Want a Pay Raise? Support the Pipeline!

PipelineBy Christine Morabito – December 2015

What we have is a problem of energy inequality.

In terms of energy costs, Massachusetts residents pay the highest prices in the nation – three to four times as much per kilowatt hour for electricity. We are so accustomed to paying this exorbitant amount, that we rarely question it. The fact is: our available energy has failed to meet the rising demand.

The solution is Kinder Morgan’s proposed Northeast Energy Direct Pipeline (NED). The plan calls for approximately 60 miles of pipeline to be constructed in Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire. The pipeline will deliver clean natural gas, which will also be used to generate electricity. An increased supply means much lower costs. It is estimated that the average New England household will save $437 per year.

We need energy for our most basic activities of daily living, like refrigeration, cooking, plumbing, lighting, heating and cooling our homes and businesses. Energy also allows us to communicate with the outside world through our computers, fax machines and smartphones, and find enjoyment through our big screen televisions, satellite dishes, and Xboxes.

This domestically obtained natural gas has the ability to make our region energy independent, reducing our need to import dirty fuels like coal and oil, often from foreign sources. That is supposed to be a good thing.

The pipeline, with its new, green and affordable energy, will attract new businesses and bring an economic boost to our region. A study by the Beacon Hill Institute has determined, “Lower energy cost would translate into investment in manufacturing where the high price of electricity and natural gas has long served as a barrier to growth. Thus, the increased availability of natural gas could sustain and increase the state’s competitive advantage.” An estimated 1,700 new jobs will be created during construction, increasing to 10,000 by 2020. That means increased local revenue for cities and towns for our roads, bridges and schools.

Some pipeline opponents would like you to believe that the project involves some radical, risky new endeavor. Actually, most of us all ready have pipelines that run from the street to our homes. We just never think about them, as they rarely pose a problem.

According to the American Gas Association, natural gas utilities spend $19 billion annually on safety measures for the more than 2 million miles of pipelines stretching across the country. Their website states: “According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, pipelines are the safest, most environmentally-friendly and most efficient and reliable mode of transporting natural gas.” The nation’s pipeline network is regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, requiring routine monitoring and inspections. Kinder Morgan claims to exceed the DOT’s requirements, performing inspections “at least 26 times a year by air, vehicle or foot.”

That said, nothing is ever 100 percent safe. Leaks and explosions do occasionally occur, most often as a result of carelessness that sometimes goes unreported. The challenge is educating the public about identifying gas leaks and the importance of calling “811” before digging – even if only planting a tree.

The debate over the pipeline has become highly politicized. We have the vocal, well-funded opposition vs. the silent majority (average ratepayers) who support the pipeline. Many local politicians are holding a finger to the wind; either avoiding the issue like the third rail, or afraid to publicly support it, even though it means a better quality of life for the majority of their constituents.

As with any new construction project, there is a strong Not in My Backyard (NIMBY) component. However, construction, scheduled to begin in 2017, is expected to have little overall impact and cause minimal disruption. The 36-inch pipeline, when installed, requires only 100 feet on either side, then 50 feet once completed. 85 percent of the land needed is in the public “right of way,” or in the path of existing pipelines, power lines or both.

Some landowners will be affected, and there is the perception that Kinder Morgan could have demonstrated more compassion towards those individuals. There are reports of residents receiving letters warning of legal consequences for failing to allow their properties to be surveyed. In the name of fairness, I will address this issue in a follow-up column.

National Grid Massachusetts has expressed their support for the pipeline due to its ability to alleviate high electricity prices and prepare us for future gas demands. Their statement follows: “National Grid believes in a balanced approach to the region’s energy challenges, including efficiency, new natural gas infrastructure, and renewable energy sources. Additional pipeline capacity is necessary to address long term demand for natural gas heating, and to bring additional supply to electricity to moderate exorbitant electricity prices. Customers in New England have been subjected to more than $7 billion in electricity price increases over the last three winters. A diverse portfolio of solutions is the best way to secure a cleaner, more affordable long-term energy future for all customers.”

To truly understand the power of the opposition, one must follow the money. Consider this: Warren Buffett owns tremendous stock in our railroads; rails that, incidentally, transport large amounts of coal and oil. As we reduce our dependence on dirty fuels and opt for cleaner, more affordable natural gas, Buffett and billionaires like him are seeing a reduction in profits. Hence, the 1 percent have put their wealth, power and influence into the demonization of natural gas.

Not a fan of the 1 percent? Can you think of a better way to make billionaires a little poorer and yourself a little richer?

Related Articles:

Massachusetts’ Electric Rates Soar

The Economic Impact on MA of the Proposed Northeast Energy Direct Pipeline

Robichaud: Ratepayers will pay price for AG’s eco agenda

The Warren Buffett War on US Pipelines

A brief history of federal pipeline safety laws

75 Responses to "Want a Pay Raise? Support the Pipeline!"

  1. Jane Palmer   December 19, 2015 at 4:55 PM

    Wow. I feel like I just experienced a flash back to when I was ignorant of the truth about “natural” gas! This article is filled with so many lies and omissions I am surprised it was allowed to be posted. If you are one who considers yourself one of Ms Morabito’s “silent majority” who support the pipeline, I say, get busy and do some research. You will find that this pipeline (as well as many others being proposed for the New England region) is not going to do all the things she promises. In fact, the only winners are the Kinder Morgans of the world. Not the public ratepayer.The opponents are not “well funded” they are people like me who once we find out how bad a project is, is unable to keep silent and let it be built.

  2. rawtorque   December 21, 2015 at 1:03 AM

    Many of the problems of gas transmission pipelines are self inflicted:


  3. Rob Douglas   December 22, 2015 at 9:18 AM

    Wow I can only assume that the author of this article Christine is on the take with Kinder Morgan, It should be entitled ‘Want a Pay Raise? Write an article supporting the pipeline and Kinder Morgan will grease your palm!’

    If Christine HAD done one shred of research before publishing this article, she could have told you that

    1.) The pipeline is grossly oversized so it can be used for an export pipeline to sell gas to Europe, who currently gets it’s natural gas from RUSSIA (Think US Economic sanctions to run Russia into a recession)

    2.) Once the gas can be sold to Europe, the price will go UP( Europe pays 3x the price for this same gas as New England) not down!

    3.) The $5,000,000.00 cost of the pipeline will be passed on to New England electric rate payers in the form of a ‘delivery fee’, so KM is trying to get US, yes you and me to pay for their export pipeline (or should I say pipeLIE)

    4.) KM Stock is down 75% in the past year!!! As a result they can no longer get financing, so they had to CUT their dividends to stockholders by 75%!! Now all the dividends AND the maintenance and safety money has to go to build the pipeline, sorry no more money to maintain the pipelines, they will have to rust till they explode…

    5.) If you wanted to pick a company to protect the safety of the gas pipeline through your town, would you pick a company that is in financial dire straits? Really? You think this is safe for the residents of New England? Think AGAIN!

    6.) Has anybody seen the price of fuel oil? I just filled up my tank at $1.28 per gallon! Who needs natural gas to heat your house when oil is $1.28 per gallon!

    7.) The KM pipeline will run directly through our town’s water well field (Lynnfield MA) and jeopardize the health and safety of our drinking water, as well as a dozen + more communities along the Ipswich River water shed, and KM does not care, they are jepordizing the health and safety of the citizens of New England for corporate greed,

    8.) Kinder Morgan is run by Richard Kinder, yes the same guy that left ENRON when the crap hit the fan. And the pied piper of Texas led investors out of Enron right into the next Bubble scam, Kinder Morgan, the stock is a scam!

  4. Christine Morabito   December 26, 2015 at 10:31 AM

    I expected some backlash about this piece, but to suggest that I am on the take is as laughable as it is insulting. As an Op-ed writer I take pride in the research I do. But, ultimately, the columns I write are my opinion. I have no vested interest in this project, except that I want affordable, clean, safe energy for myself and my fellow New Englanders. We deserve to pay the same prices paid by the rest of the country.

    • Donald McElreavy   December 29, 2015 at 8:20 PM

      Your “research” seems to come directly from the KinderMorgan website, Ms. Morabito. You should do some more research from sources other than the energy companies themselves. You are entitled to your opinion, but clearly you should be more well informed before publishing it.

    • Gina Rosati   December 29, 2015 at 8:51 PM

      So, Christine, who are YOU willing to sacrifice for potential lower rates which may or may not happen? The children of New Ipswich and Temple? Would you pay fair market value for a house near a 41HP compressor station? Would you let your children live near one? Go to school near one? Do you care about clean water? Clean air? Maybe you should extend your research to the health issues the people of Minisink, NY are experiencing with just a 12 HP compressor station. Kinder Morgan might think New Hampshire residents are backwoods hicks stupid enough to be seduced by lower rates, but most of us are smart enough to know you can’t drink or breathe money. You have no idea if the rates will be lower once a tariff is put on our electric bills, once this gas is exported to Canada along the Maritimes & Northeast pipeline, once Liberty Utilities shackles NH to a future of fossil fuels and the dirty methane that comes with it, when the rest of the world just met in Paris to talk about how to combat global warming. The gas leak near LA and the earthquakes in Oklahoma aren’t evidence enough for you that we have been lied to for years? “Natural gas” is not natural, it’s not clean, and it’s not safe. Why do you think Kinder Morgan is so desperate to run that pipeline through New England? It has nothing to do with New Englanders getting lower rates. It’s so they can make money. Plain and simple. If it sounds too good to be true, it is.

    • Ryan   January 3, 2016 at 10:57 PM

      You can only say that natural gas is “clean” if you ignore the entire exploration, production, transportation and distribution process. While natural gas burns cleaner at the source of ignition than other fossil fuels, that does not mean that it is “clean.” You have to consider the entire process of extracting that gas and getting it to market.

  5. Shauni   December 28, 2015 at 11:07 AM

    “Minimal destruction” “only 100 feet on either side” .. ?!!!! Do you know how much land ONLY 100 feet on either side is? That is the size of some people’s entire property.
    Anyway though, I personally don’t believe that the energy prices will go down and if they do, it will be very temporary. Also an insignificant amount of jobs for a limited amount of time does not wow me. I’m not a pessimist, but this pipeline plan is crazy, and I’m shocked to see such a strong proponent that isn’t being paid to be that.
    This article is shocking.
    I am guessing that the author’s backyard is not in the path of destruction.

  6. Christine Morabito   December 28, 2015 at 11:27 AM

    85 percent of the land needed is in the public “right of way,” or in the path of existing pipelines, power lines or both. There is a concept called the “greater good,” which applies perfectly to this situation. And prices will absolutely go down, just like they have all around the country once supply meets demand.

    • Daein   December 29, 2015 at 8:32 PM


      You’re article is classic of someone who only knows a small part of what’s going on. The pipeline will not be located in existing ROWs. 85% will be located NEXT to existing ROWs. It’s almost all completely greenfield. Electrochemistry prevents them from putting the pipeline too close to the high voltage line. They need an additional 100′ or so next to the existing lines to put the pipe in. Also that means 15% (like the part that will cross my property) is located next to nothing. Nothing except people’s homes and livelihoods.

      Also when you’re in a spot like me, where the greater good (which doesn’t actually exist when you look at the numbers) will take away everything you worked hard to earn and cost you personally half a million over your lifetime. You realize they are just stealing your hard earned wealth and giving it to billionaires a thousand miles away.

      The sad part is, this isn’t a “greater good” project. How could it be when the people who’re building it and can take your property away from you against your will can gain a direct benefit from that taking? This isn’t a highway, it’s a project proposed by private unelected individuals and the outcome is decided by unelected unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington. If you don’t like it what can you do? Complain to Kinder Morgan, or your local officials? What does it matter? One doesn’t care and the other doesn’t have the power to do anything!

      Don’t think you’re average person will save money because of this pipeline. In fact rates will increase. Why would that happen right? Firstly the gas pipeline Spectra is building will more than meet the current demand for New England before they even break ground for this one. Doesn’t seem to make sense right, more supply equals lower prices right? Well over supply is going to open the door for the several exportation projects that are in fact already the works. Once these projects come online we’ll have to compete with the higher prices in Europe and Asia. As a result the prices will go up! The LNG shippers are salivating over these pipelines and can’t wait to load that gas on ships to sell over seas.

      Lastly if you want to follow the money you’ll find rivers of it flowing out of Kinder Morgan’s pockets flowing into the accounts of politicians! Why? Because it’s cheaper to buy the reps than it is to pay stakeholders their fair share!

    • Shauni   January 2, 2016 at 4:33 PM

      Dear Christine,
      I am definitely not part of an organized opposition group that you mentioned. You were probably not referring to me, though.
      And I just wanted to add (i would have sooner but have been busy):

      While I do respect the time that you take to reply to the comments, I must say that I found the 85% quote to be so vague, that it is literally insulting to the intelligence of the reader. I just wanted to mention this since that vague statistic (I find it to be a faux statistic) was a reply to my comment. I haven’t read all of the other comments on here yet.

      I am going under the assumption that you just enjoy argument (not a diss- I just mean the art of debate), and were testing the waters with the audience.
      You seem far too intelligent to actually believe there to be anything worth saying in that 85% line- just had to mention.

    • Shauni   January 2, 2016 at 4:39 PM

      Forgot to add in my reply to your reply (lol)..
      Massachusetts is just an expensive place to live. If people don’t like that about it, maybe they should move. I actually find that to be one of it’s many appealing traits. Saving a few measly dollars per month isn’t worth ruining a lot of land, IMHO. A few extra pennies in your pocket at the end of the year is not worth it.

  7. Laura J Lynch   December 29, 2015 at 8:03 PM

    I am copying this message from my friend Pat Brady Martin…

    Did you know that when it comes to our high electricity rates in New England, it turns out that the we pay some of the highest utility fees in the nation?

    Here’s how it works out for residential ratepayers in NH:

    Transmission Fees: NH pays 117% more per KWh than the national average.
    Distribution Fees: NH pays 60% more per KWh than the national average
    Energy (actual electricity) NH pays 36% more per KWh than the national average. (It may be higher if you don’t buy from a competitive supplier, the PUC allows the utilities to build some expenses into the default rates they charge)

    Lo and behold, our utility fees are at least half the reason for our high prices! Did any of the studies that the utilities or Kinder Morgan commissioned mention that fact? The utilities have suckered us over and over again…most recently with the scrubber on the coal plant. I can’t believe the cheerleading to let them do it to us again!”

    Have the PUC and the Utility companies lower their transmission fees and utility fees and our bills will be lowered. You also did not mention the tariff that they want to put on our electric bills. The PUC from both Massachusetts and New Hampshire has already okayed this on our bill, the average household will be paying an extra $600 a year tariff. There is no savings.

    They are just screwing us..

  8. Nancy DeMarco   December 29, 2015 at 8:05 PM

    “85 percent of the land needed is in the public “right of way,” or in the path of existing pipelines, power lines or both.”

    Not true. Kinder Morgan has floated the concept of “co-location,” which means they follow existing right-of-ways. In reality, they are placing the pipeline far enough from these “energy corridors” as to require the taking of thousands of new acres by eminent domain.

    The concept of “greater good” is far from the truth here. There are 7 pipeline projects underway in this region. NED is the only one that requires a vast taking of land, both private land and conservation land – land set aside for the mitigation of projects such as this. How do you mitigate when the mitigation is taken from us?

    Lower prices? Look at your electric bill, and you’ll see that most of your high costs are for transmission, not for the product burned.

    Likening this high-pressure transmission line to the little pipes that supply homes and businesses shows a lack of understanding of the process. High pressure transmission lines such as this require compressor stations which are HUGE polluters. The emission of these compressor stations do not need to be disclosed, monitored, or mitigated as they are exempt from EPA oversight. People who live near them suffer from respiratory illness and miscarriages, not to mention the smaller issues of constant nosebleeds and rashes.

    With so many pipelines poised to serve this region, and with the Maritimes and Northeast pipeline poised to reverse direction, it is obvious that the NED pipeline is designed mainly for export. We host the damage, and we get nothing in return. If Kinder Morgan gets its way, ratepayers will cover the cost of construction, thus raising our rates for the next 30 years.

    It’s a bad idea. Do more research.

  9. Tyler   December 29, 2015 at 8:13 PM

    85% of the land needed is not in the existing right of way. If you had actually looked at the application with the maps you would have seen that this pipe installation involves making a brand new corridor next to the existing one which involves taking virgin ground from a majority of the landowners along the route. Also the existing right of ways in most cases are actually not public land but instead is private land which landowners pay taxes on.

  10. Jessica   December 29, 2015 at 8:31 PM

    >>85 percent of the land needed is in the public “right of way,” or in the path of existing pipelines, power lines or both.
    This is either an outright lie or shows a absolute total lack of understanding of how KM will aquire land for the pipeline. The truth is exactly zero percent of this pipeline will be located in the existing powerline ROW. KM wants you to believe this is where it will be located, but the fact is a pipeline cannot be located below high voltage powerlines! KM uses the term co-location and they want you to believe this means the pipeline will be located in the PowerLine ROW, but in reality they are going to use imminent domain to forcefully take “easements” on land owned by homeowners like you and me along the powerline ROW and bury this 30 inch 1000+ psi pipeline in people’s backyards! And last the last time I checked the only NH company currently subscribed to get gas from the pipeline is Liberty Utilities – a company that has an existing relationship with KM. Oh and they are only going to use 5 percent of the gas transported in this pipeline. The majority of this gas is headed overseas to eastern ports either in the US or Canada to be shipped overseas.

  11. Rich Morrissey   December 29, 2015 at 9:35 PM

    I question this comment “85 percent of the land needed is in the public “right of way,” or in the path of existing pipelines, power lines or both.” I was at a KM meeting in Merrimack a little while ago and they made it clear the path of the pipeline hasn’t been decided on yet, so I don’t know how they can claim this. The route they were proposing through Merrimack that night was being shown to town officials for the first time since they had adjusted it earlier in the day to not go through Fidelity or mall property. Also Christine I would like to have my energy cost go down $437 a year, can you show the math you used to arrive at that figure?

  12. Gina Rosati   December 29, 2015 at 9:38 PM

    I’m not sure where you get your information, Christine, but this: “The plan calls for approximately 60 miles of pipeline to be constructed in Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire” is wrong. The pipeline will travel through at least 70 miles of NH alone, but it’s hard to tell, because KM/TGP has switched the route so many times, we don’t know where it would ultimately end up if it’s approved. There are at least six different route options just through Merrimack.

    And your comment about “the greater good” is chilling. That tells me that for $437 a year, you are willing to sell out every man, woman and child who lives within 900 feet of this proposed pipeline.

    Some people care enough about humanity that they pay a little extra to buy fair-market-trade coffee. Over the past year, I’ve learned that all “natural” gas and oil comes at a price. Someone, somewhere, has lost something so we can have this energy. Maybe it was their home. Maybe it was their farm. Maybe it was their clean water or clean air or their health. Wildlife was destroyed or left homeless. There is no such thing as fair-market-trade fossil fuels. In the end, Christine, everyone loses.

    • Jack   January 5, 2016 at 10:25 PM

      So have you stopped driving your car ? Stopped cooking and heating with gas, or oil, or electric power ? Maybe stopped using all of your electronics because they need fossil fuels to provide power ? How about using candles instead of lights ? Do you use batteries,tires, gasoline, any plastics, maybe a bag or two ? I am sure that “fair trade coffee” found it’s it’s way to the coffee shop all by it’s lonesome and not on the back of a truck…..God forbid ! And just HOW is that coffee made ??? Oh my, using power AND then IT’S put into a paper cup that was once a tree with a plastic cover on top! The horror ! But that’s ok because it is YOUR coffee !

  13. Diane Varney-Parker   December 29, 2015 at 9:49 PM

    Christine, the right thing to do is to research more and then publish a more realistic article. Sadly the people who are near this project truly understand it because they/we have been researching it for a year or more. Yankee Magazine has a well written article at: http://digital.turn-page.com/i/613845-january-february-…/121 that is quite balanced. I also encourage you to check your own outside sources (not just KM’s info). Many of us thought the same as you initially and were able to research the details to see that the comments you are hearing in regards to your article are indeed true! If you really do take pride in your work do some more research and then publish your findings. It will be a service to yourself and to all the amazing people who have been fighting for New England. Knowledge is power for All of us New Englanders!

  14. Pat Brady Martin   December 30, 2015 at 12:46 AM

    “In terms of energy costs, Massachusetts residents pay the highest prices in the nation – three to four times as much per kilowatt hour for electricity.” Really? Compared with what…the national average, a particular state? Please provide references for this outrageous claim from a recognized database like the eia. If you got that figure from Kinder Morgan, you should know that they have made claims that New England uses 87% of all the home heating oil in the US. If you factcheck that, it turns out that the Northeast (which includes NY, NJ and PA) consumes 87%. In fact, NY and PA, with all their pipelines, cheap gas and wells, together consume more home heating oil than all six New England state combined! That is but one example. Please, do give us the reference for your claim about prices. In fact, for every 2.3 cents/KWh we spend on energy supply above the national average, we spend another .2.5 cents/KWh above the national average on utility costs for transmission and distribution charges. Funny how that didn’t come out in the studies commissioned by Kinder Morgan and the utilities. I can hardly wait to hear from you!

  15. Enviro Show   December 30, 2015 at 8:51 AM

    Whoa! Even someone from the so-called Tea Party should know that there is no “well-funded opposition” to the proposed KM fracked gas pipeline. Opposition is totally grassroots! Actually, why is any “former president of the Greater Boston Tea Party” shilling for a mega-corporation like KM?

  16. Christine Morabito   December 30, 2015 at 10:46 AM

    The organized commenting by the pipeline resistance group is so transparent. I recognize the use of personal attacks and canned talking points. An important lesson I learned from Debate 101: When you resort to personal attacks, you’ve already lost the debate.

    • Nancy DeMarco   December 30, 2015 at 11:06 AM

      “The organized commenting by the pipeline resistance group is so transparent. I recognize the use of personal attacks and canned talking points. An important lesson I learned from Debate 101: When you resort to personal attacks, you’ve already lost the debate.”

      I find it sad that you are so invested in your misinformation that you refuse to do hard research, refuse to consider that you may be wrong, and you seek to marginalize and condemn those who have done just that.

    • Pat Brady Martin   December 30, 2015 at 11:52 AM

      Nice attempt to deflect attention from questions about your references for the claim that we pay 3 to 4 times higher electricity prices than….? It was NOT a personal attack. It is a legitimate question. Please answer the question. While you’re at it, please give us the calculations being used to come up with that $437 savings per year on our electric bills that Gina Rosati mentioned. From what I can tell, Kinder Morgan used the difference in money spent in the mild winter of 2011-2012 versus the expense of the much colder winter of 2013-2014 to come up with the potential “savings” and then divided that by the number of households in New England. Two problems with that. 1.) Households or residential customers only use 40% of the electricity consumed in New England and 2.) 2011-2012 had 20% fewer degree days than average and 2013-2014 had 10% more degree days than average, so the basis for the savings is what… weather conditions?
      If we are organized, it’s because we don’t have the money to spend on advertising in all the local tv markets, buying politicians, and hiring an army of lawyers. Kinder Morgan is spending the dividend payments of its shareholders to ram this monstrosity through our communities. We have no such revenue source of other people’s money and have to pay out of our own pockets and hold fundraisers to hire lawyers. Our Governor in NH made sure that the Office of Consumer Advocate litigator who agreed with us was not reappointed. Most of us have lost nearly two years of our lives to this battle for our land and our children’s future. We’ve walked through our holidays, family vacations, and celebrations we should’ve enjoyed with this cloud over our heads. We will never get that time back and we blame Kinder Morgan and our elected leaders for putting us through this. Please don’t insult us further by refusing to back up the financial claims you make with actual data.

    • Gina Rosati   December 30, 2015 at 3:15 PM

      “The organized commenting by the pipeline resistance group is so transparent. I recognize the use of personal attacks and canned talking points. An important lesson I learned from Debate 101: When you resort to personal attacks, you’ve already lost the debate.”

      So what you’re saying by resorting to your above quoted personal attack on anyone who opposes the NED pipeline is that you’ve already lost this debate.

    • Daein   December 30, 2015 at 4:58 PM

      Yes we are organized, but we’re self organized, and completely unpaid. Unlike KM who is trying to buy their loyalty. If we say “you don’t seem to understand the facts” or some paraphrase thereof. It’s not a personal attack, we’re just trying to inform you your information is incorrect. If anyone does get “paid” by the opposition it’s for legal help or for an environmental scientist and it’s funded by local donations and bake sales. It’s about as grassroots as it gets!

  17. Christine Morabito   December 30, 2015 at 11:36 AM

    An interactive comparison chart of energy costs around the country: http://energy.gov/articles/how-much-do-you-spend

    • Pat Brady Martin   December 30, 2015 at 12:33 PM

      Is this interactive chart your response to my question about where you get the 3 to 4 times electricity rates? Did you actually look at it? It includes ALL energy expenditures and the main reason that ME, VT, and NH pay more is because of transportation costs! The pipelines won’t help that issue at all. $3052 is the US average. MA pays $2938. How is that 3 or 4 times higher? This map is also based on 2012 prices. With oil prices so low right now, I bet that map would look a lot different nearly 4 years later.
      If this is not your response, please do point me to where I can verify that Massachusetts pays 3 to 4 times the electric rates of…(again, national average or some state?). The lowest electric rates in the country are in Washington State where most of their electricity is generated by hydropower…not fracked gas. Even there, the rates are not 1/3 or 1/4th the Massachusetts rate.
      From the article, “On the other hand, residential energy expenditure per person (see map below) is much higher in these states than in the rest of the country. This is likely because retail electricity prices are on average 3 to 5 c/kWh more expensive in New England and the Middle Atlantic than in the rest of the country. ” Note that 2.5 cents can be attributed to the higher utility charges for transmission and distribution. In any case, 3 to 5 cents higher is still not 3 to 4 times the rate of the national average or any other state.
      Please also note this paragraph from the article, “Still, when we compare residential spending with transportation spending, we see that transportation spending mirrors — or perhaps drives — the total energy expenditure much more directly than residential energy expenditure.

      In fact, the graph of historical energy expenditure in states with a heavy reliance on driving is essentially a graph of the changes in gas prices. We see a spending spike in 1981 when gas prices were very high, just like we see a decrease in spending in the mid 1990s when gas prices were stable and remarkably low.”

  18. Jay Williams   December 30, 2015 at 12:09 PM

    The world is flat. The sun revolves around the earth. At one time these were universally accepted facts. Those who challenged them were reviled, persecuted, demonized and, in some cases, killed — by those who were so afraid of change or too vested in the status quo to accept a different way of thinking. The same fear of change and investment in the status quo now hold sway in the minds of the many for whom Ms. Moribito speaks, in both this and other articles she has written. For them, there is great comfort in holding onto the notions that we can pollute the environment with impunity, large corporations always have the public’s best interests at heart, and global warming is a made-up myth. It’s simply too terrifying and overwhelming to consider a different point of view, no matter the evidence at hand. But let us not demonize Ms. Morbito or the others for whom she speaks. That won’t accomplish anything, except to entrench their positions. How to deal with this mindset? I wish I knew. There’s a lot of hard work in front of us.

  19. Carolee dalton   December 30, 2015 at 12:43 PM

    Ok you gave your positive spin on the pipeline without educating yourself first. Now do some research on the negative side and report a balanced story based on real facts. I think you will find that the good does not outweigh the bad and see the flaws in your first story. You aren’t really much of a reporter when your info is wrong, like the number of miles it will cover, and you don’t tell the whole story.

  20. Person   December 30, 2015 at 8:40 PM

    Lies lies lies

  21. Christine Morabito   December 31, 2015 at 6:06 AM

    It’s a shame some people don’t think for themselves and are content to blindly accept all the anti-fossil fuel propaganda out there. Luckily, these smear and scare tactics don’t work on most people. They understand that it would be impossible to live in our modern society without those “evil” fossil fuels. I find it so interesting that there is this amount of organized opposition to an opinion piece. I am NOT writing here as a reporter. I’m an Op-ed writer.

    • Nancy DeMarco   December 31, 2015 at 8:14 AM

      “It’s a shame some people don’t think for themselves and are content to blindly accept all the anti-fossil fuel propaganda out there. Luckily, these smear and scare tactics don’t work on most people. They understand that it would be impossible to live in our modern society without those “evil” fossil fuels. I find it so interesting that there is this amount of organized opposition to an opinion piece. I am NOT writing here as a reporter. I’m an Op-ed writer.”

      It’s a shame that this Op-ed writer feels no obligation to research and print truth, instead claiming this is just her opinion and thus free from the constraints of pesky facts.

      In a time when even Exxon has admitted that climate change due to human activity is real and devastating, has admitted that they covered up this information while leading a smear campaign against anyone who spoke the truth, why should we blindly saddle this region with debt, spending billions on more fossil fuel infrastructure, when we could instead invest in a cleaner future for our children?

      It’s our money they seek to take. We choose to spend it more wisely.

      • Christine Morabito   December 31, 2015 at 11:14 AM

        Thank goodness climate change alarmism is a minority opinion, and becoming more so every day.

        • Pat Brady Martin   December 31, 2015 at 12:24 PM

          Do you have a reference for your assertion that fewer people believe that climate change is an urgent problem? “Over the past few years, American perceptions that global warming is currently or will soon have dangerous impacts on people around the world have increased significantly. This survey found that 48 percent of Americans believed that global warming is already having dangerous impacts on people (30%) or will within the next ten years (18%): a 20 percentage point increase since the question was last asked in a nationally representative survey in June, 2004. Surprisingly, a large majority of Americans (62%) believed that global warming is an urgent threat requiring immediate and drastic action.” – See more at: http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/american-opinions-on-global-warming-a-yale-gallup-clearvision-poll#sthash.AnzU282I.dpuf

        • Pat Brady Martin   December 31, 2015 at 12:31 PM

          Please offer a reference for your assertion that MORE people are denying climate change. The polls I referenced state exactly the opposite. “Over the past few years, American perceptions that global warming is currently or will soon have dangerous impacts on people around the world have increased significantly. This survey found that 48 percent of Americans believed that global warming is already having dangerous impacts on people (30%) or will within the next ten years (18%): a 20 percentage point increase since the question was last asked in a nationally representative survey in June, 2004. Surprisingly, a large majority of Americans (62%) believed that global warming is an urgent threat requiring immediate and drastic action.” – This is from a Yale/Gallup Poll in 2014

        • Jack   January 5, 2016 at 9:47 PM

          I agree. After reading a lot of these comments, I too became scared to death of a new pipeline project. Then I woke up out of the haze. Seems so many people are screaming about being “green” and using ” alternative energy”.

          Hmmmm, anyone ever see how much OIL is used in a large windmill turbine ? Could be as much as 200 gallons. Oops ! Anyone ever see how these huge windmills get transported ? By a truck that uses fossil fuel to move, rubber tires to ride on, and oil to lubricate the engine. All from fossil fuels folks. Never mind the actual manufacturing of these windmills. How about the fact that without federal subsidies, the energy wouldn’t be cost effective ?

          I imagine many people commenting here ride their bikes to work, use a wood flame to cook their food on, and use the same flames to heat their homes. Never mind the fact that EVERYTHING you come into contact with has some needed connection to fossil fuels. That’s simple to figure out if you wish too.

    • Pat Brady Martin   December 31, 2015 at 11:26 AM

      Who said anything about “evil” fossil fuels? We challenged your “facts,” you can’t back them up, and your response is to try to paint us as unrealistic and emotional? Did you just make up that bit about Massachusetts paying 3 to 4 times more for electricity (than…you still haven’t answered which state or national average?) or was that “statistic” provided to you as a talking point?
      It’s really insulting to waste people’s time (even on an Op-Ed) if you are just going to throw a word salad at us and “statistics” that can’t be referenced. Reminds me of Governor Hassan’s early talking point about how the pipelines will aid fuel diversity. What? We’re over-reliant on natural gas at nearly 50% of generation and she tries to redefine diversity to mean doubling down on a single fuel source?
      We all understand that we’ll be dependent on fossil fuels for many years to come, but just like a diet or an exercise program, we need to start transitioning away from them now. We start by not allowing such a massive overbuild of fossil fuel infrastructure that will tie us up financially for the next 20 years.
      Your real problem is not that we’re “organized.” Your real issue with us is that you didn’t expect us to be smart or well-informed. You have badly underestimated us, Ms Morabito! The people of New England are some of the smartest and best educated people in the country. Please show a little respect.

    • Pat Brady Martin   December 31, 2015 at 11:31 AM

      Ask the people of Missouri how they feel about climate change. I wonder if they consider it “alarmism?”

    • Gina Rosati   December 31, 2015 at 12:05 PM

      Until you purchase a home at fair market value along the proposed NED pipeline route, particularly near the New Ipswich 41HP compressor station, move into it, then give up your land for what you call “the greater good”, your opinion in support of NED is garbage to me, Christine.

  22. Christine Morabito   December 31, 2015 at 12:07 PM

    “Ask the people of Missouri how they feel about climate change.” Oh, please tell me you’re not serious … ’cause we never had floods before …

  23. Mike McGuire   December 31, 2015 at 12:50 PM

    Dear Christine,

    Isn’t the taking of land through eminent domain for a private company’s interest against tea party principles?

    The taking of an individual’s property is flatly un-american. The privilege of taking personal property by eminent domain is reserved for the federal government, not Kinder Morgan, a private company.

    Can’t they buy people out the old fashioned way? Recall that lone hold-out on Donald Trump’s casino parking lot in Atlantic City NJ. They had to build the parking lot around the house, because they were not given the right to take it outright, and the owner of the property said, ‘No’. Things are changing in the US now, and in my belief, because of this recent trend, not for the better.

    I wonder how the founding fathers (the same group that held the Boston Tea Party) would regard this private company project, in which they are seizing our property, and that we are forced to pay for?

    By The Way, did you ever take a close look at Kinder Morgan?
    To do so, you need to study Enron first, since Richard Kinder was president of Enron for 16 years through most of 1996. Enron was arguably the most corrupt company in the last 50 years of history. (Personally, I think Google deserves a jab, but that is immaterial to this argument.) Enron executives were jailed when their deceit was exposed in 2001. Tens of thousands of people lost wages when the unnecessary black-outs they orchestrated pulled the plug on their work days.


    Richard Kinder left Enron at the right time, and must not have been involved with those scandals. However, just by his association with Enron, and the depth of their crime, it is personally difficult for me to implicitly trust KM.


    ENRON Scandal Summary: Fraudulent Energy Crisis

    In the year 2000, subsequent to the discovery of the crimes listed in the above ENRON Scandal Summary, ENRON had announced that there was a critical circumstance within California with regard to the supply of Natural Gas. Due to the fact the ENRON was a then-widely respected corporation, the general populace were not wary about the validity of these statements.

    However, upon retroactive review, many historians and economists suspect that the ENRON executives manufactured this crisis in preparation of the discovery of the fraud they had committed – ….”

    Consider your words about it being a shame that some people blindly accept all propaganda. It is not just ‘climate change alarmists’, as you have labeled others,

    • Jack   January 5, 2016 at 10:06 PM

      Mike, let’s not forget Evergreen Solar that cost Mass millions of dollars and then, Solyndra, as well as many other so-called “Green” endeavors that also resulted in lost billions. It happens on both sides of the argument. Here, K/M will lose their money. The others it was the Federal Govt. trying to pick winners and losers costing taxpayers like us billions.

  24. Daein   December 31, 2015 at 12:50 PM

    Christine, I suspect you’re a good freedom loving American. Even if you were connect about the need and electric rates those benefits don’t out weigh the violation of people’s rights.

    Kinder Morgan is not a public utility. Yet if they get a “certificate of need” they’ll be able to take anyone’s property to build this pipeline. How do you get a certificate of need? All you have to have is some customers. Even if the required capacity exists on other near by pipelines.

    So who does the law allow to take property to build pipelines? Literally anyone, including individuals. If I wanted to build a pipeline from one point to another and I had someone who wanted to buy gas at the other end I could take all the easements needed in between as long as I jumped through all the legal hoops. It doesn’t matter if every single person, company and governmental body between the source and destination was opposed.

    Who decides whether a person or company gets a certificate of need? Unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who’re completely disconnected from the people they are harming. You can’t even vote them out of office. The system is seriously messed up and any freedom loving American should revile it.

    In this particular case the perceived need for capacity will already be met by Spectra before construction even begins on this pipe. So 100% of this line will be excess capacity. So you might ask yourself, if 100% of the need will already be met why would KM still be building it? Right now several LNG projects are in the works on the east coast that plan to draw from the “excess” gas. So the gas will not be benefiting the people who’s right’s are violated in any way! In fact once the LNG starts shipping gas prices will go up since we’ll have to compete on the global market. So not only will people’s property be taken, it will be taken only to line the pockets of Kinder Morgan, it’s stock holders and foreign nations! Only resulting in them having to pay HIGHER energy prices.

    I’ve only found two types of people who support this pipeline. Firstly average freedom loving Americans who don’t know the details yet and all they’ve heard is the propaganda that we need gas and the pipeline won’t hurt anyone anyway. Secondly selfish people who stand to directly benefit by this pipeline (usually monetarily) and don’t give squat about other people or their rights. The only thing they care about is their bottom line and they don’t care who they damaged to improve it. Which of these two are you?

  25. Diane Varney-Parker   December 31, 2015 at 1:00 PM

    Christine note that NO ONE (except those Daein referenced) is following your view because it is wrong. Again do yourself a favor and review the info you have put forth. A 10 minute perusal of Wikipedia will show you that, feel free to do more intense fact checking to really get an eye-opener. If you choose to bury your head in the sand a great quote I’ve heard is “sometimes silence is the best answer”. Wishing you a joyous and enlightening New Year!

  26. Diane Varney-Parker   January 2, 2016 at 7:45 PM


  27. Andrea Doremus Cuetara   January 2, 2016 at 10:38 PM

    WHO the heck ARE you Christine Morabito??
    I saw all the other articles you’ve written here, and you clearly have some sort of warped, basically hateful, factually inaccurate agenda….WHY?

    Why are you doing this?? For whom are you working? Are you getting a lot of money, or what? if you were just basically a journalist, you would NOT be writing this drivvle, dibble, I think. Yuck, yikes, errrrrrk!

    • Jack   January 5, 2016 at 10:02 PM

      I happen to like reading her articles as it is rare to hear another side of the issues. YOU have a choice. DON’T READ THEM if you don’t like them. Simple choice. Instead YOU attack her.

      I hope you are not one of the typical hypocrites who drives a nice SUV and lives in a large house with a big carbon footprint, using your electronics daily not even thinking of how everything you own is able to do what it does – power from fossil fuels.

  28. Christine Morabito   January 3, 2016 at 6:09 AM

    I will not dignify most of this nonsense with a response. I see I must have hit a very raw left-wing nerve. As an Op-Ed writer, I have written about many controversial topics before, yet never sustained this level of personal attack. This amount of vitriol can only be explained by a well-coordinated effort on behalf of the anti-fossil fuel movement. Don’t you know, you will never win an argument by attacking someone personally? All you will manage to do is turn people off, which is why you are the only ones commenting here. Your attempts to discredit me by drawing attention to my affiliation with the Tea Party are also quite transparent. My Tea Party friends who are for the Keystone Pipeline but against this pipeline, might have to come to terms with the NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) principle at work here.

    • Shauni   January 3, 2016 at 9:29 PM

      Not everyone with a differing opinion “personally attacked” you. And not everyone Commenting is left wing
      Just wanted to mention.

  29. Christine Morabito   January 4, 2016 at 6:18 AM

    We can’t have a double standard when it comes to “clean.” If we must examine the entire process for obtaining natural gas (and I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t) then we need to do the same with other so-called clean energy sources. Our Toxic Relationship with Wind Power https://valleypatriot.com/our-toxic-relationship-with-wind-power/

    • Pat Brady Martin   January 4, 2016 at 1:35 PM

      No we can’t have a double standard. Totally agree. However, if the article you linked is an attempt to “balance” the risks of wind power against fossil fuels; it totally failed to make that argument unless we’re also committed to abandoning computers and cell phones.
      As far as the oft-cited “bird kills,” you also mention that proper siting of wind turbines can avoid that problem for the most part.
      The information about the cost of windpower versus fossil fuels is outdated. The price to produce a KW of wind energy has dropped to less than 4 cents/KWh in some of the latest Power Purchase Agreements. http://www.awea.org/Resources/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=5547

      “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” certainly applies to your remarks about the wind turbines being ugly. I think they’re beautiful and give me a feeling of hope and pride that future generations won’t be slaves to fossil fuels.
      Have a Happy New Year, Christine! I hope you will stop using your talents to shill for the fossil fuel industry. You say they don’t pay you? That makes it just sad in my opinion.

      • Jack   January 5, 2016 at 9:54 PM

        Pat, do your figures include the federal subsidies that bring that cost per Kwh down ? Just wondering. Because without federal subsidies, I was not able to afford solar power on my home and the break even point was out far too many years to make it work.

    • Pat Brady Martin   January 4, 2016 at 1:50 PM

      I should explain that the reason I find it “sad” is because your defense of the fossil fuel industry is like cheering for Goliath in a battle against David. Have you read Dave Solomon’s piece about the money Kinder Morgan is spending on lobbying? http://www.unionleader.com/article/20160104/NEWS02/160109838

  30. Shauni   January 4, 2016 at 11:55 AM

    Could you please elaborate on that 85% quote?
    Which percentage of the 85% is public right of way?

  31. Christine Morabito   January 5, 2016 at 6:04 AM

    85 IS the percentage that is in the public right of way the path of existing pipelines, power lines or both. While the private impace is not zero, that still means only 15% will run through private property – a small percentage, over-all.

    • Daein   January 5, 2016 at 7:14 AM

      The 85% number is wrong on two counts. First, the vast majority of the Eversourse ROW is NOT public property. Secondly, in spite of what KM has been leading most to believe with their half truths, if you look at the alignment maps you can see they will need a new 50′ permanently cleared ROW next to the power lines with and a 100′ new construction ROW (which won’t grow back in most of the property owners life times.) No offense intended, but it’s this kind of stuff that leads us to believe that you haven’t done your research. If you’d like I can dig up the specifics so you don’t have to look for yourself.

      • Christine Morabito   January 5, 2016 at 10:25 AM

        I’m afraid it is you who has not done your research. My column addresses the part of the pipeline that runs through our area here in the Merrimack Valley. I do not know rhe span of pipeline to which you are referring.

        • Daein   January 5, 2016 at 5:24 PM

          Christine, hmm I thinking you misread what I said, because I have done my research. I’m referencing the pipeline it enters NH where it travels near the power-line corridor to where it will terminate in Dracut. However even if you’re just talking about the Merrimack valley area what I said still stands. Just so you can look for yourself please download this aerial alignment sheet provided to FERC by Kinder Morgan: https://stopned.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/ned-volii-app-f-a_mkt_segj_112015_pub_05_of_07.pdf It’s not the whole pipeline, but some number of miles starting at the Merrimack river on the first page and going east. You’ll notice the proposed ROW is almost always completely outside the power line ROW with the exception of the cases where it has to pass under the line to get to the other side. It also shows property lines, so you’ll also noticed that it’s not on public land for the most part. You should also notice that the vast majority of the power line and pipeline ROWs are not public property at all, but are just easements on private property.

  32. Christine Morabito   January 5, 2016 at 6:08 AM

    I assure you, wind turbine “ugliness” is the least of the problems I have with them. Here is just one horror story: Giant Wind Turbines Collapsing with Alarming Regularity http://stopthesethings.com/2015/12/22/happenstance-or-enemy-action-giant-wind-turbines-collapsing-with-alarming-regularity/

    • Shauni   January 5, 2016 at 2:56 PM

      Maybe you actually don’t understand how vague that quote is.
      85% of the land is either public right of way OR is along existing pipelines or power lines (which may run along *Private property* basically is an irrelevant “statistic”.
      That tells us nothing. That by absolutely no means is telling us that 85% of the land used is not private property.
      5% of that 85% could be public right of way.
      That statistic tells us Nothing.
      Just pointing that out.

    • Pat Brady Martin   January 5, 2016 at 7:09 PM

      My last comment didn’t make it through the moderation, but really all I wanted to say is that your link on wind turbine collapses was far from credible. In good faith I followed it to see what I would learn only to be confronted by a subtitle that says, “We’re not here to debate the wind industry, we’re here to destroy it.” Very professional. You refuse to correct or even acknowledge your errors of fact. I’m done commenting. Clearly this is a waste of time.

    • Pat Brady Martin   January 5, 2016 at 7:16 PM

      The link Diane Varney-Parker posted says, “Lastly, as you publish your work online you may want to correct things you have previously published. Your willingness to fix past errors in your work will provide several benefits. It will make your work more accurate and reliable and will likely diminish your liability for defamation and other potential legal claims. We explain the benefits of correcting your errors and provide some practical tips for handling requests to correct or remove material in the section on Correcting or Retracting Your Work After Publication. ” Until you fix your errors, I don’t think it’s worth wasting time here. BTW, I’m sure this is why Kinder Morgan and their cronies try to get unsuspecting bloggers like you to spread their disinformation. They face no liability. You take all the risk to your reputation and personal assets.

  33. Christine Morabito   January 5, 2016 at 10:31 AM

    Thanks to all your comments, this column has gotten more exposure than anything else I have ever written. For that I thank you!

  34. Diane Varney-Parker   January 5, 2016 at 6:03 PM

    Please consider what you are saying and who you are most hurting. It is NOT okay to publish false information or to slander others.
    “The plan calls for approximately 60 miles of pipeline to be constructed in Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire.” – Is incorrect. There will be 71 miles of pipeline in NH alone in addition to the many additional miles in MA, NY and CT.
    “We have the vocal, well-funded opposition vs. the silent majority (average ratepayers) who support the pipeline.” – while the opposition tries to be heard over KM’s propaganda we are in no way well funded, merely passionate about our communities.
    “As with any new construction project, there is a strong Not in My Backyard (NIMBY) component. However, construction, scheduled to begin in 2017, is expected to have little overall impact and cause minimal disruption. The 36-inch pipeline, when installed, requires only 100 feet on either side, then 50 feet once completed. 85 percent of the land needed is in the public “right of way,” or in the path of existing pipelines, power lines or both.”
    Kinder Morgan’s own filings state that in NH only 10 acres is in existing ROW while 1,886 acres of new area will be used to construct this project. That will be affecting more than 800 properties in NH alone. You can see the NED Environmental Plan M-14, page 31 for more info and there are other pages that specifically describe MA.
    “85 IS the percentage that is in the public right of way the path of existing pipelines, power lines or both. While the private impace is not zero, that still means only 15% will run through private property – a small percentage, over-all.” – Again is very misleading without any reference to where this means. Your article seems to be referring to this project through New England as a whole and if that’s the case your statement is completely incorrect as mentioned in Kinder Morgan’s own filings. Perhaps you are confused by KM’s use of the word co-location which sounds like it’s IN a ROW, but is actually parallel to the ROW – so really all new “Green” area.
    “I’m afraid it is you who has not done your research. My column addresses the part of the pipeline that runs through our area here in the Merrimack Valley. I do not know rhe span of pipeline to which you are referring.”
    This project does not affect my property, but by looking into it I discovered it to be truly a bad deal for citizens in MA and NH plus. It is masked in many misleading statements that at first lead us to think it is “good” or “no big deal”. Many of the statements in your article are misleading if not untrue since I see no qualifying info that it’s opinion or talking about a very specific area. They are quite hurtful to the thousands of people this project is directly affecting.

    I did some research to see if it’s okay to publish such info and I found this:

  35. Christine Morabito   January 6, 2016 at 6:08 AM

    Perhaps it is your question that was vague.

    • Shauni   January 6, 2016 at 11:10 AM

      I hope you were not referring To my question as being vague-
      The question asking you to elaborate on the 85% “statistic”.
      Because if so- no. The question was not vague. That statement that was made was.
      Then in a later comment you even went on to say “Only 15% runs through private property”

      It’s ok if you didn’t fully understand the statistic when you wrote the article, but it would be childish is you just called my question vague.

      (if you were not referring my question as being vague, disregard this! Lol)

      – not part of an organized effort, not ‘left wing’ just a person that seeks truth.

  36. Christine Morabito   January 6, 2016 at 6:13 AM

    My reputation is just fine, thank you. My readers know how much effort and research go into my columns. But, I still can’t help but wonder: If my article is so easily dismissed, why is it attracting so much attention – especially in the way of vitriol and personal attacks? Clearly, there is an agenda.

    • Carolee dalton   January 6, 2016 at 9:04 AM

      Because much of your information is wrong! It’s one thing to base an opinion on facts but it is another to mislead the public with misinformation. You appear to be afraid of the truth. Everyone is trying to get the facts out there since you prefer to remain ignorant.

  37. Christine Morabito   January 6, 2016 at 6:16 AM

    The wind industry deserves to be destroyed. It is the biggest taxpayer scam going, not to mention its horrible environmental impacts. Yes. Shut it down!

  38. Shauni   January 21, 2016 at 5:49 PM

    Confronted with a specific example of contradicting yourself and that’s the moment you decide to disappear.

  39. Robert Wan   September 14, 2018 at 11:25 AM

    Christine, do you still believe that Natural Gas is “clean” and “safe”? Jesus.

    • Christine Morabito (@cmorabito)   September 14, 2018 at 1:25 PM

      First, let me say that my heart goes out to those affected by the gas explosions in Lawrence, MA. While the cause of this accident is still under investigation, it appears to be just that – an accident. No form of energy is 100 percent safe, especially when you factor in human error. We generally regard plane travel to be safe, even though, every so often, there is a crash and people are killed. I am very sorry if you, or anyone you care about was personally affected.

  40. Premium Ecigarettes   January 4, 2022 at 9:42 PM

    Has anybody ever shopped at KCVO Vape Shop Vape Store located in 107 Beverly Parkway?