More from the release:

“The production of renewable natural gas is a major milestone that will allow us to provide sustainable energy from local agricultural products that were previously discarded or shipped out of state,” said TGC’s president and CEO, Jeffrey Kissel.

Because Hawaii relies on imported petroleum for approximately 90 percent of its energy – more than twice as much as any other state – Hawaii’s state government launched the Hawaii Clean Energy Initiative in 2008, calling for 70 percent clean energy by 2030. The Gas Company is working toward producing half of its gas from renewable and sustainable sources.

The new facility transforms fats and oils in a process that uses the heat from its existing gas production facilities, surplus hydrogen and steam to produce renewable natural gas and biofuels.

The renewable natural gas and biofuels that the RNG pilot plant produces will be incorporated into The Gas Company’s existing manufacturing and distribution operations. Renewable natural gas will displace gas produced from petroleum and will be distributed through The Gas Company’s 1,100-mile Oahu pipeline network. The cost for renewable natural gas should be the same as or less than gas produced from current sources, without relying on taxpayer subsidy.

You can read the full release here.

Having attended a variety of discussions featuring state regulators from Pennsylvania, North Dakota and Ohio, members of Congress like Senators Bingaman and Hoeven, and representatives from working groups like STRONGER and FracFocus, I think that the Subcommittee’s report culminates some thoughtful discussions on what we need to do to keep the natural gas value chain clean, green and safe. We can expect a final 180-day report from the Subcommittee on November 18, 2011, to made available on the Subcommittee’s website.

A recent and unprecedented partnership between AGA Member NiSource and federal agencies with environmental duties offers a great solution.  The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has received NiSource’s application for a 50-year habitat conservation plan and permit to plan for habitat management for 43 federally listed species and over 40 currently unlisted species across 14 states. This program requires cooperation of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Army Corps of Engineers, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Forest Service, and NiSource is working to involve the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, and other stakeholders in its long-term compliance program.  AGA filed comments supporting NiSource’s application and encouraged the Service to allow other long-term, collaborative environmental plans to bolster comprehensive habitat conservation and prepare for anticipated pipeline safety compliance.

Following in NiSource’s footsteps, AGA member National Grid has also applied for a 50-year HCP for one listed and one unlisted species under the Act.  Similar to NiSource’s proposal, the HCP would reduce compliance costs for pipeline development and maintenance and also takes a holistic approach to habitat preservation across state lines as opposed to on an ad hoc basis within each state where National Grid operates.

You can view AGA’s Comments on NiSource’s HCP here and National Grid’s HCP application here.

Thanks to Samantha Arens, AGA’s intern from U.C. Davis Law, for assistance with this piece.

• The job creation potential of renewable biogas gas projects is significant. Direct jobs created range up to 83,000 depending on the depth of the market penetration. Using an average multiplier of 3.1 for indirect and induced jobs, total jobs created ranges up to 257,000

• Depending on the model of deployment, renewable gas production could result in 146 million metric tons of CO2 removed from the air annually. This is the equivalent of taking 29 million cars off the road.
• Almost every state in the U.S. has the resources to participate in the production of renewable gas with the potential to create new green jobs.
• Renewable gas from renewable sources including animal manure, forest residues, and agricultural wastes can be produced at efficiencies ranging from 60–70%, thus, using our renewable resources in a responsible and efficient manner.
• Renewable gas is an interchangeable fuel that can be delivered to customers via the existing U.S. pipeline infrastructure and can provide a renewable energy option in the natural gas energy market, an energy market that overall represents 25% of U.S. energy use.

The report is filled with a lot of good information so give it a read. If you have questions about the report, you can contact Kathryn Clay, the AGF executive director.

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.

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.

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.

Recently, the four groups that comprise the Natural Gas Council (AGA, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, the Natural Gas Supply Association, and the Independent Petroleum Association of America) set out to create a blueprint of the natural gas industry as a whole- from the burner tip in our kitchens back to the wellhead where the gas is produced.  The result is a comprehensive booklet, “Solving the Climate Change Puzzle;  Natural Gas- Clean, Abundant, Efficient, American,” which is now available to the public.

As our lawmakers try to secure America’s energy future by promoting clean, domestic energy, natural gas is both an immediate and long-term piece of that solution.

Be sure to let us know what you think.