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