Proposed Natural Gas Pipeline Expansion Forecast to Lower Energy Bills in Massachusetts * The Gateway Pundit * by Guest Contributor

This story originally was published by Real Clear Wire

By Kevin Mooney

Massachusetts could pivot in the direction of affordable and reliable energy by expanding on existing natural gas capacity, according to a new study that says ratepayers could save $367 million per winter. Since many of those same ratepayers are also voters, that’s a figure that should pique their interest.

The Fiscal Alliance Foundation, a nonprofit headquartered in Boston, highlights the benefits of “Project Beacon” in its study released just ahead of the state’s gubernatorial election. The projected savings for homeowners and businesses are enormous. But Massachusetts ratepayers, in particular those who can vote, must pressure political figures to make a clean break with current policies.

What better time than the upcoming elections to do exactly that? The foundation’s study makes a compelling case that Massachusetts could get out in front of some nasty winters if it moves now to address its lack of energy infrastructure. As it is, Bay Staters already pay the fifth-highest electricity prices in the United States at 25 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) with natural gas supplying more than 65 percent of their state’s electricity in a typical year.

Massachusetts residents can’t change their geology, but they can tap into their neighbors; Project Beacon could make nearby resources readily available at greater capacity.

Enbridge, a Canadian-owned gas pipeline company, announced its intention to launch Project Beacon back in May. If approved, the project would upgrade the existing Algonquin pipeline system, which carries natural gas from New Jersey into Massachusetts. Always on Energy Research, which performed the analysis for the foundation’s study, examined seven winters from 2019–20 through 2025–26 and found that Project Beacon could have saved Massachusetts ratepayers an average of $367 million per winter during those periods. Moreover, the findings break down how Project Beacon would benefit households and businesses. Individual ratepayers would save about $95 per winter, commercial customers about $792 per winter, and industrial customers nearly $4,600 per winter.

Pipeline Policy Stance a Key Test in Governor’s Race

So, the question becomes: Will the political class in Massachusetts listen? There are reasons to be hopeful and reasons to be cynical.  Gov. Maura Healey, a Democrat running for a second term, appears to have had an epiphany. She suddenly favors an “all-of-the-above” approach to energy that would theoretically include natural gas pipelines. But voters need to remember that during her time as attorney general, Healey was all in with opposing natural gas pipelines. So where is she now?

Project Beacon clearly puts her all-of-the-above pledge to the test, and so far, she remains noncommittal. The same is not true of Mike Minogue, her Republican gubernatorial opponent. The businessman and military veteran expresses support for natural gas pipelines on his campaign website.

Yet, Paul Diego Craney, the executive director of the foundation, insists both candidates fully explain their respective takes on Project Beacon ahead of the election.

“The people of Massachusetts deserve to know where both candidates stand on a project that will have a direct impact on what families and businesses pay to keep the lights and heat on,” Craney said in a press statement. “Governor Healey and Mike Minogue should each tell voters whether they will commit to moving Project Beacon forward. Whoever takes the oath in January will inherit the same pipeline constraints and the same affordability problem. This study gives the next administration a concrete opportunity to do something about both.”

Expensive Double-Whammy

Embracing Project Beacon would also mean making a clean break with anti-energy policies that have held sway in Massachusetts up until now. Always on Energy Research is part of another study titled “Blue States, High Rates” that delves into how blue state policies overloaded with renewable mandates and expensive regulations drive up energy costs. Massachusetts, for example, is part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a multistate climate initiative based on “cap and trade” regulations and carbon taxes. The study, done in partnership with the Institute for Energy Research, points out that Massachusetts is the only New England state operating a state-only emissions cap on electric-generator emissions, in addition to being a founding member of RGGI. That’s an expensive double-whammy and a warning to other states.

Pennsylvania would be one that comes to mind.

That’s where Gov. Josh Shapiro, another Democrat up for re-election this November, withdrew his state from RGGI after encountering stiff opposition from industry and labor groups. But as an alternative, Shapiro has proposed his own state-level cap and trade plan known as the Pennsylvania Climate Emissions Reduction Act, or PACER. If the elections were to go south for the Republicans in the Keystone State, Shapiro could possibly push PACER through the state legislature and rejoin RGGI. That’s a worst-case scenario for the cause of affordable and reliable energy.

Conversely, if Massachusetts were to suddenly embrace a natural gas pipeline plan that lowers energy prices it could set an example that reverberates with other RGGI participants. The concept of “blue states, high rates” is a catchy phrase that could catch on.

Hello Bay State voters and ratepayers. Are you all paying attention?!

Kevin Mooney is a senior investigative researcher with Restoration News and author of Climate Porn: How and Why Anti-Population Zealots Fabricate Science, while Targeting American Capitalism, Freedom, and Independence

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.