First, I would be very happy to share that analysis, no question. It's also based on the 2016 CER's energy future report at the time that thought about scenarios of pipeline capacity constraints and not.
I guess more directly to your initial question, I don't think about this as a binary choice. Emissions have environmental costs. That's the social cost of carbon. We should be willing to incur costs up to the social cost of carbon to avoid emissions. Lowering emissions by blocking new pipeline construction has higher economic costs than the social cost of carbon.
I think we need to think about, at the margin, cost versus benefit rather than everything just in terms of lowering emissions at all costs as appropriate policy.