Archive for June 2016

Natural Gas Prices Can’t Rise Soon Enough

June 29, 2016

Natural gas prices have dropped sharply over the past two years and while the prospect of paying higher prices for energy is not appealing, unless prices rise soon, the prices we pay later are likely to be much higher and for much longer than currently forecast.  The chart below shows the decline in natural gas prices over the past two years.  In response,  a steady rise in production of U.S. natural gas stagnated and began declining over the past year.             1

One impact of very low energy prices is a U.S. energy industry that is in financial shambles, devastating industries that support oil and gas extraction and threatening the financial institutions that lend to energy-related industries along the way.    In the first quarter of 2016 the largest shale gas producer in the world had negative cash from operations.  Most other large producers similarly had revenues from the sale of oil and gas that didn’t cover operating costs much less capital expenditures like drilling and completion. Sympathy for energy companies isn’t expected and won’t be forthcoming but the result of consistently low energy prices is predictable, lower U.S. oil and gas production.  The longer prices for natural gas remain very low, and the smaller and financially weaker the industry gets, the less likely production will be able to ramp-up as prices rise (as they most surely will) and that means even higher prices in the future and for a longer period of time.

The Importance of Shale Gas

The U.S. is increasingly dependent on shale gas. Conventional natural gas production appears to be in terminal decline as fewer producers are drilling those wells.  Shale gas now represents more than half of all natural gas produced in the U.S. (and rising).  Production of shale gas will have to continue to increase just to compensate for the decline in the production of conventional natural gas but recently shale gas production has also begun to decline.  2

The Marcellus and Utica shale gas regions (closest to NH) are relatively new sources of shale gas (production began in the mid-2000s).  They, Marcellus in particular, are the  kings of shale gas in the U.S..  Not surprisingly they have, on average, the lowest cost-of- production of any shale gas region in the country.  As a result, production in those regions has been maximized and the percentage of U.S. shale gas that comes from the Marcellus and Utica shales is now almost 50 percent.  That percentage probably would be even higher except for pipeline capacity that limits movement of gas from the region.

3

But even in these lower cost-of-production regions the lowest cost producers have a breakeven price of about $3.50-$4.00/MMBTU (the average of all producers in the regions is higher).  Meanwhile natural gas prices in the U.S. have been below $3.00 since 2015 and below $2.00 in 2016.  The average production costs in shale regions that have been producing longer is considerably higher (from about $5.00/MMBTU to more than $6.50).  The impact of natural gas prices on the production of increasingly important shale gas is best understood by looking at the impact that prices have had on different shale gas producing regions across the country.  The chart below shows changes in production from each shale play’s peak production to May of 2016, when spot natural gas prices were at $1.92/MMBTU.  As economics would predict, the chart shows that production declines were greatest in the highest production cost regions and smallest in the lowest cost Marcellus and Utica Shale regions. On a percentage basis declines in production appear even more dramatic.  Production has declined 50 percent  in the Haynesville shale region of Louisiana and Texas since peak production occurred there in 2012.  The Barnett (Texas) and Fayetteville (Arkansas) shale regions experienced production declines of 39 and 26 percent respectively since 2012.  In contrast the lower cost Marcellus (0.4%) and Utica (2.0%) experienced minimal declines in production and only in 2016 when spot prices were under $2.00/MMBTU.

4

But here is the thing, like all gas and oil producing regions, the longer the Marcellus and Utica shales produce gas the more likely production cost will rise as increased withdrawals require production to move from core areas of the shale play to more marginal areas of production.

Prices and Costs Matter

Only in a fantasy world will U.S. production of natural gas continue to increase for decades with prices remaining near or below breakeven costs.  In the real world prices and costs matter.  I am a fan of natural gas and believe increasing availability in New England will benefit consumers and businesses but thinking that natural gas can be simultaneously cheap, abundant, and profitable defies the rules economics.

Unfortunately I think the U.S. Energy Information Agency is contributing to a fantasy by suggesting an almost unlimited supply of natural gas at low prices in their forecast of natural gas production and prices contained in the EIA’s  2016 Annual Energy Outlook (released in May).  I respect the work of the EIA and regularly rely on the data they produce but this forecast seems to lack a fundamental grounding in economics.

5

At $6.00/MMBTU (in 2015 dollars)the U.S. will have an ample supply of natural gas for decades.  At $5.00 (not reached until 2024 in the EIA forecast scenario) production is unlikely to increase by 50 percent as the EIA forecast suggest. At prices below $3.00 for long, as is the current case, production will decline significantly and supply shortfalls will require supplementing U.S. production with ever larger withdrawals from storage, increasing imports (questionable if that is possible) and/or  a reconsideration of the exporting of natural gas.  It is important to note that shortfalls in production don’t mean there won’t be enough natural gas, there is ample gas in storage to cover shortfalls for a while but prices will rise quickly as more gas is withdrawn from storage.  Rising prices should prompt increases in production but things may be different this time, depending on how soon prices rise.  The industry is smaller, financially weakened,  and unlike a few years ago capital, as well as workers who were forced to leave the industry as it shrank, may not be as readily available to ramp up production as prices rise.

As we know too well from experience, natural gas supply shortfalls have more dramatic and especially harmful impacts on New England.  New Hampshire and the rest of the country would be better off with a modest rise in natural gas prices now rather than face supply shortfalls and much higher prices in future years.

What the Unemployment Rate Doesn’t Tell Policymakers Can Hurt Us

June 22, 2016

Last week the NH Labor Market Information Bureau released the NH jobs report for May and as usual all of the attention focused on NH’s low (2.7 percent) unemployment rate.  The more significant story was the April to May decline of 4,000 payroll jobs in the state.

Private sector jobs in NH were lower by 3,400 in May, the largest one month decline since 2008 – with one exception – a month in 2014 when workers at the Market Basket grocery chain left their jobs in support of their ousted CEO.  May 2016 job losses were an out sized drop for any month of seasonally adjusted data (a decline of that size would more likely be seen in the not seasonally adjusted data where large changes in employment occur annually during certain months of the year).  I am inclined to attribute some, but not all, of the drop in NH’s May employment to problems with seasonal adjustments and other statistical issues.  Still, the May data marks the first time since 2011 that a three month moving average of private sector employment growth in NH has been negative.

3 mos avg change in private emp

For some added context on the NH payroll employment numbers I wait for a release from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, usually about one week after NH releases its state’s job numbers.  That monthly report provides employment, unemployment, labor force and other labor market data for all 50 states.  Here is a bit of the context provided in the June 20th release from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics:

“In May 2016, four states had statistically significant over-the-month decreases in nonfarm payroll employment and three states and the District of Columbia had significant increases. The job losses were in Tennessee (-13,400), Michigan (-12,700), New Hampshire (-4,000), and Montana (-2,700). In percentage terms, Montana and New Hampshire had the largest declines (-0.6 percent each), followed by Tennessee (-0.5 percent) and Michigan (-0.3 percent).”

The term “statistically significant” decline in employment is important.  Twenty seven states experienced declines in nonfarm payroll employment in May but in only four of those states was the decline deemed “statistically significant,” meaning that the decline was large enough for the BLS to be at least 90% certain that the change in employment did not fall within the margin for error of the employer survey on which the employment estimates are based.

May emp change

It is not wise to be too concerned with one month’s job report.  Whether the  May job growth number is real or illusory and the product of statistical anomalies, the numbers for NH still should have attracted more attention (than a 0.1% uptick in the unemployment rate) from the media and especially from lawmakers and public officials.  The May job growth number is certainly more noteworthy than a slight uptick in the state’s unemployment rate that was the focus of most media reports.   As I noted in my previous post, employment growth nationally and in NH is going to slow and one bad month is not reason to panic.  But NH’s year-over-year percentage increase in private sector employment took a big hit with the May jobs report and the state’s ranking among states on private sector job growth did as well.  Private employment growth in NH has been on a solid pace for more than a year but with the May data NH moved from the top third to the bottom half among states on year-over-year private sector job growth.

Ranking Private Sector Job Growth

Public sector job cuts continue to be a drag on NH’s total nonfarm job growth, shedding about 2,500 jobs between May of 2015 and May of 2016, by far the largest percentage decline of any state in the nation.

Change in Govt Jobs May 15 to May 16

Still, while the May jobs report was troubling, initial unemployment claims are a very good leading indicator of economic activity and they remain subdued in NH and have yet to suggest a significant downtown in either the U.S. or NH economies.  The May jobs report also showed a continuation of the recent trend of solid labor force growth.

IUC

Implications for State Revenue

My primary concern about the May jobs report for NH, and with monthly jobs reports for NH in general, is how little attention payroll employment numbers get from policymakers and how much attention and importance is given to the state’s unemployment rate.  The state will begin crafting its two-year budget this fall and solid revenue gains over the past year and a budget surplus are building pressure for substantial increases in state spending.  This isn’t a commentary on the merits of specific spending proposals (I will save that for later posts) just a caution that the fiscal environment into which spending proposals will be entered can change and the need to recognize that change as far in advance as possible.  I would feel more comfortable about the upcoming budget process if NH’s weak May jobs number, and the possibility that weaker job growth will continue, were at least acknowledged by policymakers, state agencies, and the media.  I want to know that there is someone in NH’s wheelhouse focused on the horizon and not on our wake.   I understand the appeal of the unemployment rate as a single, intuitive metric that summarizes economic conditions but the unemployment rate is a lagging indicator of labor market and economic trends.  For policymakers and anyone who needs to assess the near-term economic outlook, using the unemployment rate as a guide is a bit like driving using the rear view mirror.   The unemployment rate is an important economic indicator that says a lot about current economic conditions, it is just not that useful for forecasting purposes. Moreover, NH’s demographics (fewer individuals in demographic groups that typically have high rates of unemployment) mean that the state will almost always have a relatively lower unemployment rate than the U.S..  Too frequently that leads lawmakers and others in NH to assume the state’s economy is performing better than it actually is and better than the U.S. economy.

Business taxes are a big reason that NH revenues have outperformed expectations this fiscal year, accounting for almost two-thirds (or $61.4 million) of the $99.4 increase in traditional taxes and fees over FY2015 during the first 11 months of fiscal year 2016.  Focusing on changes in private sector  payroll employment and wage growth is especially important for lawmakers in the Granite State and especially important as we head toward a budget making year.  As a lagging indicator of economic activity NH’s unemployment rate will remain low, even as the economy slows.

Emp Growth and Business Taxes

If lawmakers focus too much on NH’s unemployment rate in their assessment of state revenue trends they risk delaying recognition of turning points in the NH economy and thus changes in state revenue trends.  Private sector employment and payroll growth slow before significant changes occur in the state’s unemployment rate and private sector employment growth is a better indicator  of trends in NH business tax revenue than is the state’s unemployment rate.  So the next time a public official brags about NH’s unemployment rate, ask him or her how many jobs were added in the state during the last month.

Presidential Campaign Impacts on U.S. Job Growth and Implications for NH

June 9, 2016

The May U.S. jobs report with downward revisions to the March and April job numbers was bad, not bad enough that you should start stocking canned goods and bottled water in your basement but bad nevertheless.  The impact of 35,000 striking Verizon Corp. workers on the May numbers is cited as one explanation for the weak report but there were 25,000 temporary workers hired by the company during the strike so the overall impact was actually fairly small.  Seasonal adjustment factors (the statistical procedure used to smooth regular annual fluctuations in employment data throughout the year– things like Christmas hiring, summer employment of youth etc.) seem to be more problematic in recent years and that may also be a contributor.   Of course it is possible that hiring was just weak, plain and simple.  Hiring will continue to weaken, I just don’t think job growth is really as weak, and the slowdown as rapid, as the May jobs report suggests.

Presidential Campaigns Appear to Impact Job Growth

The first rule of politics is to forget all of the rules of economics and that is more problematic now that the national political climate seems to increasingly influence real economic variables. Think of the impact that debt ceiling debates and government shutdown threats have had on economic activity recently.  With almost no focus in the current presidential election on sound economics and economic policies it is easy to see how politics could  contribute to a weak May jobs report (when the empirical evidence doesn’t provide a clear explanation for economic events it is hard to go wrong blaming politics and politicians).  But there is some evidence that presidential elections can temporarily depress job growth.  The uncertainty of a presidential election, especially in a year without an incumbent, and the people and policies that candidates may employ in their administration can give pause to businesses investment and hiring decisions. The uncertainty surrounding future economic and fiscal policies in a presidential election year should arguably be greater several months prior to the election rather than a month or two when the election outcome and policy directions become clearer.  I compared average private sector job growth (government employment should not be affected) in the U.S. during the months of June-August in presidential election years, to the average job growth from September (of the year prior to the election) to May (of the election year).   Since 2000, in each presidential election year the average private sector job growth from June-August significantly lagged average job growth over the prior nine month (Sept-May) period. The pattern held in 2008 but because the U.S. economy was in free fall for other reasons it is not included here.   In years with no presidential election this generally was not the case (years such as 2002, 2003 and 2007 when the U.S. was entering or exiting a recession are exceptions).

UncertaintyJob growth in NH is going to slow regardless of political uncertainties given existing labor force constraints.  NH is essentially at full employment and the nation is close. The longer a recovery lasts the greater are the chances that job growth will slow.  Still,  there are more uncertainties regarding the presidential candidates and the policies that could affect business and the economy in this election than is typical in a presidential year so it is not unrealistic to think that politics is already affecting hiring and investment decisions.

Will New Hampshire Follow the National Trend?

State level job growth numbers for May will be released June 17th.  In a small state like NH monthly job growth can be especially volatile. Up or down  conclusions about a state’s economy should not be drawn from a single month of employment data.  A three month trend in private sector employment is a better reflection of the direction of a state’s economy and by that metric NH has been on a roll.  The chart below shows that after several years of below national average private sector job growth, the pace of job growth in NH is now at a level equal to the U.S. average.  Moreover, the growth trend for NH has accelerated while the rate of private sector job growth in the U.S. has decelerated.  The rate of private sector job growth NH is going to slow nonetheless,  just as it has in the nation overall.

private sector job growthI don’t think the private sector job growth trend has gotten enough attention in NH.  Many (including me at times) focused on several years of NH’s subpar total non-farm (including government) employment growth.  But as I have noted in prior posts, the percentage drop in government jobs in NH is among the largest of any state in the nation, masking some of the strength of hiring trends in NH’s private sector.  The chart below shows how both private sector and state and local government employment in NH have grown since each sector’s pre-recession peak.  Private sector employment in NH peaked in February of 2008 and after shedding 6% of those jobs during the recession NH has regained that many plus an additional 3%.  State and local government employment in NH did not peak until April of 2010.  It takes a couple of years for property valuations to reflect economic conditions so the largest declines in property valuations – and thus local revenues and employment- occurred as the recession had ended.  State and local government employment in NH is about 8.5% lower than at its peak, with local government shedding about 6,800 jobs and state government about 1,000 jobs.

public vs private sector growth

Labor Market Response in NH May Be Too Late

For too long in NH private sector job growth remained consistent at a subpar rate despite a large increase in help wanted ads in the state.  A combination of slow or no labor force growth and a mismatch between job opportunities and the skills of job seekers were the causes and not a fundamental erosion of NH’s business climate as I argued in this post.

NH US Help Wanted

But now help wanted ads in NH and the nation are slipping (chart above) and while the recovery isn’t over we are getting better more slowly.  Unfortunately, that is occurring just as the labor market conditions –  low unemployment, rising wages, and signs that NH is once again seeing net in-migration from other states, are all resulting in a more rapid expansion of the NH labor force, the key ingredient wages

the state has lacked in recent years to achieve a faster pace of  job growth.

NH Labor force growth

A Bumpy Ride for the Remainder of 2016

I am frequently in error but rarely in doubt and in this post  last fall I was confident NH would again exceed the U.S. rate of employment growth (it is still possible but not likely) and that NH would see a 2.5% increase in total employment in 2016 (that is not going to happen). In fairness, private sector job growth has been on a more than 2% growth pace for the year and I did include two caveats in my forecast last fall: first that labor force growth in NH would have to accelerate (in part due to a resumption in net in-migration to the state) and while the labor force is once again growing in NH,  it is at a pace that may not sustain the 2% plus growth that NH’s private sector is currently on.  Second, the decline in government jobs would have to abate – it hasn’t.  A month ago at a presentation at a local community bank I downgraded my job growth forecast for NH in 2016 from 2.5% to 1.8%.  With more recent national economic data – including the May jobs data and March/April revisions, readings from my PolEcon NH Leading Economic Index, along with the uncertainties produced by the nation’s political climate, I now believe the rate of growth will be just 1.2 to1.4 percent.

A Pyrrhic Victory for Pipeline Opponents

June 2, 2016

Another energy project has been scuttled that could have provided some relief to New Hampshire and New England households and businesses who are paying among the highest prices for energy of any state in the nation. I believe the project would also have contributed to the important goal of reducing carbon emissions in NH and New England (more about my support for reducing carbon emissions and some controversial policies to accomplish that in a future post).  No doubt any proposed energy project is better when forged and tempered through a process of public review and debate.  But the withdrawal of proposed wind energy projects, and more recently the Northeast Energy Direct (NED) natural gas pipeline project, as well as the difficulties encountered by some solar projects in the state, question how committed many residents and some policymakers in NH are to finding solutions to an energy climate that is widely recognized as detrimental to households, businesses, and the NH economy.  As opponents of  pipeline, wind, and solar projects claim another “victory” in NH, an admonition given to Pyrrhus, a Greek general and ruler of Epirus comes to mind.  After a costly victory over his Roman enemies by Pyrrhus, the Greek philosopher Plutarch reportedly told Pyrrhus that another, similar “victory” would ruin him.  If the “ruin” that could occur only affected the combatants in NH’s  energy infrastructure battles, instead of the 1.4 million non-combatant “energy civilians” in the state, Plutarch’s warning might be useful.  But there are no “generals” and no real leaders or statesmen and stateswomen battling NH’s energy constraints and so the casualties of our state’s inability to take control and direct its energy future will be most broadly spread across the state’s population.

This post highlights some of my calculations of the costs to NH of the defeat (or victory as opponents would argue) over the Northeast Energy Direct natural gas pipeline proposal.  To begin, let’s reiterate the cost disadvantages faced by consumers of electricity in NH.  The chart below shows that through 2014, residential and commercial electricity customers paid, on average, about 35 percent higher rates than the national average, while industrial customers paid a whopping 70 percent higher rates than the national average.

energy prices

The NED Project’s Impact on Natural Gas and Electricity Prices

Natural gas prices have been lower in recent years as a result of increased U.S. production, largely from the Marcellus and Utica shale formations in  Ohio and Pennsylvania.  But as I noted in this post, a lack of pipeline capacity precludes NH and New England from realizing the full benefits from declining natural gas prices.  The increased supply of natural gas from nearby sources enabled by the Northeast Energy Direct project would impact natural gas prices in NH and New England.  Price reductions would result in direct savings to residential, commercial, and industrial consumers of natural gas and would also result in electricity prices that are lower in NH than without the Northeast Energy Direct project. New England’s wholesale power prices are closely related to natural gas prices because of the region’s dependence on gas-fired power generation capacity. By reducing spot prices for natural gas in New England, the NED Project will have a direct impact on New England’s wholesale power prices.

At least eight separate studies have forecast lower natural gas prices in New England resulting from an increase in pipeline capacity into the region.  Even one study from the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, while suggesting an increase in pipeline capacity to New England isn’t needed to assure reliability of electricity supplies in the region (inaccurately I believe and contrary to reports by others, including the operator of the New England Energy grid), recognizes that increased pipeline capacity would result in lower regional natural gas prices.

 There is a range of estimates of the price impacts from an increase in natural gas supply to the region. My estimates of energy cost savings in NH use one of the more conservative estimates of the price impacts of increased supplies to the region as documented in a study  by ICF International. I used historical data on both natural gas and electricity consumption by sector (residential, commercial, industrial)  in NH from the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) as well as forecasts of future consumption based on the EIA’s regional forecast for growth in natural gas and electricity consumption and applied ICF natural gas and electricity price reduction estimates to consumption forecasts in NH to estimate savings to customers in the state that would result from the operation of the NED pipeline.  In the initial full-year of pipeline operation I estimated the savings to natural gas and electricity consumers in NH to be $165.5 million.  The breakdown of saving by source and sector is presented below.  Savings represent about 3.4 % of the 2014 energy expenditures of NH residential consumers, 6.5% of commercial sector energy expenditures, and 8.9% of the energy expenditures of industrial consumers.

savings by sector

 Using the same sources and methods, I estimate the 10 year energy cost savings to NH natural gas and electricity consumers  would be just under  $2.2 billion in nominal dollars as a result of the Northeast Energy Direct project.

10 years savings

Additional Benefits of Increased Regional Access to Natural Gas

There are other potential benefits from NED that have been less talked about.  Much of NH has limited or no access to pipeline natural gas from local distribution companies.  The lack of access to natural gas increases energy costs for households and businesses in many regions the state.  In particular, lack of access increases the economic disadvantages currently faced by most rural regions in the state.   Natural gas is most available in the populated regions of Southern NH closest to regional pipelines and the lateral pipelines operated by local utilities who purchase natural gas from the regional pipeline operators.  The proposed NED pipeline would have passed through a portion of the state where the economy has lagged for some time and regions that could most benefit from access to pipeline natural gas.  The NED would increase capacity but local utilities would have to add lateral pipelines to serve communities, households and business in places like Keene, Claremont, Cheshire, Sullivan and Grafton Counties.

Along with extremely high electricity prices for industrial consumers relative to the U.S. average, the lack of access to natural gas is a significant disincentive to operating a manufacturing facility in much of New Hampshire, as nationally, natural gas accounts for 40 percent of the purchased energy of manufacturers on a BTU basis.  There is anecdotal evidence that manufacturers nationally are starting to react to lower natural gas prices by planning to open new facilities in the United States. There are other influential factors, including rising employment costs overseas, but those industries for which natural gas is an important input are anticipating an advantage of locating their operations in the U.S..  Cheshire and Sullivan Counties are among the most manufacturing dependent regions in the state and access to utility natural gas would especially benefit communities in those regions.  The chart below presents location quotients which represent the concentration of manufacturing employment in each NH county relative to the concentration of manufacturing employment in the U.S. overall. A location quotient of 1.00 indicates a region where the concentration of manufacturing employment is identical to the concentration of manufacturing in the the U.S. economy overall.  Location quotients above about 1.20 suggest counties where manufacturing is especially important to the regional economy.  Shaded bars represent counties through which the NED project would pass. The NED would not pass through Sullivan County but its proximity would make lateral access to gas from the pipeline feasible.

manufacturing LQ

Increased natural gas supplies and lower prices will be especially helpful to smaller manufacturing firms which face higher prices in New England but also face larger natural gas price differentials relative to larger manufacturers than anywhere in the country.  High prices and larger price differentials create a strong disincentive for new and emerging manufacturing firms to operate in New Hampshire and may be contributing to an “aging” in the manufacturing sector in the state.

gas prices to manufactures

Access to natural gas would also benefit households. Just under 20 percent of households in New Hampshire use pipeline natural gas for heating and another 13 percent use bottled gas but there are large regional variations in the availability of natural gas for heating.  Again, regions of the state that are considered economically disadvantaged, in most cases, have the least access to pipeline natural gas.  Access to pipeline gas won’t guarantee a reduction in disparities in the economic performance of various regions of NH but it would help households and manufacturers in regions where the economic performance has lagged.

home heating in NH by source

The savings for households heating with pipeline natural gas is substantial. The table below shows the average cost differential in annual heating costs between housing units heated with pipeline natural gas and other sources.  The difference between pipeline natural gas heating and fuel oil – the largest source of home heating fuel in NH – averaged over $890 annually between 2010 and 2014. By lowering natural gas prices the differential between homes heated with natural gas and other sources (other than solar) are likely to widen.  The NED would  increase opportunities for more communities, regions and more homes to be heated with natural gas in New Hampshire, amplifying the potential savings estimated here for NH households and the NH economy associated with lower natural gas prices.

Table copy

Factoring the impacts of the NED project on natural gas prices and disposable income for  residential consumers (and not including the impacts on commercial and industrial consumers)  I estimate that an additional 5,300 jobs would have been created in the first 10 years in response to the energy cost savings to households from the NED project.  When the impacts on industrial and commercial consumers are considered the potential benefits of the project become even clearer.

Disclosure

I originally prepared more detailed estimates (than in this post) in a report I did for the proposed NED project.  I write this blog (when I have time) because I enjoy researching and writing about topics that interest me, not to advance client interests. I think the report contained some good analyses and now that the NED proposal has been withdrawn and the company is no longer a client, I don’t feel conflicted writing about it here.  The success or failure of the NED project had no impact on the compensation I received. The report addresses energy issues in NH that I have been writing about since long before my work for the NED project. It examines the usual economic impacts from the construction phase of the project but more importantly potential longer-term impacts of the project.  The report also examines controversial topics such as potential impacts on tourism activities as well as fiscal impacts of the project.  The report can be viewed here. Because the report was paid for by the NED project owners, critics will dismiss some or all of the findings.  But a report that is paid for only means that its author(s) has some “skin in the game.” In a small state, and especially in NH, anyone who produces work that distorts findings or misleads policymakers won’t be offering services of  value and won’t be working in the state for long.  On the other hand, anyone without “skin in the game” or some compensated interest is pretty much free to make any claim without evidence, present any data, or any “analysis” regardless of its accuracy, without concern for the impact that it has on their business or professional reputation. I am not arguing that any information brought to policy debates that isn’t paid for has no value or is necessarily inaccurate or misleading, just that information that is not paid for by some interests is not is inherently or by definition more accurate or relevant than work that is paid for – there should be no “halo effect” for information entered into important policy debates simply on the basis of whether or not compensation was involved – compensated or not, information entered into the debate is provided by a party with a particular interest in the issue.  The quality and accuracy of the analysis should determine its merits.  I like to think that the ultimate test of the quality of an analysis is whether those who produced it will be around and willing to answer for its accuracy or inaccuracy when the time comes when that can be determined.  I don’t think my analyses (or forecasts) are wrong that often but when they are I am available to answer to policymakers and others for it.  I don’t think I would have had to answer for my my analysis of the impacts of the NED.


%d bloggers like this: