“Is this pipeline really necessary?” In the Town of Ashland, the answer turns out to be “no.”
When Eversource said it needed to build a new, 3.7 mile, 12-inch diameter gas pipeline alongside another 6-inch pipeline already running through Ashland, the utility claimed that it was needed to ensure: “(1) the necessary inlet pressure is maintained at the Pond Street Gate Station serving the Greater Framingham area; and (2) the Company’s ability to meet capacity requirements of the Pond Street Station during current periods of high demand as well as long term.”
What Eversource didn’t say was why the pressure drop couldn’t be addressed by fixing leaks in the existing pipe – or why it was forecasting annual growth rates of “slightly less than 2 percent” in “Greater Framingham” at a time when overall gas demand in Massachusetts is already declining.
With Eversource’s proposal now pending before the state’s Energy Facilities Siting Board, the town’s select board decided to get answers for themselves. They hired an energy economist to do the kind of rigorous analysis that gas companies don’t bother with – and that state regulators haven’t demanded in the past.
That consultant, Arlington-based Applied Economics Clinic (AEC), has now released its draft report – and the conclusions are highly revealing. AEC informed the town that:
The project is not needed to satisfy current periods of high customer gas demand and that “Eversource presents no evidence that current gas demand in the Greater Framingham area is going unfulfilled.”
“Eversource’s expectations about continued growth in gas use do not match those from state and federal authorities.”
Eversource failed to consider important project alternatives, and did not supply the analysis of those project alternatives that it did consider for third-party review, making it impossible to evaluate the reasonableness of Eversource’s conclusions.
The report also noted that “The project would run counter to the Commonwealth’s emission laws” and that ”continued growth in gas use cannot satisfy the requirements of Massachusetts’ Global Warming Solutions Act.”
When Massachusetts communities fight back against unwanted fossil gas facilities, they usually – and reasonably – focus on the effects on local health and safety. They look at the impacts on vulnerable environments like wetlands, parks and conservation lands. In this case, by asking whether the utilities’ underlying economic arguments make any sense, Ashland is breaking new ground in the debate over new fossil fuel infrastructure.
The town will be able to use this analysis to show state regulators that the real reason that Eversource wants to build a new pipeline is that it gives them a justification for raising rates even though gas prices and usage are both in decline. The next step – which can’t come soon enough – will be for those state regulators to require utilities to provide this crucial information so that cash-strapped municipalities don’t have to spend money on outside experts.