Saturday Morning email from State rep Harry Arora about increases in electricity and natural gas prices

Submitted by mynameisnotshamus t3_yzel4r in Connecticut

Dear friend,

Eversource and UI announced that electric supply rates would be up nearly 50% for the first six months of 2023. Click HERE to read the Eversource press release. Natural gas prices for home heating have also increased by 25% in the last month and are expected to go up further. Below are the reasons behind the increases and the measures needed to protect our constituents.

Natural gas price spike is the driver behind these price spikes: Over half of all electricity in CT is produced using natural gas. As natural gas prices spike, electricity prices follow. There is a one-to-one linkage between natural gas and electricity prices.

CT Natural gas prices are spiking because of a lack of pipeline capacity: We have abundant natural gas production in Texas, Pennsylvania, and other states in the United States. The PA shale reserves (Marcellus natural gas deposits) are among the world's largest. Please click HERE to see a graphic showing the shale deposits and the pipelines which move the natural gas to our state. However, there needs to be more pipeline capacity to transport natural gas from the gas fields in Pennsylvania and Texas to Connecticut during winter high-demand months.

Winter price spikes due to reliance on global gas: During summer months, when demand is lower, and there is enough pipeline capacity, natural gas prices in CT and PA are about the same - around $6 per MMBtu. However, in the upcoming winter months, prices in PA will continue to be around $6 per MMBtu, but prices in CT are $25 per MMBtu - an increase of 400%. In winter, the only source of additional natural gas in CT is the global LNG market, which is priced at $40 per MMBtu. Since the pipe capacity is sufficient for summer demand, prices will return to normal in the summer.

Why have we not built additional pipeline capacity? The industry has proposed several pipeline projects to bring natural gas into CT, RI, and MA. Click HERE to see the list of these projects. These projects have been opposed by many in the legislature and administration who are against investing in ANY hydrocarbon related project. These projects would be funded by the private sector and do NOT require any public funds; they require regulatory approvals. Due to the lack of government support, CT consumers will pay $1.5 billion in higher costs this winter; without such projects, spikes will continue for a decade.

Strategies to help residents manage this energy crisis: We must address this crisis in the short and long terms. There are three strategies to help residents in our state navigate this crisis: We need to find some immediate relief for consumers. The General Assembly will have a special session next week to discuss energy prices. We must provide consumers with information and resources to improve efficiency and reduce usage. The legislature and administration need to work with the industry to approve the pipeline required to address the structural bottleneck.

Please email me to provide your input on this issue.

Sincerely,

Harry Arora State Representative Member - Energy & Technology committee

88

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

HubcapMotors t1_iwzu29f wrote

Has Arora, a former Enron employee, also former employee of Amaranth Capital (a fossil fuel hedge fund sued for manipulating gas prices), ever voted to increase the electric capacity through green, renewable energy?

97

[deleted] t1_ix041re wrote

[deleted]

17

HubcapMotors t1_ix0ezcj wrote

I don't see how the Democrat's failure to invest more in green energy absolves Arora of being a fossil fuel profiteer or not pursuing green energy-friendly policies himself.

Democrats being useless doesn't make Arora any less unreliable.

41

Savings_Statement735 t1_ix0ozmw wrote

The Green Infrastructure is Coming. It is a huge part of the Infrastructure Bill the Democrats in Washington passed this year with ZERO support from Republicans. We would have passed it 10 years ago and we'd be benefitting now except for the Republican Party. This isn't even Trumps fault. It is totally on the Republicans. But I bet the Republican House in DC won't lift a finger to fix what they did to us.

24

Myotherside t1_ix18zo3 wrote

LOL you think Dems have actually tried and aren’t just the heel?

−10

[deleted] t1_ix1kwb0 wrote

[deleted]

6

Savings_Statement735 t1_ix1vu6a wrote

It's true that for the last two decades or so the Democrats at the National level have tried very unsuccessfully to work with their Republican counterparts to get things done with bipartisanship and only in the last 2 or 3 years as a collective realized bipartisanship died in the Republican Party when Reagan had lost it to Dementia in his 2nd year. My Father a hard core conservative & Reaganite said as Reagan first midterm was approaching that "the man's mind had left the White House from Dementia and that he'd vote for the Libertarian Candidate in 1984 and did.

2

Language-Aromatic t1_ix21shz wrote

Remember when the obstructionists opposed Obama every chance they had?

4

Savings_Statement735 t1_ix23f4n wrote

Its basically been that way since Reagan. Bill Clinton couldn't get any traction on addressing Healthcare or Minority Rights or Voting Rights, DACA. Anything he tried to do they said NO, ITS AGAINST STRAIGHT WHITE FASCIST VALUES.

4

VHPDingBat t1_ix2k8hf wrote

You sound mentally ill.

−2

Myotherside t1_ix3ltiu wrote

Partisan political narratives are indistinguishable from mental illness

1

Myotherside t1_ix3lk3u wrote

“Bipartisanship” is just excuses for inaction. Look at most bipartisan legislation and you will usually find Republican legislation with more agreeable social language.

1

Myotherside t1_ix3le98 wrote

So you agree with me, but your phrasing was very partisan. Maybe drop the partisan language because you comment comes off as a partisan attack instead of being a serious comment.

Also LOL at the downvotes who think Dems are the answer to anything other than “the choice that isn’t R”

In your comment you also suggest that generation through non fossil fuel means is not possible, because if it was going to get done Dems would do it, which is absolutely laughable if you have anything beyond a surface-level understanding of politics.

1

[deleted] t1_ix3yost wrote

[deleted]

1

Myotherside t1_ixbcz7a wrote

You’re missing the point. Your phrasing suggested that because Dems has a majority that they actually tried and therefore sustainable energy is not possible (implying that we should then relent and build more pipelines).

I see the chameleon act though. This is not your first goalpost moving session

1

youngestalma t1_iwzv322 wrote

The long term solution is not more fossil fuel infrastructure that will quickly become sunk costs that we will all pay for, but rather accelerating efficiency/conservation, offshore wind, solar, nuclear, and transmission lines from Canada for more hydro. That is a long term solution with virtually no fuel cost volatility which will make it cheaper than continuing to rely on high cost gas resources.

53

[deleted] t1_iwzwrb8 wrote

This whole post is the problem that we face on a daily basis: total disregard for long term sustainability and cost. Everyone looks at the short term problems and looks for short term solutions (pension funds, twitter, basically any company cutting headcount right now). We need to be working towards long term stability. Is it painful right now? Absolutely. Eversource should be cutting into their profits if it is this bad.

Fossil fuel infrastructure is expensive AF to maintain. Nuclear is not hugely different but is a better stop gap towards fully renewable energy generation. There are problems with waste disposal BUT if it is used as a filler while the 15-20 year plans are worked out, then fine.

27

Myotherside t1_ix3n3pb wrote

Considering the billion dollars in extra money we are spending, it seems like we could have our own dedicated LNG tanker/local storage facility that does nothing but transport gas from TX/LA export terminals straight to us.

But that wouldn’t provide a long term infrastructure advantage for oil companies to use to prevent competition from renewables, so we know where that idea will go.

1

mynameisnotshamus OP t1_iwzyw0j wrote

You kinda need to work on both simultaneously though. Near term and future.

4

youngestalma t1_ix0dinu wrote

Yeah but building a pipeline for more gas is going to take longer than anything on my list except maybe new nuclear. It’s not like we can increase gas supply in the next few years outside of more LNG imports which is a big part of the problem right now.

14

UnfairAd7220 t1_ix2cytu wrote

Take the Iroquois line. Now...

Let NY figure it out.

−1

1Enthusiast t1_iwzvzfg wrote

It won’t matter if we all freeze to death because of a complete lack of another viable solution today 😂

2

apothecarynow t1_iwzi272 wrote

Do I just not do math right? but isn't it a 100% increase to go from 0.12 to 0.24 (which is what I thought was proposed). Everyone keeps saying 50%

37

Fearless-Mix4663 t1_iwzkia8 wrote

Yes 100% increase in supply which is half the bill pretty much. No increase in delivery which is the other half. So 50% increase in your total bill.

39

CT_curler t1_iwzwe83 wrote

You are correct. I think they're just sugarcoating it to make it sound like less. It will be about a 50% increase in the overall bill, which includes the delivery rate. Hawever, they keep saying it's a 50% increase in the supply rate, which just isn't true. It's a 100% increase in the supply rate.

4

eddie964 t1_ix01nom wrote

It's a 100% increase in the supply rate, but supply is only about half of a typical bill. So it would be about a 50% increase on a total bill basis.

3

adultdaycare81 t1_iwzljoc wrote

We tried to build one years ago. Mass and NH stoped it.

https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-ct-cancels-natural-gas-projects-20161027-story.html

36

_343_Guilty_Spark__ t1_ix1bl91 wrote

Lmao I love how this has been posted time and time again and we STILL get the usual village idiots in this sub saying “CT DeMoCrAtS dId ThIs” despite the fact that they voted in favor of it

17

Savings_Statement735 t1_ix5kofh wrote

You are arguing for less efficient, more expensive and more polluting infrastructure which is obsolete instead of the better cheaper way to go. And that is what the RePubLiCaNS want. The payoffs for the RePubLiCaN Office Holders, like Mr Arora.

1

xp9876_ t1_ix0gsu8 wrote

Every time our natural gas issues are raised I think of all the people that were laid off where I used to work because the gas pipeline projects we were working on were canceled.

7

Eincville t1_ix1dmla wrote

How would Mass and NH get in the way of a pipeline from Pa to Ct?

5

psyco-the-rapist t1_ix1ijqv wrote

My uneducated guess would be because they needed the pipeline gas sales in MA and NH to make it return enough money. I'm sure someone much smarter will chime in.

10

UnfairAd7220 t1_ix2cfqd wrote

The NH market has been restricted since the enviroloons blocked gas grid expansion. MA's market is much bigger.

The value is in widespread availability of cheap and plentiful gas.

Here in NH, we have the only coal plant in New England in Bow. If that could have access to gas, the whole region would be better off.

2

UnfairAd7220 t1_ix2c7l5 wrote

NY state is the barrier. They won't let pipelines cross the state.

CT should cork the Iroquois line crossing the Sound and send it to Mystic.

ISO NE powers all of NE from Caribou ME, to Greenwich CT. From Burlington VT to Nantucket MA.

Every watt generated in every NE state benefits all NE states.

4

xx-BrokenRice-xx t1_ix43le4 wrote

I’m assuming you are working in the industry since you are dead on with NY. I just posted the same thing. Unfortunately unless people do something with that state, bottleneck will forever to be there. They’ve screwed their own NY resident, and everyone else down the line are just collateral damage to them.

1

[deleted] t1_ix1za0o wrote

[deleted]

3

UnfairAd7220 t1_ix2crge wrote

It's the same thing. What customer would like to carry risk if a regulator said that they didn't have to.
That adds a whole layer of risk to the transaction.

'He did not oppose the pipeline itself' was a bad decision...

1

[deleted] t1_ix2g35f wrote

[deleted]

3

UnfairAd7220 t1_ix2hzn5 wrote

Yep. I remember it all.

All Eversource had to do was be more forthcoming.. 'Stranded cost recovery' was when the NH grid contribution was shaking itself apart for no particular reason other than politics.

1

mynameisnotshamus OP t1_iwzfu0s wrote

I found this bit interesting

“Why have we not built additional pipeline capacity? The industry has proposed several pipeline projects to bring natural gas into CT, RI, and MA. Click HERE to see the list of these projects. These projects have been opposed by many in the legislature and administration who are against investing in ANY hydrocarbon related project. These projects would be funded by the private sector and do NOT require any public funds; they require regulatory approvals. Due to the lack of government support, CT consumers will pay $1.5 billion in higher costs this winter; without such projects, spikes will continue for a decade.”

Like most things, there is probably more to the story. I thought it was great that he sent something out addressing concerns though. I haven’t heard much from others.

11

psu1989 t1_iwzm4le wrote

The real question is why is our power coming from fossil fuels? Why is the nuke plant not running a full capacity? Follow the money.

30

Synapse82 t1_iwzp4q1 wrote

> The real question is why is our power coming from fossil fuels? Why is the nuke plant not running a full capacity? Follow the money.

Pretty much it right here, clean efficient energy source we keep trying to shut down.

22

uterinejellyfish t1_ix008mh wrote

Nuclear, solar, wind, etc. All seem to be ignored in the US in general. I don't get it but it seems to be people against it just because it's green and they want to keep burning oil for no good reason.

8

Synapse82 t1_ix00tam wrote

Unfortunately, it’s the same wind\solar green industry that tries to squash nuclear. Because it isn’t a money maker. So its really an overall poor situation for such a powerful source of energy.

9

uterinejellyfish t1_ix01amn wrote

It's also unfortunate that we have private energy in the US. If it was state owned and only made enough money to keep it running and a little on top for expansion it would be a lot cheaper because decisions would be made based on what's best for the population

7

chair_caner t1_ix0xxd7 wrote

Exactly. Follow the money. But it's simpler than you think.

Power costs a certain amount per megawatt, depending on the source. Until recently, natural gas has been the cheapest source. The grid (ISONE) bids for the lowest cost to generate electricity in the day-ahead and real-time market. If it costs more to make the electricity than you earn, plants will not deliver to the grid. When demand, and therefore prices, rise, different fuels turn on to meet the demand. They won't run just because they feel like it. They need to cover their costs. Thank deregulation for that maneuver.

That's what killed coal and half of our nukes. Cheap gas. Also keep in mind that I can burn gas at my house at 80% or 95% efficiency (stove/furnace or condensing gas boiler). A power plant using gas is best case 50% efficient. So tell me how the pipeline wasn't a better environmental option.

Going green: Solar and wind rely on batteries to feed consistently to the grid. There are "virtual power plants" that use the solar batteries in your homes to deliver a controllable amount of power back to the grid, coordinated between the battery supplier (Tesla, etc) and ISO. It's a combination of residential and commercial projects that contribute. So do your part and get panels for your house.

3

psu1989 t1_ix1axtz wrote

Not sure I follow. If the price of nat gas is up and expected to go up, then why not turn the knob up on nuclear?

2

6byfour t1_ix20evz wrote

That nob takes 20 years to turn

2

psu1989 t1_ix283lb wrote

I see Millstone nuke plant runs at about 70% capacity.

1

NKevros t1_iwzjsx4 wrote

Republicans love to build pipelines and assume they will solve all issues.

15

mercurywaxing t1_iwzmmii wrote

“Just add another lane to the highway. That will solve it.”

8

chrisexv6 t1_ix058sw wrote

"Just print more money, that will solve it"

4

BoomkinBeaks t1_iwzkx08 wrote

And many of those projects are opposed by the people that live in the towns where the pipeline is supposed to go. Nimby

5

RunnyDischarge t1_iwzl801 wrote

Came here to find the inevitable NIMBY post.

5

BoomkinBeaks t1_iwzmapt wrote

You know if they tried to run one through your back yard, you’d go full Karen.

7

RunnyDischarge t1_iwzmqg6 wrote

Rule 109: No Reddit post on politics and public policy shall proceed more than 10 posts without the proclamation of NIMBY.

1

BoomkinBeaks t1_iwzn2qr wrote

Fine. Both things are annoying, but both are also true.

7

Spooky2000 t1_ix03hrb wrote

>The decision appears to be a significant setback for Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's push to expand the use of natural gas by Connecticut power generating facilities. Malloy's administration has been touting natural gas as a cleaner, less expensive alternative to other fossil fuels, and a way to insure reliability in New England's energy system.

Yeah, all those evil republicans in Malloy's administration...

4

Myotherside t1_ix3pwzq wrote

It’s silly to think that having a blue tie keeps one from having red policies

1

1234nameuser t1_iwzqtq5 wrote

To be fair, a hell of a lot people have been killed needlessly because some hypocrites would rather oil be moved by rail.

−5

GoPikachuGo1 t1_iwzi9ba wrote

I was lead to believe the energy crisis was caused by putin and Trump, not the democrats who refuse to build a pipeline.

I'm shocked, I tell you, SHOCKED!

7

blumpkinmania t1_ix03ax1 wrote

Imagine a repub from Texas wants to build a pipeline and has zero other proposals.

2

chrisexv6 t1_ix05gse wrote

Cue the Biden "we aren't disallowing new drilling" quote.

They are just making it outrageously expensive and full of red tape.

−1

Warpedme t1_ix16kvp wrote

As they should for a dirty, outdated, polluting technology that there are MUCH better alternatives for. Hell, just spinning up our nuclear plant past 50% would solve this exact problem without building anything or increasing pollution. Our government should be subsidizing clean energy generation and doing everything in their power to move away from dirty fossil fuels.

3

chrisexv6 t1_ix16xq7 wrote

Maybe.

But to sit there and claim you aren't getting in the way is a little much.

Much better alternatives? That all use some form of polluting to produce the products that generate the electricity? Wait until we have massive landfills of solar panels that don't biodegrade.

I do agree on nuclear though, and the fact it isn't used more is most likely because it would fix this issue.

−1

Myotherside t1_ix3pi7q wrote

It reads like a Republican screed from (take your pick of any red state).

Shills gonna shill.

1

thosmarvin t1_ix06nuk wrote

Pipelines wont get built if the price goes down. Storage is the prudent price leveler, but this does not suit money gouging unregulated utilities. This is just more extortion from old rich white men using politicians as proxies.

It is not demonizing fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are a demon. If you don’t think so, cook on your gas grill in you closed garage while you run your car for heat.

9

[deleted] t1_ix20098 wrote

[deleted]

1

Myotherside t1_ix3meya wrote

Utilities with a performative, captured regulatory structure

1

[deleted] t1_ix5byqn wrote

[deleted]

1

Myotherside t1_ixbbz7w wrote

That’s bait. No thanks.

1

[deleted] t1_ixbdh3q wrote

[deleted]

1

Myotherside t1_ixbgah0 wrote

You’re not engaging honestly so I don’t feel I owe you a response

1

kesagatame-and-Chill t1_ix06gbs wrote

I love how this dude just copied and pasted his party's talking points. A real man of the people.

8

[deleted] t1_ix1zsvp wrote

[deleted]

2

Myotherside t1_ix3mhi4 wrote

I’m gonna guess: a real answer and not shilling fossil fuel company talking points?

1

[deleted] t1_ix4y61o wrote

[deleted]

1

realbusabusa t1_ix045ge wrote

Build the pipelines, have it go all the way to Everett MA and convert that LNG import terminal into an export terminal. Send LNG to our allies in Europe, use the proceeds to pay for the infrastructure. Lower rates for New England, energy security for Europe, middle finger to oligarchs and despots.

6

UnfairAd7220 t1_ix2d4yw wrote

Everett MA is the regional LNG import location when there isn't enough line supply, thanks to NY blocking new pipeline supply FROM reaching NE.

1

realbusabusa t1_ix3erhm wrote

Yes, this pipe dream is based on NY not screwing us over

1

hard-time-on-planet t1_ix0px1u wrote

> We have abundant natural gas production in Texas

Texas, for having all the supply it does, has a surprisingly large amount of issues in their grid. There was the 2021 Texas power crisis. But here's an article from this year.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/houston-electricity-prices-rise-centerpoint-17454279.php

> Twelve-month plans, which could cost 10 cents a kilowatt hour in 2021, are now at least 16.8 cents and as high as 25.4 cents in parts of Houston.

6

Soulpatch7 t1_ix0tijm wrote

this is fucked. it’ll mean a ~$220/month increase for my not-fancy ~2700 sq ft household of 3, which i’d guess is representative of many middle class families in ct. as a recently transplanted new yorker, man what i’d give for those central hudson bills we all screamed about.

5

G3Saint t1_iwzgw63 wrote

Partially true but electric and gas rates would of went up since ratepayers would ultimately pay for the upgrades and that was a sticking point. in the long run, it would of been a plus, cheaper, to have the expanded pipelines though.

4

Humbabwe t1_iwzocad wrote

I of never heard that opinion. Have course!

2

G3Saint t1_iwzuk9r wrote

It wasn't an opinion it was an actual problem that made the news. As a matter of fact it was one of the main reasons why Massachusetts officials nixed their pipeline expansion plans.

3

Humbabwe t1_iwzx4lt wrote

You mean it was one have the many reasons?

2

AdHistorical7107 t1_ix33knl wrote

If only there was some other way to heat our homes and generate electric....

If only.....

2

CT_Patriot t1_iwziamm wrote

People need to read November 7, 2022, letter from Interstate Natural Gas Association of America President and CEO Amy Andryszak to President Biden concerns this very issue.

1

_343_Guilty_Spark__ t1_ix1byja wrote

Are any of the people you mentioned the state reps in MA and NH who voted against the PA pipeline?

1

blueturtle00 t1_iwzvmsk wrote

What I don’t get is everyone who uses gas to heat uses the same amount regardless so how can they site pipe capacity if they aren’t actually running out thus making the price more?

1

gregra193 t1_ix0i63o wrote

Why have we not built pipeline capacity? The price of natural gas sucks. The price of oil sucks. New pipelines would be going backwards.

The price of renewables per kWh is falling every year. Maine has the lowest electric rates in New England currently— they have a high renewable requirement and import some Hydro power from Quebec as well.

“In 2021, 72% of Maine's total electricity net generation came from renewable energy, and hydroelectric power provided the largest share at 27%.”

“In 2021, Connecticut’s electric power sector used a record amount of natural gas, with natural gas fueling 55% of the state's total electricity net generation.”

Invest in renewables, not gas pipelines!

1

Big-Pond t1_ix16n82 wrote

That’s what you’re supposed to ask. This is a bullshit letter designed to drive business to the industry that financed mr Aroras campaign

4

Aildari t1_ix0pna4 wrote

In the article it says that private companies have been trying but cant get permits for them.

1

Myotherside t1_ix18gxx wrote

Can’t get permits for renewable projects? Or are they extorting us with high bay gas prices until we build a pipeline while refusing to invest in more sustainable alternatives?

1

Aildari t1_ix190oc wrote

That’s what the article said. Surrounding states won’t grant pipeline projects permits. The projects were all going to be built by private companies.

0

Myotherside t1_ix3mbs3 wrote

Try peeling the onion just a little bit beyond what the article is presenting you. Question why it is being presented that way. Ask yourself what options are being ignored in that narrative and why.

Or just say “that’s what the article says” and expect that to be the end of the critical though required on the subject.

0

[deleted] t1_ix1kfhn wrote

[deleted]

1

Agitated_Date2251 t1_ix284ct wrote

Isn’t natural gas traded on the global market? Are there really different prices for gas coming from PA?

Nevertheless, oil and gas prices are never stable. We need more renewables in the mix— stable, predictable prices.

2

Myotherside t1_ix3m289 wrote

Too bad, if you write your elected representatives they will just tell you that you’re going to continue being extorted unless you allow a nat gas pipeline and sustainable power options are ignored altogether.

1

Agitated_Date2251 t1_ix40p2c wrote

My local State Senator is an Attorney for Eversource. They has never passed a bill he wrote since 1993 when he was first elected. He won re-election with 57% of the vote. Stupid shithead! I obviously didn’t vote for him.

1

Big-Pond t1_ix16cmw wrote

It’s total bullshit. Anyone that can’t see this for what it is needs to reread it.

1

Beachi206 t1_ix3nqsy wrote

Who wants a pipeline in their neighborhood? The focus should be on renewable energies not investing in fossil fuel infrastructure…

1

xx-BrokenRice-xx t1_ix438ie wrote

Hey just letting folks know that the problem is NY. No pipeline can get to New England region without going through NY. They are so bought out by the environmental groups that they will not allow any new projects for the sake of being green, and fucking everyone else in the NE region.

1

splimp t1_ix3eqkh wrote

Excuses Excuses - Basically the same shit over and again. Our 'leaders' failing us miserably and the little guy gets screwed.

0

Dry-Specialist-2150 t1_ix12hw4 wrote

F-gas - what WE in northeast should develop is Geo Thermal

−1

mynameisnotshamus OP t1_ix17dky wrote

Do you know much about it? It’s more problematic than you’d think.

3

Dry-Specialist-2150 t1_ix27brk wrote

Just what I read- temperature of below ground 4 to 5 feet is a close to 40 degrees year round- add a heat pump to heat 40degrees to 70 is more efficient than burning oil or gas or wood for that matter- likewise in summer you get the reverse.

1

mynameisnotshamus OP t1_ix3a6xe wrote

Completely anecdotal but I’ve heard there are often a lot of maintenance nightmares. I’ve also heard It’s difficult and expensive to retrofit into existing buildings. It seems amazing if you can make it work. Again, These are just foggy memories that stuck in my brain so who knows where the truth on geothermal is. If building new, I’d look into it.

1

giant_toad42 t1_ix2bxl9 wrote

That's nice.

But we're talking about electricity not heating houses.

0

1Enthusiast t1_iwzvlxh wrote

Bullshit. Everyone was able to get their natural gas for the last however many years with no problem. The pipeline is not the issue the administration demonizing fossil fuels is

−9

bedpotato2019 t1_ix00u0y wrote

And companies taking advantage of the whole media frenzy about “lack of Russian natural gas” (which is a big problem in Europe, not the US). If supply wasn’t a problem for CT last year, it shouldn’t be a problem this year.. certainly not a double your supply price problem!

10

im_intj t1_ix08y2a wrote

Joe Biden didn't do nothing wrong ever ever. How dare you say anything critical of an 80 year old man's who is literally just one person! You should be ashamed of yourself in your MAGA hat!
/s

−7