in a manipulated market prices are used as a tool of coercion. The "regulators wouldn't allow another pipeline" meme is a crock of poo. Opportunists and manipulators will whine and throw temper tantrums when they don't get their way, sound familiar?

Being on the west coast I’m a bit unaware of the arguments being made by the environmentalists back east regarding the new pipelines. Are the lines being proposed is sensitive areas? It would be unusual for an environmentalist to argue strictly on increasing supplies- there would generally be other factors involved. Since you haven’t presented those, I can’t see the point of arguing.

You’ve tried to lay out a case of black and white - pro-environment vs people paying too much. These decisions aren’t usually that clear cut.

in one of their latest decisions they said federal regulators had "failed to consider or quantify the indirect effects" of the emissions produced when the fuel shipped through the pipeline is eventually burned.


https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07092017/new-york-pipeline-permit-rejected-natural-gas-valley-lateral-ferc-climate-change

Some of the others mentioned in the article aren’t even in the Northeast.

Of the others blocked by New York State, they were blocked for good, specific reasons — and reasons that the various energy companies could have easily complied with even a modicum of reasonable planning. They refused (or were unable because they didn’t plan) to bury the pipes to a sufficient depth under water sources, they refused to plan along existing corridors, they even illegally paid farmers to cut down old growth trees along the proposed route.

And none of these projects would have been operational this winter anyway, so it is literally impossible for their existence (or lack thereof) to have influenced the price of natural gas.

some of them which would be in service already if not for the blockage

for example the constitution pipeline approved by the feds in 2014. blocked by NY

NY has blocked at least 3 pipelines in the past year

NY's ban on fracking has caused nat gas production in the state to fall by 1/2


right now a large number of households in the northeast use dirty heating oil for heat in the winter. nat gas would be a much cleaner alternative but they cant switch because there isnt the supply

Would have had no effect on this years’s prices, because they wouldn’t have been built yet. For the 2014 pipeline, the company didn’t even have completed plans, just a sketch of where they want the pipeline and their Solemn Word Oath that they probably wouldn’t poison any water.

NY’s regulatory agencies laid out exactly what those three energy companies needed to do to get those pipelines built. Those energy companies decided that cheaper alternative would be court.

I happen to think natural gas is a decent bridge to full renewable (or at least realistic) and see no reason for New York not to use it. I also think that environmental regulations are in place to protect the public, and see no reason for energy companies not to comply.

. . .in the winter is icing, and therefore excess weight, on the transmission lines. How much can be generated is non-correlated to that, so what would be the incremental volume of power loss? Lines go down, no amount of fuel is going to get electricity to the houses and businesses.
Without some reasonably sound estimate as the incremental change, and the overall impact compared to the routine winter transmission failures, it's not a reasonable question.

There are smart environmentalists and proposed regulations then there are knee-jerk environmentalists and proposed regulations.

For a while, transmission lines were blocked through part of NY. Every place is environmentally sensitive; of course, it was through a "nice" part of the state. There was a bottleneck that restricted how electricity could be transmitted to the high-population areas. Don't know if that was ever resolved. It was part of NY's going low-pollution by outsourcing its pollution to Ohio and other states. Only later they realized the pollution still drifted over, so they had nice contracts with other states and filed lawsuits asking those states to cut down on the pollution that power generation for NY State produced. Reasoned consistency wasn't a problem for those large minds.


Texas started investing heavily in wind power in 2002 or 2003. By 2005 a lot was coming on line, and investment picked up in 2006, 2007. A lot of it started producing power in time for 2009 reports. (This was Obama's doing, he somehow said. Ignore the actual timing or motivation.) But there was a problem: The power's produced in the west and most of the population is in the east and northeast. At one point power prices were climbing in the populated areas while Texas was selling electricity at cut rates to Mexico. This created outrage, but it had been pointed out that the power transmission folk had applied for permits for high-tension transmission lines years before but property acquisition and permitting were tied up in the courts, mostly by environmentalists who wanted to defend the land. The environmentalists who chortled at all the renewable wind energy that would replace carbon-based fuel stayed quiet, even though they were really annoyed. But they didn't want to publicly oppose other environmentalists. And alternative routes were proposed, but would have cranked up the price a lot, making public consumer advocates really irate at the prospect.

One thing is certain, there is certainly a push for clean energy. We need to make sure relations are well thought out and common sense. Sustainable energy isn’t going away.

Then go on to look over and regulations that would cause outages and flat out state there isn't a supply issue.

This is just strange. You made a point and followed it with either faulty or no argument.

The we report you decide model goes like this.

Ask a question. Follow it up with things that are generally related but not really. Then ask the question again.