Posted September 21, 2016
New Hampshire is without oil and natural gas reserves of its own. Nuclear accounted for about 47 percent of the state’s net electricity generation last year, with natural gas supplying about 30 percent. But since that gas – as well as natural gas for home heating – must come from elsewhere, the state (and the rest of New England for that matter) is engaged in an important conversation over ensuring adequate pipeline capacity to meet home, commercial and industrial needs.
Posted September 20, 2016
Posted September 19, 2016
The benefits of pipeline infrastructure are being felt in one small Belgian city. Only get this: The deliverable is beer.
The Halve Maan Brewery in Bruges recently opened a beer pipeline connecting the brewery in the center of the town to a bottling plant about 2 miles away. The $4.5 million pipeline that took five months to build can deliver 12,000 bottles of beer an hour to the bottling plant. Not only will the pipeline increase efficiency in delivering this product to market, but its multi-million dollar construction likely provided an economic boost to the area.
Posted September 14, 2016
Posted July 14, 2016
CNBC has put out its annual ranking of America’s top states for business, an analysis based on a number of things including metrics for workforce, infrastructure, access to capital and quality of life. Another of those metrics, cost of living, caught our eye because energy was part of the calculation. Indeed, in CNBC’s ranking of the country’s 10 most expensive states to live in, the cost of energy to residents a key factor.
Five members of that dubious top 10 are New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New Hampshire, and energy costs there are higher than they need to be. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), those states and neighbors Maine and Vermont all had costs for residential electricity and natural gas that exceeded national averages this past winter. Of course, these states are located in a part of the country where more energy infrastructure (see previous posts here and here) could positively impact energy costs.
A couple of charts show the cost being borne by consumers in those states, in part, because there’s inadequate natural gas pipeline infrastructure to meet home heating and power generation needs during peak winter months.
Posted July 1, 2016
When you see the significant economic, consumer and climate benefits to the U.S. from increased use of natural gas, it’s quite a puzzle when some won’t take “yes” for an answer – yes to lower energy costs, yes to infrastructure jobs, yes to carbon emissions reductions. Unfortunately for Massachusetts residents, that’s the path the state legislature appears to be taking. More below. First, a review of how clean-burning natural gas is making life better across the rest of the country.
Let’s start with reduced household energy costs, which are helping to lower Americans’ cost of living, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). In constant 2015 dollars, EIA says average annual energy costs per household peaked at about $5,300 in 2008 then declined 14.1 percent in 2014.
Posted May 10, 2016
We’ve written a number of posts recently on U.S. climate gains from increased use of clean-burning natural gas (see here, here and here). Domestic natural gas is the main reason the U.S. is leading the world in reducing carbon emissions – underscored by government data this week showing that energy-associated emissions in 2015 were 12 percent lower than 2005 levels.
Yet, some continue to miss the role natural gas is playing in U.S. climate progress. Instead of declaring victory, some continue to rally, protest and campaign against natural gas and its infrastructure – opposing the very thing that is achieving what they want. Unfortunately, they’re impacting public policy along the way.
Nowhere is there a better illustration of this negative impact than in New York state.
Posted May 2, 2016
This wonderful domestic energy abundance and the global LNG market opportunities could be impacted by challenges facing infrastructure expansion here at home. America needs more energy infrastructure to move domestic supply to all areas of the country, for residential consumers, power generators and manufacturers. Yet, without stronger high-level backing, we could see these infrastructure needs delayed or rejected, as occurred last month with the proposed Constitution natural gas pipeline in New York.
Americans overwhelmingly support more energy infrastructure, and there appears to be bipartisan consensus for it in Congress. But infrastructure projects are being targeted by a vocal minority – even though increased domestic use of natural gas is the leading reason the United States is leading the world in reducing carbon emissions. A key going forward is gaining infrastructure support from the White House and the administration, said Marty Durbin, API’s executive director for market development.
Posted April 25, 2016
During a speech last week to labor union officials, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo talked big about the need for big infrastructure in this country. Gov. Cuomo mentioned the building of the Erie Canal in the 1800s, the interstate highway system that was launched in the 1950s and the construction of big bridges. The North America’s Building Trades Unions audience cheered and clapped warmly when Cuomo called for the vision and leadership needed for America to once again build big infrastructure:
“We built this nation into the greatest nation on the globe with our hands and sweat. That was the American way. We were tough, we were gutsy, we were daring, and there was no challenge that we wouldn’t take on, and we built this country and we regained that spirit of energy and positivity and ambition. … We can do these big projects. We did do these big projects … The George Washington Bridge, the Verrazano Bridge, hundreds of miles of subway system under New York, an 80-mile aqueduct built in the 1800s just to get water to New York City. We never said no …”
The next day, Cuomo’s administration said no – to the proposed $683 million Constitution natural gas pipeline. No to infrastructure – privately financed at that. No to the construction jobs wanted by the folks who cheered the governor the day before. No to consumers in New York state, who’d benefit from abundant, clean-burning natural gas, piped into a number of the state’s southern counties from Pennsylvania’s Marcellus shale.
And some wonder why so many Americans are cynical about politicians.
Posted April 20, 2016
Americans in the building construction trades know the importance of new energy infrastructure. Building things is what they do. In recent years they’ve recognized the value of partnering with the oil and natural gas industry on infrastructure projects to deliver energy, create jobs and boost the economy – all benefits of America’s ongoing energy revolution.
At this week’s Washington legislative conference of North America’s Building Trades Union, NABTU President Sean McGarvey listed energy infrastructure among the union’s top priorities in 2016 and noted the importance of forming partnerships to advance shared goals, such as infrastructure:
“There are other ways, too, in which our unions are building that go beyond the jobsite, such as building a new labor-management paradigm in the United States through formal partnerships with entire industries and individual companies.”
Nowhere is this dynamic more timely and important than in the effort to build new natural gas pipelines in the Northeast, where constricted capacity historically has contributed to higher energy costs during peak winter months.