I have two comments about Tux Turkel’s piece (“Producers of power fight natural gas expansion,” Page A1, July 24):
First, the financial analysis was incomplete. There were specific figures for the costs incurred to Mainers by “inadequate gas supply,” and recent electricity costs in New England compared to the U.S. as a whole.
But as the article made clear, pipeline construction costs will be borne by ratepayers. What will those costs be? An opponent was quoted saying “billions of dollars.” Aren’t there more specific estimates available?
In any case, this is a substantial investment in permanent fossil fuel infrastructure. Whatever the financial costs and benefits, some consideration should be given to the impending catastrophic economic and societal costs imposed by carbon dioxide and methane pollution, and the availability of alternatives.
Yes, we are dependent on fossil fuels now, but this is a question of investment. Why not prioritize investments in existing emissions-free technologies, such as building efficiency, renewable power (especially solar), energy storage and electric vehicle infrastructure? These technologies have the added benefit of mitigating the fossil fuel price spikes that the article refers to.
Daniel Hildreth
Falmouth
Copy the Story LinkSend questions/comments to the editors.
Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page.
Enter your email and password to access comments.
Hi, to comment on stories you must . This profile is in addition to your subscription and website login.
Already have a commenting profile? .
Invalid username/password.
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.
Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.