Mass. working group says eliminating reliance on Everett Marine Terminal by 2030 is infeasible, urges demand reduction

A state focus‑area working group convened by the Office of Energy Transformation concluded that completely eliminating local gas distribution companies' reliance on the Everett Marine Terminal (EMT) by 2030 is currently infeasible and recommended prioritizing demand reduction and targeted infrastructure investment to lower dependence.

"Complete elimination of LDC reliance, by 2030 is currently deemed to be infeasible," said Michael Walsh, a managing partner at Groundwork Data, summarizing the working group's assessment of timelines and deployment constraints. The group's work examined how EMT provides both seasonal peak supply and operational redundancy for utilities including National Grid, Eversource, Unitil and Berkshire.

Why it matters: EMT supplies liquefied natural gas (LNG) either by vaporizing stored LNG to inject to pipelines or by loading LNG onto trucks to refill satellite tanks across the state. Those services are used on a small number of very cold days but carry large fixed costs that are ultimately recovered through customer rates. Walsh cited an attorney general review estimating the 2024 EMT‑related contracts at about $946,000,000, a cost he said represents a substantial burden for gas customers.

The working group assessed alternatives including pipeline reinforcements, other LNG import points, local LNG production facilities and demand‑side measures. A new pipeline option requiring roughly four miles of large interstate‑grade pipeline across Boston was judged largely infeasible because of siting, permitting and nine‑figure cost estimates. Local facilities such as the recently commissioned NEC LNG plant could contribute supply but—according to presenters—cannot on their own replace EMT's role.

The group stressed that EMT currently serves two functions that would both need addressing: (1) supplying peak volumetric need on the coldest days and (2) providing pressure support and operational redundancy across the regional pipeline network. Eliminating the terminal's role would therefore require both demand reduction at scale and targeted capital projects to ensure system reliability in dense load pockets such as Boston.

On emissions, presenters said EMT is a peaking facility with a small share of statewide greenhouse‑gas emissions because it is used infrequently. Walsh noted that lifecycle emissions from imported LNG (liquefaction and shipping) can raise carbon intensity by roughly 10 percent relative to domestic gas, but that the facility's on‑site combustion and vaporization emissions amount to a relatively small share of the state's total.

Recommendations issued by the focus‑area group to the Energy Transformation Advisory Board included: prioritize demand reduction focused on commercial and institutional customers; pursue options to more equitably allocate or mitigate EMT's fixed costs; issue a request for information and further study of long‑term gas supply and storage options; and coordinate action across utilities, state agencies and cities to align planning.

Next steps: OET said it will monitor the Boston thermal‑energy feasibility study and a forthcoming gas‑supply study, and track capacity auction reforms at ISO New England ahead of EMT contracts expiring in 2030. Slides and a recording of the webinar will be posted on the Energy Transformation Advisory Board website, and OET plans a July webinar to launch a combined working group focused on peak energy demand reduction.

Attribution and sourcing: The report and detailed analyses—including utility slide decks and the focus‑area work‑group report—were cited repeatedly during the webinar; presenters pointed participants to the Energy Transformation Advisory Board website for the full materials.