PORTLAND, Ore. - Natural gas has been hailed as a potential "bridge fuel" for the country as it transitions from coal and oil to renewable energy. However, a spokeswoman for a Northwest environmental research group says the news media often overlooks natural gas's dirty secret.

Natural gas often is described as "burning cleaner than coal or oil," said Anna Fahey, director of strategic communications for the Sightline Institute. While it's true that natural gas releases half as much carbon dioxide as coal at combustion and far less particulate matter than coal or oil, Fahey said the bigger issue is methane, which traps 86 times as much heat in the atmosphere as does carbon dioxide.

"The problem is that you don't even have to burn natural gas," she said. "It doesn't need to be combusted to be a potent greenhouse gas, because the bulk of it is methane, and methane leaks at every stage of the gas's life."

Fahey cited a recent Associated Press story about a proposed liquefied natural-gas pipeline and export facility at Jordan Cove on the southern Oregon coast that described natural gas as "cleaner burning and more efficient." However, it didn't include the effects of methane. She also noted that 70 percent of natural gas in the United States is fracked.

Fahey said money spent on infrastructure such as the Jordan Cove pipeline could lock the nation into decades of using natural gas, when that money could be used to build infrastructure for clean fuel sources such as wind or solar.

"Natural gas, or what we like to call fracked methane gas now, is actually stalling progress on the real fuels of the future and the ones that are going to transition us off fossil fuels." she said.

According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the gas industry was responsible for more emissions than the coal industry for the first time last year.

An article by Fahey is online at sightline.org.


get more stories like this via email

New York state lawmakers are weighing two bills which would grant utilities more vertical market power, a move proponents argued will help the state meet its clean energy goals. But one advocacy group said it would grant utilities too much control.

Essentially, the measures would let private utility companies and the New York Power Authority construct and own clean energy projects.

Anne Reynolds, executive director of the Alliance For Clean Energy New York, contended it is unwise to let utilities, which already own the wires delivering the electricity, develop wind and solar projects.

Reynolds pointed out it would put independent power projects like the ones they represent at a real disadvantage.

"They would then sell the power to themselves and decide for themselves what price they're going to pay for it," Reynolds noted. "We have a lot of pressure to keep the price as low as possible, and the utilities wouldn't have that pressure."

Costs for the utilities are automatically passed on to ratepayers, but independent projects cannot do the same. The bill's authors said the proposals would streamline clean energy production, although Reynolds countered most of the holdup is in the permitting and planning process, not construction.

New York aims to reach net-zero emissions by 2040, with a midrange goal of 70% renewable energy by 2030. The state's Public Service Commission has previously advised against permitting utility-owned clean energy projects, agreeing with Reynolds' argument.

She added the biggest barrier to new clean energy production is often connecting to the power grid, which is largely up to utility companies and grid operators.

"So our worry is that the utilities building wind and solar projects, they will give themselves a break when deciding which interconnection request to process first or how much to charge for an interconnection request," Reynolds explained.

The Public Service Commission has reopened public comment on the issue until August 10, but those comments will be moot if the bills pass before then.

Neither bill has been voted on by either house. The legislative session is set to end June 2.

Gov. Tom Wolf announced Pennsylvania is moving forward with plans for industrial-sector decarbonization, with a proposal to the federal government for the state to host a hydrogen and carbon capture hub.

The hub would include the creation of hydrogen from natural gas, along with a large pipeline network which would carry captured carbon emissions from factories to areas where the carbon would be injected underground for permanent storage.

The White House Council on Environmental Quality estimates the hubs would cost between $170 billion and $230 billion to construct.

Sean O'Leary, senior researcher at the Ohio River Valley Institute, said the cost of such a project outweighs the benefits.

"Developing the hydrogen hub and using the carbon capture equipment in factories, in power plants, wouldn't actually do anything to increase their output or the value that they're delivering to the economy," O'Leary argued. "It would simply increase their cost of doing so."

He added it is a cost we would see in our taxes and electric bills. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act included $8 billion to create four hydrogen hubs nationwide. Critics of carbon-capture technology contended it is untested at a large-scale level, is expensive, and does not reduce carbon in the atmosphere.

Joanne Kilgour, executive director of the Ohio River Valley Institute, said the governor and some state lawmakers are proposing a number of subsidies and regulations related to the hub. She added as the project moves forward, state officials must be transparent with the public.

"This is fundamentally about spending public money on decarbonization solutions that are supposed to be helping to improve public health and address the climate crisis," Kilgour stated. "And yet the public has largely not had a way to get involved."

Wolf emphasized pursuing the hub will promote the creation of clean jobs in Pennsylvania while supporting the Biden Administration's commitment to significantly reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050.

Pennsylvania is the second-largest producer of natural gas in the country.

New York elected officials are calling on the General Assembly to pass legislation to transition new buildings off fossil fuels, saying it would make the state cleaner and healthier.

The All-Electric Building Act would require new buildings to have all-electric appliances for space and water heating and cooking by 2023. It also would mandate state agencies to identify policies to make electricity more affordable and accessible for low-income residents.

Dominic Frongillo, co-Founder of Elected Officials to Protect America, said it is about saving lives and money.

"Right here in New York, air pollution from burning gas and buildings leads to about 1,000 deaths a year and most of those are in communities of color," Frongillo reported. "It's a real, real harm to our public health."

New York burns more fossil fuels in its buildings than any state in the country. Research shows an all-electric home in New York City would save households $6,800 over the course of 15 years.

The bill received a hearing last week and must be passed by the end of the legislative session June 2.

William Reinhardt, an Albany County legislator, and a former professional energy analyst with the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, said in the long run, it makes the most sense economically to introduce new technologies through new construction.

"If you compare an all-electric building, new construction now, to a fossil-fuel building with central air conditioning, again new construction, so we are comparing apples to apples, the all-electric building is actually cheaper," Reinhardt pointed out.

Under the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2019, New York is mandating 70% of all electricity generated in New York be from renewable sources by 2030. Officials say getting all newly-constructed buildings to be fossil fuel-free is key to achieving the goal.