Despite withdrawal of the Northeast Energy Direct pipeline proposal, the natural gas debate goes on in Massachusetts. Stripped of some of the site specific backyard conservation concerns, part of the debate that has roiled Franklin County for nearly two years has survived — focused on broader concerns about use of fossil fuels in a warming world that grows increasingly wary of a supposedly cleaner “bridge” fuel like natural gas.
There are still other pipeline projects in the other parts of the state that aren’t threatening Franklin County’s forests, rivers and fields, but that do fit into concern over global warming generally. And so we are happy to see that discussion in the Legislature continues about pipelines and our energy future.
Just last week, Gov. Baker’s energy secretary, Matthew Beaton, testified before the Senate Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change, arguing that “incremental” increased natural gas use continues to be a necessary component of the administration’s plan to meet growing energy demand, while controlling cost in an environmentally friendly way.
His view was rebutted later by anti-pipeline activists who said that with the state already heavily dependent on gas, we should focus more on energy efficiency and renewables.
We agree.
It was great to see a Republican governor working with the Democratic Legislature to develop an energy mix rich in hydro and solar and wind — with gas and oil as legacy fuels at the base.
But long term, oil and gas can’t be the go-to energy source to fuel future growth.
It probably is faster, simpler and easier to build pipelines, and we could comfort ourselves with the notion that gas is a relatively clean petroleum bridge to a truly clean future.
But a special pipeline report commissioned by the attorney general’s office concluded the state’s energy needs could be met with increased efficiency, although Beaton said that analysis relies on achieving efficiencies that exceed the state’s most ambitious goals.
Some members of the global warming committee, which includes area legislator Sen. Ben Downing, take the opposite view. Sen. Marc Pacheco said, “If anything I’m impatient. I want to go as fast as we can” toward a greener energy mix.
Ultimately, the global warming committee asked if the Baker administration could provide alternative energy “mixes” so the Legislature could weigh the pros and cons itself.
We think that’s a great idea. We’d rather see the state’s path to a clean, cooler future charted by a Legislature after review of all the choices — and we agree with Rebecca Tepper, chief of the attorney general’s energy division, that while energy efficiency isn’t the easiest way to obviate the need for more fossil fuels, it’s a goal worth reaching for.
“We get it that we’re all working really hard on energy efficiency, but what would it look like if we double down” on clean energy and conservation, she asked.
Looks good from here.