The front page
story in the Feb. 1 Sentinel — “Energy costs under scrutiny” — may be
confusing to readers concerned with the prospect of the NED fracked gas
pipeline coming to the region. I would like to clarify a few things.
The article states
that the “Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is examining New
Hampshire's high fees for transmitting electricity ... to customers'
homes or businesses.” If you check your Eversource bill, you will see
that it is broken down into energy supply costs, which are related to
the cost of fuel used in the creation of electricity and distribution or
transmission costs, which are essentially operating costs associated
with getting electricity to consumers. It is these distribution costs
that FERC is investigating — not supply costs.
The entire justification for the
NED pipeline is bogus. We don't need more gas to lower our electric
rates, we need transmission costs to be more in line with other
electricity generating operations. The NED pipeline is a hoax, being
foisted upon us in order to justify tearing up our state, fouling our
water and air and endangering our health, without a shred of evidence
that this will lead to lower rates for consumers.
The primary purpose of the NED
pipeline is for Kinder Morgan to sell capacity on the pipeline and for
gas companies to transport fracked gas, export it, and make a profit.
It's about time FERC investigates
our transmission rates and clarifies that the rates we pay for
electricity are not likely to be ameliorated by more gas in the supply
chain. The unreasonably high transmission costs we pay are most likely
due to the fact that we are still paying for a lot of bad investments
including stranded costs of Seabrook and the scrubber at the Merrimack
Station coal plant. Now we are being asked to make a huge investment in
yet another boondoggle.
The cost of the pipeline will
also be born by ratepayers; this alone will raise electric bills. And if
the pipeline is built and has to be abandoned due to the disastrous
side effects of fracking, pipelines or lack of demand, we will still
have to pay for it. Remember, this is a multi-billion dollar project.
Whether it turns out to be a good investment or bad, you are on the
hook.
Our region has seen a pattern of
reduced energy demand due to more efficient lighting and appliances as
well as through the use of more renewable sources of energy. We are
being asked to take enormous financial, environmental, and health risks
by building more dangerous fossil fuel infrastructure just as we are
experiencing a renewable energy revolution.
Support of the NED pipeline might
benefit politicians in our lobby-driven campaign finance system, but it
offers the rest of us nothing but risks, dangers and higher prices.
This project should be soundly rejected by all New Hampshire ratepayers.
Susan Wessels
Rindge
No comments:
Post a Comment