Thread by @jglarusso

1/ #Natgas pipelines vs. baby seals is a false dichotomy. Natgas pipelines vs. Russian LNG is a false dichotomy. This op-ed shouldn’t have been an op-ed, but a Spotlight series that fully informed the public, but the @BostonGlobe doesn’t have the chops. bit.ly/2BWPogN

2/ If the Globe did that Spotlight Series the first piece could have presented facts about NE’s energy needs, including its reliance on natural gas for both heating and electric generation. The gas constraint is quite real—no denying that.

3/ That first Spotlight piece could also have detailed the role energy efficiency, demand-side management, and renewables play in reducing the demand for natural gas power generation ...

4/ ... i.e the role that EE, demand response, and renewables play reducing competition between gas for heating and gas for electric generation, on those relatively few days of the year when the NE electric grid is peaking, and maxed out.

5/ It could have also touched on the role technology will play in reducing future natgas demand, specifically the continuing dramatic decline in the cost of battery storage. Storage is on target to displace gas peaker plants in the next decade—it’ll be cheaper.

6/ The 1st piece could’ve also mentioned that @isonewengland forecasts declining peak demand for electricity during winter months. That is, that there is likely to be declining need for more gas pipelines to reduce competition b/t heating and power generation.

7/ The next installment in the Spotlight series could have touched on the fact that both @EversourceCorp and @AVANGRID did not fully subscribe capacity on existing gas pipelines during the polar vortex of the winter of 2013-14. ...

8/ ... And as a fomer Maine PUC commissioner pointed out, Eversource & Avangrid “were in front of our commission asking us to approve billions of dollars of additional pipeline capacity” while failing to fully use existing pipelines. bit.ly/2EnxaCE

9/ In short, the Globe could have reported on the possibility that the need for pipelines had been exaggerated. It could have also done reporting on the refusal by the Mass. SJC to require electricity customers to pay for natural gas pipelines. bit.ly/2BsuFjU

10/ The next piece in that Spotlight Series could have been about the threat to Boston posed by climate change. Remember January 4th Globe editorial board? How quickly you seem to have forgotten. bit.ly/2EnxaCE

11/ The Spotlight piece could have then laid out the requirements of the Commonwealth’s Global Warming Solutions Act, and discussed how new gas pipelines would make it more difficult to reach those climate goals...

12/ ... And it could have provided reporting on another SJC decision requiring Mass. regulators to set specific limits on greenhouse gases to comply with the legal obligation set by the GWS Act to reduce emissions linked to climate change. wbur.fm/2BX7ejP

13/ Finally, the Spotlight series could have discussed the fact that LNG has been meeting NE’s demand for gas for *fifty* years; decades before the current debate on the need for new gas pipeline capacity. bit.ly/2BZNI6r

14/ ...And the Globe could have been candid with its readers about the fact that new gas pipelines—including those built over the last 50 years—never displaced LNG. So in fact there has *never* been a choice between pipelines vs LNG. It’s not either/or.

15/ But perhaps the worst thing about the @BostonGlobe’s op-ed is that it brands as hypocrites those who question the need for new pipelines at a time when the grid is pivoting to technologies that appear likely to obviate the need for those pipelines...

16/ ... The op-ed simultaneously insulted @BostonGlobe readers by falsely accusing them of hypocrisy, and insulted the intelligence of its readers because the paper apparently believes the issues surrounding energy in NE are too complicated for its readers to grasp.

17/ The @BostonGlobe, which likes to think of itself as the paper of record for the region, did a real disservice to its readers and the community yesterday. It can, and should, do much better. ###

Correcting link: bit.ly/2BWmiOx