$No fracked gas in mass$

$no fracked gas in mass$

No fracked gas in mass install#
No fracked gas in mass full#

They will also provide a sound, scientific basis for holding gas companies accountable via targets established both in annual GSEP plans and in the emissions reduction program of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Accurate measurements will reveal whether gas company business proposals are in fact aligned with our 2050 goals. Our methane measurements are woefully outdated, accounting for only a fraction of actual leaked gas, and we fail to use a lifecycle approach for measuring greenhouse gases. Legislators should take three crucial steps this session.ДЇirst, accurately measure the CommonwealthвЂ™s greenhouse gas emissions. The Senate just passed its climate omnibus amendment S.2819, thankfully including provisions mandating a GSEP stakeholder working group and an adjudicatory process for the DPUвЂ™s review of the gas companiesвЂ™ вЂњNet Zero Enablement Plans.вЂќ The spotlight now shifts to the House where legislators have a critical opportunity to guide our gas system transition, aligning it with our climate mandates and reigning in a runaway GSEP program.

$no fracked gas in mass$

No fracked gas in mass install#

This staggering cost translates into roughly $23,500 per gas customer-enough to install a cold climate heat pump or solar panels and weatherize the building shell of the customerвЂ™s residence or business. Assuming DPUвЂ™s approved rate of return on pipeline assets (currently averaging 9.65 percent) and the 60-year asset life for plastic pipes claimed by the gas companies, then the InvestigationвЂ™s annual forecasts indicate total GSEP costs of $40 billion (in constant 2019 dollars). However, a report appendix does show annual GSEP investment forecasts through the programвЂ™s termination in 2039. What do those costs look like?Дespite stakeholder requests, the investigation has not provided a total cost for GSEP even though these costs are clearly embedded in the consultantsвЂ™ modeling. GSEPвЂ™s opportunity costs must not be buried by the Future of Gas Investigation and ignored by DPU. Robust scientific evidence is clear that these gases are not affordable, clean, safe, or healthy when piped into homes and businesses. These proposals presume that alternative gases are fossil free, zero emitting, compatible with existing infrastructure, and present no health or safety hazards. Pay attention because these requests would enable the gas companies to procure biomethane and hydrogen, even if they cost more than natural gas, and to impose new ratepayer tariffs to fund each companyвЂ™s вЂњdecarbonizationвЂќ activities. All indications are that the DPU is fast-tracking the gas companiesвЂ™ regulatory requests, presumably to lock in decisions before the upcoming change in administration.

$no fracked gas in mass$

In late March, DPU rejected Attorney General Maura HealeyвЂ™s call to convene a working group to examine GSEP closely and also excluded interested parties from future discovery, including the attorney generalвЂ™s office and community stakeholders.

No fracked gas in mass full#

Is there any hope for a full vetting of the GSEP program? Not according to the DPU. Indeed, these pathways would be non-starters if GSEP disappeared since they require upgraded plastic pipelines ready to deliver fracked natural gas blended with biomethane, synthetic natural gas, or hydrogen. None describe or assess GSEPвЂ™s role in the energy future even though GSEP could not be more foundational to the gas companiesвЂ™ preferred energy pathways such as вЂњefficient gas equipmentвЂќ and вЂњhybridвЂќ or вЂњlowвЂќ electrification. Consultant reports and gas company proposals were filed in March.

$no fracked gas in mass$

In sharp contrast, GSEP has been a stealth player in the Future of Gas Investigation, a DPU proceeding to examine how gas companies can reconfigure their businesses to help the Commonwealth achieve net-zero emissions.

$No fracked gas in mass$