White House Emissions Target: A Hit Or Miss?

December 7, 2009 by Chris Hogan · Leave a Comment
Filed under: environment

national journal blog The National Journal’s Energy and Environment Experts blog asked the question, “White House Emissions Target: A Hit Or Miss?” You can read Dave Parker’s response below and follow this link to see what the other experts had to say.

While AGA is closely monitoring the progress of climate legislation and the upcoming Copenhagen negotiations, we have not taken a stance on timelines and specific percentage targets. The primary reason is that trying to peer into a future full of competing legislation and partisan interests is likely an exercise in futility. Rather, AGA is focused on the achievement of more practical goals, such as how to continue to help move toward a reduced carbon future. It should be noted that the residential sector, using natural gas for heating, has a carbon footprint today that is essentially the same as it was in 1970 even though the number of households using natural gas has grown from 38 million in 1970 to 65 million today.

In actionable terms, when looking at the 2020 target reduction of 17 percent below 2005 levels of greenhouse gas emissions, natural gas can continue to play a key role in achieving that near-term goal. And on that point, the Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE) agrees that maximizing the immediate use of natural gas, along with existing clean technologies of renewable energy and energy efficiency, is the most effective way to realistically reach these targets.

BCSE’s strategic vision establishes that in a near-term scenario leading to 2020, renewables, being zero- or low-carbon emission energy sources, can address incremental new energy demand to supplement existing energy supply. Meanwhile, increases in energy efficiency, which residential and commercial natural gas customers have led the nation in achieving for nearly three decades, can contribute to reductions in overall energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

With respect to this partnership approach, BCSE points out that as the lowest carbon-emitting fossil fuel, natural gas is uniquely positioned to complement the addition of renewable energy to the existing grid. Natural gas is a reliable and efficient fuel and, when used appropriately as part of a diverse energy portfolio, can be an effective substitute for more carbon-intensive energy sources.

So while the debate about timelines and targets will no doubt continue, AGA is focused on the here-and-now technologies and resources that will actually affect change for our country, our environment and for the world’s climate.

Share:

Tags: national journal

Natural Resources Defense Council Joins AGA to Promote ‘Full-Fuel-Cycle’ Measurements for Appliances

September 17, 2009 by Lauren Blosse · Leave a Comment
Filed under: Natural Gas, environment

The esteemed Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), known in Washington and around the country as the most effective environmental action organization, has banded together with AGA for an important cause- to improve the way the “carbon footprints” of our appliances are measured.

The two groups released a joint statement today urging Congress to heed the recommendations of a National Academies study, released in May, which concludes that a “full-fuel-cycle” measurement for appliances will give consumers the most scientifically accurate information about the energy consumption of their purchases.

Currently, the Department of Energy measures efficiency at the “site source” of an appliance – for example, the burner tip on your stovetop. But that type of measurement doesn’t take into account the amount of energy lost along the way in the production, generation, and distribution of the fuel, i.e., the full-fuel-cycle.

So it’s fair to say that right now, consumers are only getting part of the energy efficiency equation when they purchase an appliance, and the National Academies, AGA and now NRDC have set out to help customers see the true size of their carbon footprint.

Visit this link for more.

Share:

Tags: energy

An answer for Grist: Environmentalists should value electric power supply diversity

August 27, 2009 by Mike Pomorski · Leave a Comment
Filed under: environment

In an engaging and thought provoking post, David Roberts over at Grist is torn, asking “should greens ally with natural gas against coal.” Mr. Roberts notes that on one hand, producing and burning natural gas leaves an environmental footprint. On the other hand, natural gas has lots of properties (widespread availability, scalability, and relatively lower carbon content) that make it attractive. What’s an environmentalist to do?

The answer depends on what kind of a green (to use Mr. Roberts’ term) you are. If you value environmental purity above all other goals then no, you absolutely should not support natural gas (or coal) use, since it would violate your core principles.

If, however, you are more pragmatic shade of green (politically, economically, etc.) and believe that the perfect is not the enemy of the good, then an out of hand rejection of any generating source (certainly natural gas but also coal and nuclear) makes much less sense.

Consider the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA, a.k.a. Waxman-Markey). As Joseph Romm notes elsewhere in Grist, EIA’s analysis is not without its flaws (nor is Waxman-Markey). Nonetheless, EIA’s effort is a useful starting point for discussion.

In their ACESA Basic Case (EIA does not assign probabilities to any of their 11 cases, but the Basic Case has gotten the most press), EIA projects that the top two electric power sector sources by generation in 2030 are nuclear (36%) and coal (31%). Renewables (which include hydro in EIA’s formulation) come in third at 20%. We meet our ACESA requirement though new technology (a lot of it nuclear) and international offsets, which are the two main reasons why costs are contained.

You might argue that the Basic Case is technology pessimistic. Well, in their High Technology Case, EIA projects that the largest generating sources in the electric power sector are, again, nuclear (39%), coal (27%), and renewables (24%, again including hydro).

Now suppose that you are skeptical of new technologies like nuclear and clean coal and you are also worried about the availability of international offsets (or you think that the United States should not be able to use international offsets to meet a domestic commitment). In EIA’s No International/Limited Alternatives Case, which includes these restrictions, the single largest contributor to electric power sector generation is natural gas (36%). To be sure, less restrictive assumptions about renewables might eat into this share, but still.

The United States meets its ACESA commitment in each of these cases; it just does so in different ways. Notice that the generation mix in all three is heavily reliant on either a fossil fuel (natural gas or coal) or nuclear, two things that make many environmental purists very angry.

In EIA’s (imperfect) analysis, the idea that climate change regulation can be affordable is inconsistent with rejecting a robust mix of electricity generating options. If you are an environmental purist you might not care, since cost containment is simply not the issue. But most people (and I think environmentalists) are more pragmatic. So my short answer to Mr. Roberts’ question is that greens should ally with low-carbon electricity sources including natural gas, but not to the exclusion of alliances with clean coal and nuclear (natural gas is also like an insurance policy). That we need a healthy generation mix to meet environmental goals at a reasonable cost is not just an industry tagline.

I should also mention that there is a compelling environmental case to be made for the direct use of natural gas in homes (e.g. your gas space heater). I won’t spend a lot of time on it here, but I would encourage anyone grappling with Mr. Roberts’ question to consider the AGA/NRDC joint statement regarding direct use of natural gas and decoupling (endorsed by the Alliance to Save Energy and the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy). You can also learn more about decoupling here.

Share: