mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
Pipeline Politics
NIMBYism and Green Bias Keeps New England Power Rates High
Features Icon
show comments
  • Gary Hemminger

    Nothing states the current situation with respect to greenies better than the line above “The green opposition, however, can’t be reasoned with.” They simply cannot be reasoned with. I actually wish that all of their dreams would come true. The pain would be so enormous that they would immediately lose all credibility; but instead they get a free rider, with occasional pain points that don’t cause the death of the patient.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    This will cost the property owners of New England, as property values fall due to high energy prices in the region. Business investment will pass them by, in favor of the states where costs are better. There is already a strong migration from high cost Blue States to low cost Red States going on, and failures like this in addition to high taxes and regulations is why.

  • Proud Skeptic

    I can certainly understand a NIMBY reaction to high voltage wires strung between towers. But gas pipelines…once the construction is complete…are pretty unobtrusive. Makes no sense.
    In my area of RI they recently approved the construction of several wind turbines. What could be more obtrusive than that?

    • LarryD

      I think it’s all about virtue-signaling. By opposing the project, they label themselves Good People. Reality be dammed. Ditto for the wind turbine support. Oh, and graft.

      • They are against it because of who is for it.

        • jaytrain

          More and more true every day .

  • “… consigning the region to shakier energy security and higher power bills …”

    It couldn’t happen to a more deserving group.

  • Fat_Man

    I would favor a Federal Law that forbids any state that forbids fracking from importing natural gas or other petroleum products.

    Let them freeze in the dark.

  • Greg Smith

    This story misses some important details. This project was originally intended to cross Massachusetts, not unreasonable given that MA is the biggest consumer of NG and has the largest population. MA politicos succeeded in getting much of it pushed across the border to be built in southern, including two towns in my district. Opposition to the Northeast Direct pipeline was bipartisan – NH did not want a pipeline that was not going to benefit NH and Democrats, Republicans, and Independents united in opposing it.

    The fact that the pipeline was sized such that it would export gas didn’t help either. Meanwhile there are other projects coming into New England, including AIM which can supplement supply without building a greenfield project across southern New Hampshire. We may rue the day that this didn’t get built, but NH shouldn’t be considered a place where MA can dump the projects it doesn’t want.

    Rep. Gregory Smith / Hillsborough 37 / Pelham+Hudson NH

    • UncleFedele

      Unfortunately for your position Kinder Morgan was negotiating with local distributers to help fund expansion of local gas lines to provide natural gas to the towns through which the pipeline would have passed. So NH would have dramatically benefited, since the cost of natural gas in southern NH is dramatically less than the cost of heating oil.

      That said it was not just the “greens” that opposed the pipeline. There was a created perception that the gas lines would directly endanger anyone near it and that mile upon mile of NH risked incineration by from gas line explosions. One of the popular signs in opposition was to inform people that they were in the “incineration zone”. This created a large group of property owners who were very concerned that they’d suffer massive losses on their homes. One doctor proposed that the gas company pay him $30,000 up front as a hedge against such a possible loss. Ignoring that the availability of natural gas to heat his home and water and clothes dryer, and fuel his stove, would enhance the value of his property. A total failure in communication by KM.

      • richard40

        Its does not sound as much like a failure to communicate of KM, but a bunch of enviro propagandists putting out lies, and a bunch of ignorant people believing the lies. I used to respect NH as a strong libertarian state, with a lot of rural good sense, much better than leftie Vermont. But it looks like they have gone loco lately, first believing these environmentalist wackos, and then being the first state to fall for the trump con.

  • Peter Imhoff

    I live in Southern NH and didn’t understand the widespread opposition. The company did a lousy job explaining the project at the local level. The NIMBY people printed up 1000s of little front-yard placards. No grass roots involvement from the company. Most of the towns could have used the tax revenues if nothing else (I assume they would have been able to assess the pipeline).

  • OldNHMan

    I watched a number of videos covering the hearings in the affected towns aired by our local TV station news program and I have to say the stupidest argument I heard against the Kinder Morgan pipeline project was this: “They’re only doing it to make money!”

    Uh, well, yeah. Why would anyone undertake such a project, be it a gas pipeline, high voltage electric transmission lines, cell towers, fiber optic lines, etc if they aren’t going to make money from their efforts and investments? Unless they’re committing fraud (Solyndra anyone?) and running away with the investors’ money, I don’t know of anyone who would put that much time, effort, and money into a project in order to lose money and go bankrupt.

  • Why should rates be going up with all this ‘free’ energy from wind/solar?

  • jim

    Who cares what electricity costs in New England? If we listened to them, we’d still be using whale oil for lighting. Most reactionary region of the entire US, and they call themselves “Progressive”! Go paint your church steeples.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service