Farrell is not coming off well here and personifying the bullying and blackmail that Berkshire Gas is engaging in. Being against the pipeline because of its impacts on global warming is the very definition of caring about families and local businesses - there is no dispute among anyone that drilling for natural gas increases greenhouse gas emissions, and so how is that "eco-terrorism?" Environment aside, as forced investors in this project we also don't appreciate being made to pay for infrastructure that will only increase private profits without guaranteeing any rate decreases here - show me somewhere in the country where that has actually happened. No smart investor would put their money towards such a doubtful ROI. And what kind of investor puts all their eggs in one basket anyway by making us even MORE reliant on only one source of fuel? That's stupid! No, local business would grow more here if we took that tariff and put it towards subsidizing solar. This isn't about personal agendas, this is about making thoughtful (and not desperate/panic-mode a la Berkshire Gas) decisions about our long-term needs, especially when so much of OUR $ is on the line. Finally, I'd love for Farrell to explain how they can justify building a 2.2 bcf/d pipeline when NESCOE says we only need .7 bcf/d - come on buddy, we're not idiots. ...(full comment)
With Greenfield taxes being so significantly higher than surrounding towns, I really don't understand how it can't come up with $4000 or so to replace what they cut down (maybe cut the overly zealous arborist's budget??). When you walk around old historic towns, part of their charm is their big old trees - and they tend to have sidewalks and I don't hear of tons of people dying because of branches. There must be ways to fix sidewalks without cutting everything down - sidewalks and trees go hand in hand, making walking more enjoyable. It may be cheaper to clear cut than actually think, but DPW is not serving the town well in the long run this way. ...(full comment)
Pieridae has an application before the DOE for export: published in the Federal Register on Dec. 10 2014. Reading in related documents states that "pipeline and fossil fuel companies" will make 18 QUADRILLION DOLLARS from the export of LNG from that facility. THIS IS AN EXPORT pipeline: there will NEVER be any benefit whatsoever to this region. Only private profit: and seeking eminent domain for this is an outrage. All this will accomplish is to enrich the obscenely greedy, and raise gas rates permanently as we compete with other nations for a U.S. resource we have already subsidized to the tune of billions every year. Mr. Farrell is making many false statements: allegations of "terrorism" are a peculiar form of projection: he and his ilk are so intent on greed that they are endangering and permanently harming hundreds of thousands of people all along this route. ...(full comment)
Their company was recently purchased by Spanish giant Iberdrola. Prior to that, it spent 20 million in a failed attempt to purchase a Philadelphia company. (see Hartford Courant) It seems that lust for money is the only real policy, and pipelines are a means of stripping wealth away from hardworking Americans. If we are wise, as a state, we will stand up to this atrocity. This has no benefit whatsoever to our communiities, and there are other options, like Distrigas, that Sunderland companies can choose that will save lives now and in the future. ...(full comment)
This is obscene. Tearing up five square miles of MA pristine conservation and private land, forcing neighborhoods to live in incineration zones near the cheapest, flimsiest possible pipeline, operating under enormous pressure, and near live voltage. Running through drinking water supplies. Berkshire could fix their leaky existing pipes and stop cheating ratepayers. They could also engage in programs that conserve. They are fine squandering other people's lives, homes, and efforts for the future. They have demonstrated no concern for the consequences of their actions to others and this is outright threat. ...(full comment)
I find it hard to believe that the levels of co2 have raised to levels not seen in million of years. Just who was taking data millions of years ago? I do not recall any written history from that time.
Speculation is that just speculation. A long, long time ago the world was covered in ice and at one time on fire.
Many people complain about things but offer NO reasonable solutions. Crony capitalism is not one and neither is government..
It is like putting fiber optics out to a person 3 miles from town too expensive to run the line out there. That is why there is a push to have people live in higher density areas. There are people in the federal government that want to make any home to be on no more than 1/3 acre lots and make many areas off limit to homes.
I am sure you did not feel the same way on a few other black nominees that were Republicans. Maybe the Republicans should use the same nuclear option Senator Reid did. Just make it 5o votes to pass just about anything and only bring up things you want . ...(full comment)
now that harry Reid is retiring maybe we can get the Nevada disposal site open, we have spent an enormous amount of money on it. It would be nice to have the spent fuel put where it was planned to go. Reid had no problem building the site as it made jobs in Nevada for him to use for reelections. If he really care about the taxpayer it would have been used a long time ago ...(full comment)
Out of context and all incorrect.
Final disposal of the Used Fuel has already been paid for by the ratepayers. There are two charges on every kilowatt-hour sold. One for the Decommissioning Fund and one for permanent disposal of Used Fuel. By law the used fuel will become the responsibility of the government, and it will pay for the disposal with the money in the fund. But there is no place for the Used Fuel to go right now, thanks to Senator Reid and anti-nukes. So the plants have to pay for it in Dry Casks, and they want the money already paid back. Federal courts have supported this and a lot of money has already been given back to several plants.
The NRC will continue to regulate many aspects of the decommissioning work, particularly the radiological safety. They just don't approve the overall plan. The owners and contractors can break up concrete without NRC approval. ...(full comment)
Fourth-graders should NOT be placed in a middle school. This is a good decision, and it's rather unsettling to me to think that at some point, someone thought it was a good idea to put these children in a population of kids at a significantly different developmental stage.
What still worries me a lot is that the Newton Street School serves, arguably, the greatest population of at-risk students; by that, I mean the pupils coming in from the nearby homeless hotels, who are already suffering from transience and disruptions in, or absence of, what most of us would consider to be a normal childhood.
If this town is going to continue to house this large homeless population, we need to take a much savvier approach to placing at-risk children. Those hotels are forcing kids to grow up too fast, and not in a good way. Placing them in middle school too early is just asking for trouble. ...(full comment)