ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Pipeline reversal bad for consumers

| Sunday, Feb. 4, 2018, 9:00 p.m.

As leaders of companies that serve countless Pennsylvanians each day, we couldn't disagree more with the column “Going with the flow: Energy policies that benefit consumers.”

If the Laurel Pipeline is reversed, the exact opposite will occur: Consumers will lose because of higher prices and fewer choices. The only winners will be Buckeye Partners and the Midwestern refiners that would gain a captive market in Western Pennsylvania — not Pennsylvania families, businesses and workers.

There is little upside but plenty of downside to the proposed reversal. Midwest refiners already have access to Pennsylvania markets and currently compete with supply from the East Coast. For eight months per year, East Coast supply is actually cheaper.

The reversal would eliminate competition from the East Coast — which, in turn, would leave Western Pennsylvania solely dependent on Midwest refiners. Less competition means higher at-the-pump prices for consumers.

The reversal also threatens the jobs of thousands of employees at the Philadelphia-area refineries that have served Pennsylvania for over a half-century.

Eliminating East Coast supply would leave Western Pennsylvania vulnerable to supply shortages and price spikes if and when there are disruptions at Midwest refineries or on Midwest pipelines. In fact, Midwest refiners already struggle to meet Midwestern demand today.

There is no rational argument supporting Buckeye's claim of lower prices for consumers. If the reversal were truly a win for consumers, we would be the first to support it.

Mike Lorenz


Polly Flinn


Lorenz is executive vice president of Sheetz Inc.; Flinn is senior vice president and general manager of Giant Eagle-GetGo.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me