Clear Green Washing Fraud by the NYT: CO2 Emissions in NE

June 8

So these guys just to want to construct high voltage transmission line for foreign juice.

Vermont and most of these northern states have historically one of the most corrupt people associated with managing the high voltage transmission system.

But you get it, foreign energy and foreign power plants… where we should be using American produced energy and American plant power plants run by good Americans.

Special Report: Vermont smack in the middle of crucial electricity supply and demand
 
Essentially, is the president's CO2 initiative all foreign based...well, for NE.
 John Herrick Jun. 8 2014, 8:13 pm

Last I knew, Vermont is the eighth most expensive electricity in the states. I see no plan giving Vermont a special price on electricity for economic development and jobs. 

Yet we have power shortages and astronomical price increases in NE since 2012...warnings of future grid failures and increasing prices for decades to come. It is basically massive corruption with obstructing natural gas capacity into New England...

Ultimately, have they been crashing in their cap and trade chits for short term profits...consuming invaluable excess or standby grid capacity in the process.

I get it, if you hollow out the businesses who use large amount of electricity and then kill off the power plants in New England...you be are green as hell.

And nobody ever is worried about becoming too dependant on Canada for massive amounts of green electricity...nobody gives a shit about making American jobs for the poor and middle class. 

I see marginal reduction in CO2 in coming years, offset by selling coal overseas, among others, development of the poor countries...I see the green and CO2 reduction initiative as the means to inject massive levels of fraud and institutional inaccuracies in our nation culture. The fraud and political corruption coming from the green initiative will destroy our nation and kill us before global warming does. 

I do believe global warming is coming and it will be big...
 
So what caused economic growth in NE from 2000?

Basically we are shifting to enormously spending money and treasure on ineffective and expensive trading bureaucracies...we will be increasingly spending money on trading electronic debits instead of producing electricity.  We are massively increasing the opportunity for fraud and corruption.

It is selective use of data for a agenda...green washing in a gigantic scale.

We are going to be a nation who trades worthless electronic garbage...feeding the ultra wealthy...instead of a nation of producing better lives for its people.

This is what you get stuck with when you are required to stick to the published facts.

In Some States, Emissions Cuts Defy Skeptics

That does not mean these states are off the hook under the Obama plan unveiled this week —they will probably be expected to cut more to help achieve the overall national goal — but their strides so far have not brought economic ruin. In New England, a region that has made some of the biggest cuts in emissions, residential electricity bills fell 7 percent from 2005 to 2012, adjusted for inflation. And economic growth in the region ran slightly ahead of the national average.

Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and New York cut their power-sector emissions more than 40 percent from 2005 to 2012, according to the Georgetown Climate Center, with Maryland close behind at 39 percent. The states are part of a nine-state project called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and, like much of the country, have benefited from the recent abundance of cheap natural gas.

Oh, I get it, it is Greener entertainment to drive circulation...



Mass. pipeline plan stirs hope and alarm

Natural gas flow would cross state; Clash on energy, environment

RICHMOND — A Houston energy company has proposed building a multibillion dollar pipeline that would connect Massachusetts to abundant natural gas from Eastern shale fields, entering the state through this small town on the New York border and stretching across dozens of municipalities into the Boston metropolitan area.

The proposal, by Kinder Morgan, has the potential to lower — or at least stabilize — what are some of the highest energy costs in the nation by opening up new supplies of cheap, domestic natural gas and expanding a pipeline system that is becoming inadequate to meet the region’s hunger for energy, analysts say.

But the plan, which has yet to be filed with federal authorities, has sparked fierce opposition in many of the roughly 45 Massachusetts municipalities through which the pipeline would pass.

“This would be a gas super- highway across the most pristine lands in the state, family farms, old New England towns,” said Richard Hewitt of Groton, which is on the proposed route.

While the pipeline has received great attention in communities it would cross, it has gained little notice in the rest of the state. The proposal, which Kinder Morgan has shopped to local officials and residents in recent months, renews the long-running conflict between economic development and environmental protection, setting the need to bring energy to population centers against concerns of rural communities through which pipelines and transmission lines run.

In Richmond, a place with a population of less than 1,500 south of Pittsfield, residents noted that five pipelines already run through town. At a Wednesday meeting with Kinder Morgan, many raised concerns about declining property values, the potential for explosions, and damage to forests, wetlands, and watersheds.

“I think we lead the county in pipelines. It really wouldn’t surprise me if we lead the state,” said Neal Pilson, a member of Richmond’s zoning board of appeals. “I think I speak for any people here: We’re not really interested.”
 

More than a dozen municipalities have passed nonbinding resolutions against the project.

The proposed pipeline would branch off the company’s Tennessee Gas Pipeline, which runs from Texas to the Northeast. The branch would stretch 418 miles from Troy, Pa., in the heart of Pennsylvania’s gas country, to Wright, N.Y., and then into Richmond, eventually sliding across Massachusetts’ northern spine to Dracut.

Kinder Morgan said it plans to file its proposal with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which oversees interstate transportation of gas, and begin seeking federal permits by October. State and local governments don’t have much jurisdiction over such projects.

The company estimates the pipeline, which it hopes to begin using by November 2018, would create about 3,000 construction-related jobs and generate $25 million a year in tax revenue in Massachusetts. The pipeline would carry enough gas for 1.5 million homes.

Regional energy officials say additional pipeline capacity is sorely needed in New England, which has become increasingly reliant on natural gas.

In Massachusetts, about half of the state’s homes heat with natural gas, while about two-thirds of the electricity consumed in the state is generated in gas-fired plants.

That share is expected to rise as aging coal and nuclear plants shut down. Two of Massachusetts’ three remaining coal plants stopped operating last week; the third is set to close by 2017. In addition, Vermont Yankee, a nuclear power plant in Vernon, Vt., is to shut down by the end of the year.

As a result, said Gordon van Welie, head of ISO New England, the region’s power grid operator, the state and region are quickly running out of pipeline capacity to provide sufficient, affordable supplies during periods of peak demand, such as winter cold snaps. That has led to temporary shortages and spiking wholesale natural gas prices, which can get passed on to customers. “If anything,” van Welie said, “our situation is becoming more dire.”

Northeast Utilities and National Grid, the state’s largest utilities, have expressed interest in buying space to transport gas on a different pipeline expansion project now under federal review.

New England governors, meanwhile, are collaborating to increase the number of energy sources, considering options such as importing more hydroelectricity from Canada, developing wind projects, and building new gas pipelines. Massachusetts officials are quick to point out that more pipeline projects are not a done deal.

“We know that we have a problem that needs to be addressed,” said Barbara Kates-Garnick, undersecretary of energy in Massachusetts. “While we might need more capacity in pipelines, the size and amount is not totally clear at this point.”

Some residents and environmentalists question the need for new pipelines. A study conducted for the New England governors by the consulting firm Black & Veatch found that yet another pipeline would be unnecessary if — after an already-filed expansion of the Algonquin Gas Transmission line — renewable power and energy efficiency can keep demand for natural gas flat.

Shanna Cleveland, an attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation, a Boston-based environmental advocacy group, said that rather than build more pipelines, the region should aggressively pursue energy efficiency and other power sources, such as wind and solar.

But Kinder Morgan is moving forward. “The reason we’re looking at the project in this region is because of what policy makers are telling us is necessary,” spokesman Allen Fore told about 300 in Pepperell.

Fore said Kinder Morgan’s proposal is still in the early stages, and the public would have time to weigh in. Opposition is growing, much of it organized by a grass-roots effort called No Fracked Gas in Mass. The name refers to controversial drilling technique known as fracking that has opened vast reserves in shale deposits in Pennsylvania and other states.

“This is my life we’re talking about here,” said Melanie Masdea, who has lived in Richmond since she was 4. “I don’t want a fourth pipeline in my backyard.”