areas that do price in carbon are getting whacked by areas who do not. Its pay me now or pay me later. It's easy to talk green but when it comes to paying up for it, for many it is easier to vote in politicians that will lie to voters that there is no global warming. Take a look at the areas where Trump did the best and they are areas with high fossil generation percentages. That is not a coincidence.
Its not that New England has expensive power, its just partially taxing carbon via reggy while other parts of the country are not. The problem is with no nationwide carbon disincentive, the areas that do price in carbon are getting whacked by areas who do not. Its pay me now or pay me later. It's easy to talk green but when it comes to paying up for it, for many it is easier to vote in politicians that will lie to voters that there is no global warming. Take a look at the areas where Trump did the best and they are areas with high fossil generation percentages. That is not a coincidence.
I think we can both be onto something here... We agree that midwesterners are burning a lot of coal. But is PA an outlier bc of shale gas? Or is New England an outlier?
We can look at the data by subregion: https://www.epa.gov/egrid/power-profiler#/
Basically, the New England sub-region makes electricity at 0.528 lbCO2/kWh, with 54% being fossil generated.
The PA/mid-atlantic sub-region makes electricity at 0.652 lbCO2/kWh, with 59% being fossil generated.
Continuing down the coast the Virginia/Carolina region makes electricity at 0.623 lbCO2/kWh, with 52% being fossil generated.
The US figure is 0.818 lbCO2/kWh, with 61% being fossil generated.
These three Atlantic regions are doing better emission-wise than the US as a whole, and have similar fractions of fossil energy on their grids. New England has more wind and solar than the other two, and fewer nukes.
And yet one of these regions has power 2X as expensive as the others. And expensive nat gas too, IIRC. And uses oil for residential space heating far more than any other region in the US (no doubt as a result of the expensive kWh and gas).
If the difference is due to carbon taxation, it has yet to manifest as a dramatically greener grid.
The green energy policy decisions in New England remind of those in Germany... expensive, ill-advised and resulting in poorer energy security and higher prices. Including shutting down existing nuke plants (?) and expensive solar installs (which are justified by expensive grid kWh).
We agree (I assume) that all these regions will have to build out massive amounts of new wind and solar to green their grids in the future. But with RE prices falling, it makes $$$ sense to not be an early adopter in this space (as Germany was).
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
Part of the space heating with oil in NE is because it's pretty cold here. Electric radiant heat is super expensive compared even to oil fired radiant heat. Then there is the "cultural" attitude towards heat pumps.
I get that.... similar or colder northern areas in the US heat with nat gas or propane. And while Northern New England is certainly cold, most of the population south of Boston has winter temps within a 2-4°F of my location on any given day.
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
Mass is #2 in HHO consumption, CT is #4 and ME is #5. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/heating-oil/use-of-heating-oil.php
So much for my theory: NY is #1 and PA is #3. I suppose given their population, the incidence in NY and PA is lower.
So much for my theory: NY is #1 and PA is #3. I suppose given their population, the incidence in NY and PA is lower.
Ashful
Minister of Fire
I always thought an area’s propensity toward oil was more the result of when homes were built, than anything else. Houses built in the northeast in the 1940’s and 1950’s, in areas not served by nat.gas, generally got oil fed hydronic. If said house had air conditioning added in the 1970’s or 1980’s, it likely kept its oil hydronic, as heat pumps pretty much sucked back then. After that, momentum tends to keep one on the systems they have.
The number of new oil installs around here is near zero, nearly all new homes are heat pumps, of various sorts. Likewise, older houses adding AC cooling for the first time today are more likely to do a full conversion to heat pump, versus the majority who may have done it 30-40 years ago, and kept their oil-fired boiler or furnace.
The number of new oil installs around here is near zero, nearly all new homes are heat pumps, of various sorts. Likewise, older houses adding AC cooling for the first time today are more likely to do a full conversion to heat pump, versus the majority who may have done it 30-40 years ago, and kept their oil-fired boiler or furnace.
In Massachusetts, unless you live in an area that has piped natural gas, heating oil is by far the cheapest option. Propane is almost twice the cost per BTU and electric is probably 3x. Heat pumps are still viewed by most people as a new thing that doesn't really work in our climate, and with the high electric rates even running a heat pump doesn't save you any money unless your COP is more than 3.
We happen to live on a larger road that had gas put in in the 90s, but most of my town and the surrounding areas do heat with oil.
We happen to live on a larger road that had gas put in in the 90s, but most of my town and the surrounding areas do heat with oil.
EbS-P
Minister of Fire
Figure the new tax credits will push many towards Heatpumps.
Is the average annual number of hours spent below 17 degrees F a published statistic? Really I think this is where your COP starts to take a huge hit with the new cold weather heatpump tech. My warm weather 2008 technology heatpump has a COP of 2.55 at 17 F.
I don't know if it's published but I can tell you it's not an insignificant number of hours. In January there are a few weeks when you'd be lucky to break a daily high of 20F.
Cop of 2.55 is a no go. Needs to be higher.
Cop of 2.55 is a no go. Needs to be higher.
EbS-P
Minister of Fire
Are there units with a COP17 higher than 2.5? I really think without the data we are just guessing that a COP17 less than 3 doesn’t make cents.
At least in New England there was no historical source of local natural gas. Long range transmission of natural gas was not practical due to lack of a high pressure natural gas transmission system. Many of New England urban areas relied on coal gas for lighting and every large population center would have coal gas works where gas was produced. The coal gas was then distributed locally. It produced a lot of toxic waste and the legacy of a coal gas plant is usually a toxic waste site on a waterfront site or near an inland railhead. Nevertheless, there was demand for coal gas in homes as it burned cleaner than kerosene for lighting and possibly cooking and there were low pressure gas networks installed in the more prosperous towns/cities. Coal gas was typically not used for heating, it was expensive compared to coal. Electricity mostly replaced the demand for lighting and slowly some natural gas made it to the area to replace coal gas and some coal fueled homes switched to natural gas as long as the infrastructure was in the street. The old pipelines were leaky, the utility would drive up and down the streets looking for leaks and it was easy to locate a gas line due to the row of patches in the street. A lot of those systems were 100 years old and it was not usual to see dead trees and landscaping where a hard to find gas leak was killing the plants. In some systems, the quantity of gas that was sold to customers would be 40% less than the gas going in the system.
Glacial action in Northern New England over the underlying granite effectively scraped the tops of mountains and deposited them in low spots except at the coast which is marine clay deposited during times of higher sea level The material filling the low spots is glacial till mostly boulders and rocks with voids filled by finely ground clay. Building local underground distribution systems was very expensive except in the coastal areas with marine clay or gravel. Head inland where glacial till and shallow solid ledge is frequent along with lower housing densities and it never made sense to install natural gas piping for residential. Therefore, the heating fuels of choice was coal imported in from other areas of the country or wood. Compared to wood, coal is a higher density fuel preprocessed into uniform size and capable of being automatically fed into a boiler on larger systems. Far easier than dealing with wood, so if someone was prosperous in a dense city they had coal heating with the country folks burning locally sourced wood (vast quantities). Heating oil really came in as replacement for coal, many older homes had coal boilers converted to heating oil. When the post WW2 housing boom came in, heating oil systems took up far less room than coal and far cheaper so they made sense for new housing tracts. Delivering oil is far cleaner and less labor intensive plus no need to dispose of coal ash. They were also perceived as safer. My mom would not even consider gas in our house as houses that burn gas did explode on occasion partially due to the local gas network being ancient. Even if a house did not have gas currently, some older homes had at one time had gas lines into the buildings and on occasion gas leaks in the street would find its way into those homes with no active gas and explode. The Maine Oll dealers were sure to stoke the hysteria and would on occasion make sure pictures of homes that exploded were well promoted in the news.
Natural Gas really only expanded into the northern New England when oil prices went up after the oil embargo and gas transmission networks were beefed up. The problem is natural gas pricing was regulated and drilling or actively collecting natural gas was not real profitable. The clean air act also increased demand for natural gas to the point where the US predicted a major shortage. The US at one point banned all new natural gas power generation and banned the use of outdoor gas lighting. That ban was in place about a decade until natural gas was deregulated and rapidly rising oil prices raised the price of gas so that it was worth actively drilling for it and collecting it instead of flaring. So the supply went up but it still had to get to end of the pipeline in New England. There were hopes that the Sable Island gas field in Nova Scotia would start pumping gas in from the east and the pipeline capacity was increased to support it but the field fizzled.
A new gas transmission line went by my area 25 years ago in Northern NH, they were in rush to get it permitted and build it. The original engineering company went cheap on test borings and underestimated the amount of ledge requiring blasting and hard rock tunneling under rivers. Reportedly the amount of explosives used was 4 times what had been estimated. That line supplied gas from the Canadian west and no doubt some Marcellus taking the long way around. It does not have any compressor stations in the US as the developer did not want to wait to permit them. If they were added, the capacity would go up 30%. The owner has gone out for proposals a couple of times for a willing buyer, but no party will sign a long term firm gas contract to pay for the upgrade even when the news is crying gas shortage in New England. The con is a lot of the hype about gas shortage in New England is really the hype that there is shortage of Marcellus gas directly into the region bypassing Canada as it is an incredibly potential profitable market for Marcellus producers. The cost of one LNG plant for sending Gas overseas would cost more than building new pipelines to New England with a far more predictable market ( I think it costs $3 per therm to turn it into liquidand then revaporize it)
Ultimately the "gas bubble" where numerous large gas fired combined cycle power plants got built in New England bumped up gas capacity into the region somewhat before various national and regional environmental organizations figured out that the only way to throttle new natural gas generation is to stop new pipelines and they have been very successful in doing so.
Glacial action in Northern New England over the underlying granite effectively scraped the tops of mountains and deposited them in low spots except at the coast which is marine clay deposited during times of higher sea level The material filling the low spots is glacial till mostly boulders and rocks with voids filled by finely ground clay. Building local underground distribution systems was very expensive except in the coastal areas with marine clay or gravel. Head inland where glacial till and shallow solid ledge is frequent along with lower housing densities and it never made sense to install natural gas piping for residential. Therefore, the heating fuels of choice was coal imported in from other areas of the country or wood. Compared to wood, coal is a higher density fuel preprocessed into uniform size and capable of being automatically fed into a boiler on larger systems. Far easier than dealing with wood, so if someone was prosperous in a dense city they had coal heating with the country folks burning locally sourced wood (vast quantities). Heating oil really came in as replacement for coal, many older homes had coal boilers converted to heating oil. When the post WW2 housing boom came in, heating oil systems took up far less room than coal and far cheaper so they made sense for new housing tracts. Delivering oil is far cleaner and less labor intensive plus no need to dispose of coal ash. They were also perceived as safer. My mom would not even consider gas in our house as houses that burn gas did explode on occasion partially due to the local gas network being ancient. Even if a house did not have gas currently, some older homes had at one time had gas lines into the buildings and on occasion gas leaks in the street would find its way into those homes with no active gas and explode. The Maine Oll dealers were sure to stoke the hysteria and would on occasion make sure pictures of homes that exploded were well promoted in the news.
Natural Gas really only expanded into the northern New England when oil prices went up after the oil embargo and gas transmission networks were beefed up. The problem is natural gas pricing was regulated and drilling or actively collecting natural gas was not real profitable. The clean air act also increased demand for natural gas to the point where the US predicted a major shortage. The US at one point banned all new natural gas power generation and banned the use of outdoor gas lighting. That ban was in place about a decade until natural gas was deregulated and rapidly rising oil prices raised the price of gas so that it was worth actively drilling for it and collecting it instead of flaring. So the supply went up but it still had to get to end of the pipeline in New England. There were hopes that the Sable Island gas field in Nova Scotia would start pumping gas in from the east and the pipeline capacity was increased to support it but the field fizzled.
A new gas transmission line went by my area 25 years ago in Northern NH, they were in rush to get it permitted and build it. The original engineering company went cheap on test borings and underestimated the amount of ledge requiring blasting and hard rock tunneling under rivers. Reportedly the amount of explosives used was 4 times what had been estimated. That line supplied gas from the Canadian west and no doubt some Marcellus taking the long way around. It does not have any compressor stations in the US as the developer did not want to wait to permit them. If they were added, the capacity would go up 30%. The owner has gone out for proposals a couple of times for a willing buyer, but no party will sign a long term firm gas contract to pay for the upgrade even when the news is crying gas shortage in New England. The con is a lot of the hype about gas shortage in New England is really the hype that there is shortage of Marcellus gas directly into the region bypassing Canada as it is an incredibly potential profitable market for Marcellus producers. The cost of one LNG plant for sending Gas overseas would cost more than building new pipelines to New England with a far more predictable market ( I think it costs $3 per therm to turn it into liquidand then revaporize it)
Ultimately the "gas bubble" where numerous large gas fired combined cycle power plants got built in New England bumped up gas capacity into the region somewhat before various national and regional environmental organizations figured out that the only way to throttle new natural gas generation is to stop new pipelines and they have been very successful in doing so.
re:cop at 17 F above 2.5. Yes. Quite a few. Some also above 3.
Of course depending on output.
Of course depending on output.
Similar threads
