Climate Benefits of Natural Gas May Be Overstated

~~~ salvage [ˈsælvɪdʒ] vb (tr)  to gain (something beneficial) from a failure: she salvaged little from the broken marriage

Yesterday, the Assembly Environment Committee considered ways to reverse Governor Christie’s proposed exit from RGGI.

One bill A 4108,  would mandate that NJ remain a part of the RGGI pact. The other was a Resolution (ACR 195) declaring that withdrawal was contrary to legislative intent. An additional Resolution to amend the Constitution to dedicate RGGI and SBC Clean Energy Program funds was mentioned but is not yet available for public review. It apparently will be discussed at next Thursday’s [error: Monday 6/20] Senate Environment Committee hearing. That Resolution would be by far the most significant of the 3 measures discussed.

[Update Note: I just received a copy of the Senate Env. Cmte agenda – there is no Resolution about Constitutionally dedicating the RGGI and SBC funds, as Chairman McKeon indicated. Correction: the hearing is Monday 6/20, not Thursday] 

I testified and limited my focus to one key issue: whether RGGI was reducing electric sector GHG emissions and if not, how to do so. (listen to hearing)

The answer is NO.

I swallowed hard and in honesty, was forced to agree with Governor Christie that RGGI had not been effective in changing the behavior of energy producers and consumers with respect to lowering emissions, because the so called emission cap was far too high. That’s why emission allowances tanked in price and are selling at just $1.89 (the minimum floor price).

That price is far too low to influence strategic energy planning and investment decisions by power companies, or consumer decisions on energy use and conservation. (see even PSEG describe RGGI impact as “negligible” (at page 59))

When the RGGI agreement was struck back in 2005, the emissions cap, i.e.  the number of pollution allowances allocated to NJ polluters,  was more than 10% above actual emissions.

Worse, DEP Ray Cantor testified earlier this week that the RGGI cap is now 30% above current actual emissions.

I strongly urged the Committee to amend the bill to ratchet down on the cap so that it reflected current actual emissions. That would be merely a status quo measure that would lock in any emissions reductions made to date. That way, at least RGGI would do no harm and would not allow current emissions to grow.

I warned the Committee that if the bill were not amended to do that, emissions would be allowed to grow by at least 30% (assuming the bill was enacted into law). 

Of course, a 30% emissions increase would directly conflict with the fundamental stated goal of RGGI, which is to reduce emissions and contribute to the goals of the NJ Global Warming Response Act.

During my testimony, I noted that the Governor’s claim that NJ is now in compliance with the 2020 GWRA emission reduction goal is questionable, primarily as a result of revisions to methods regarding carbon storage in soils, forest sequestration, and EPA revisions to GHG emissions factors for natural gas.

My testimony was ignored – so I can only surmise that the effort to salvage RGGI is motivated more by political partisan games to embarrass the Governor than sincere policy reform.

After the hearing, I ran into Assemblywoman Coyle (R-Somerset) who told me that she had never heard that claim about natural gas.

Apparently she is not the only one, because NJ ENGO’s are not raising objections with the high RGGI cap, questioning Christie claims of attainment of the GWRA 2020 goals, or even mentioning the natural gas emissions factors.

In fact, they claim – contrary to the facts – that RGGI reduced emissions by 10%! 

Not even PSEG is making this claim (because they know it’s not true). So why would ENGO’s?

I’ve repeatedly tried to raise these issues in the context of DEP’s recent greenhouse gas emissions Report, the Christie proposed rollback of renewable energy and Clean Energy Programs of the Energy Master Plan, and Governor Christie’s plan to withdraw NJ from RGGI.

So here it is again.

Propublica ran an important story about EPA revision of natural gas greenhouse gas emissions factors and global warming (this post stole their headline): 

“Advocates for natural gas routinely assert that it produces 50 percent less greenhouse gases than coal and is a significant step toward a greener energy future. But those assumptions are based on emissions from the tailpipe or smokestack and don’t account for the methane and other pollution emitted when gas is extracted and piped to power plants and other customers.

  The EPA’s new analysis doubles its previous estimates for the amount of methane gas that leaks from loose pipe fittings and is vented from gas wells, drastically changing the picture of the nation’s emissions that the agency painted as recently as April. Calculations for some gas-field emissions jumped by several hundred percent. Methane levels from the hydraulic fracturing of shale gas were 9,000 times higher than previously reported.

 When all these emissions are counted, gas may be as little as 25 percent cleaner than coal, or perhaps even less.”

NJ ENGO’s need to not only get on the same page politically, but share a credible technical analysis of what the hell is going on.

Dear Assemblywoman Coyle:

Per our brief conversation following today’s Committee meeting, I’d like to provide support for my testimony regarding EPA revisions to the greenhouse gas emission factors for natural gas, as it relates to RGGI and the DEP’s 2008 greenhouse gas emissions inventory Report.

 As I indicated, when lifecycle emissions are considered, the previously assumed global warming benefits of natural gas are significantly reduced, and are almost as bad as coal.   

“Advocates for natural gas routinely assert that it produces 50 percent less greenhouse gases than coal and is a significant step toward a greener energy future. But those assumptions are based on emissions from the tailpipe or smokestack and don’t account for the methane and other pollution emitted when gas is extracted and piped to power plants and other customers.

The EPA’s new analysis doubles its previous estimates for the amount of methane gas that leaks from loose pipe fittings and is vented from gas wells, drastically changing the picture of the nation’s emissions that the agency painted as recently as April. Calculations for some gas-field emissions jumped by several hundred percent. Methane levels from the hydraulic fracturing of shale gas were 9,000 times higher than previously reported.

When all these emissions are counted, gas may be as little as 25 percent cleaner than coal, or perhaps even less.”

Climate Benefits of Natural Gas May Be Overstated

http://www.propublica.org/article/natural-gas-and-coal-pollution-gap-in-doubt

The Propublica article incudes this link to EPA technical documents on revisions of greenhouse gas emissions factors for natural gas:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/29077/new-epa-data-subpart-w-tsdf.pdf

Cornell University and others have reached similar conclusions.

This is a very important issue, and completely undermines any confidence in the DEP’s 2008 greenhouse gas emissions inventory conclusions with respect to emissions from the electric sector.

If you’d like to get even further into the weeds, please see this post, where I analyze the DEP Emissions Inventory Report :

DEP Press Office Spins Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report

http://www.wolfenotes.com/2011/05/dep-press-office-spins-greenhouse-gas-emissions-report/

Please don’t hesitate to contact me for additional information.

Sincerely,

Bill Wolfe, Director

NJ PEER