To add insult to injury, the program locks Massachusetts into paying for polluting fossil fuel infrastructure far into the future, when the state should be transitioning to safer, cleaner energy.
Lawmakers are considering phasing out the program by 2030, but given the stakes, let’s end GSEP now.
Deirdre Cummings
Consumer program director
MASSPIRG
Boston
Critical report overlooks the benefits of pipeline replacement
The article on Massachusetts’ Gas System Enhancement Program gives too much weight to a report that fails to consider the long-term savings pipeline replacement programs deliver in operations and maintenance costs and the safety and emissions-reduction benefits they provide.
The report from the Future of Heat Initiative does not properly recognize that modernizing the natural gas delivery system helps address known material risks before incidents occur. Furthermore, the report missed an important distinction by treating excavation damage as if it were primarily caused by pipe-replacement work. Effects of digging occur across many types of construction activity, including road work, water and sewer projects, electric utility upgrades, and private development. They are not unique to, or primarily driven by, GSEP replacements.
Upgrading pipes to more modern materials improves reliability of energy delivery and lowers emissions. Nationwide, the industry’s work has lowered emissions from the natural gas distribution system by 70 percent since 1990.
Natural gas utilities have a proven track record, including as part of the GSEP program, of working with communities to deliver these goals for customers and helping to ensure safe and reliable service during cold and unpredictable weather.
Massachusetts customers deserve an affordable, reliable, and safe natural gas system. That requires prioritizing continued investment.
Alana Daly
Vice President, corporate affairs and policy
Northeast Gas Association
Westborough
Fixing leaks would be more cost-effective than replacing pipes
Regarding Kate Selig’s article on the the Gas System Enhancement Program, readers may wonder about alternatives to expensive pipeline replacement. The answer is pipeline repair, a durable and far less costly approach to fixing leaks and maintaining safety.
Repairing every documented gas leak in Massachusetts would cost a fraction of the cost to replace all the leak-prone pipes. The likely reason the utilities prefer to replace pipes is the high rate of investor return they receive as opposed to the simple cost recovery they receive by repairing leaks.
Moreover, leak repair is targeted and avoids the disruption and pavement damage of trenching whole sections of streets. The large ratepayer savings from prioritizing repair over replacement could be invested in cleaner and safer methods of heating, including heat pumps and thermal energy networks.
Nathan Phillips
Newton
The writer is a professor in the department of earth and environment at Boston University.