Let’s focus on solutions

The current debate about allowing EPA to regulate carbon emissions or encouraging Congress to act in its stead is a significant and heated one. However, we believe there are more effective and pragmatic ways of reducing carbon emissions than government mandates, regardless of which branch of government is issuing them. For example, using America’s most reliable, efficient and environmentally friendly fossil fuel, natural gas, and using it as efficiently as possible, can significantly reduce carbon emissions.

To that end, government policies that promote the increased use of natural gas are the most effective way to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy efficiency. And because natural gas is domestically abundant—more than 97 percent of the natural gas we use comes from North America—it contributes to our energy security as well.

The fact is that, for four decades, natural gas residential and commercial customers have been leading the way in energy efficiency and carbon emission reductions. For example, the number of residential households using natural gas increased from 38 million in 1970 to 66 million today — an increase of more than 70 percent — yet aggregate residential consumption over that time has remained essentially flat. That is because residential natural gas users have cut their natural gas use, per household, by about 40 percent. This decline in residential gas usage per household is due to better insulated homes, more efficient appliances and conservation/efficiency programs that are supported by natural gas utilities.

This remarkable success in both reducing natural gas usage on a per-household basis and increasing appliance efficiency should be considered when crafting a national energy strategy. An effective course of action would be to continue to support these successful approaches and encourage other innovative ways to promote conservation.

We believe that natural gas could, and should, be used as a tool to improve environmental quality and energy efficiency. An approach to reducing emissions that is focused on appliance efficiency standards, building codes, and utility-supported conservation/efficiency programs has a proven track record for residential and commercial natural gas customers.

Let’s focus on what works for America, our environment and our future. We need to be talking about natural gas – domestic, abundant, affordable and available right now.

One Comment on Let’s focus on solutions

Larry Berg on Wed, 16th Jun 2010 11:37 am


Great comments, Dave. I recently retired from El Paso Electric Company (EPE) and now consult on climate change issues. At EPE, less than 10% of the energy it produces or purchases annually comes from coal. Almost everything else is from nuclear and natural gas. EPE’s carbon footprint intensity in 2009 (for CO2) was 0.29 U.S. short tons CO2 per MWh, less than half the national average(0.67). If all electric utilities carried such an impressive intensity level, our nation (and the world) may not even be concerned with carbon emissions. In addition to the fear that pricing carbon and setting up a cap-and-trade program will be complicated and subject to gross or subtle manipulation by unscrupulous opportunists (including the very lawmakers pushing for its passage), it seems grossly unfair that no consideration is proposed for those utilities, like EPE, who have carried a low carbon footprint for decades. EPE also serves an area that continues to experience tremendous organic customer growth (roughly double the national average), and such is not considered either in any of the various proposed legislative efforts being discussed. There seems to be no voice of reason in Congress and your point is well stated – we don’t really want government dictating to us on this matter, no matter which branch it may be. Sadly, and perhaps more significantly, my rough calculations indicate that it could cost our nation more than a trillion dollars to modestly reduce emissions by 20% under any of the proposed plans by 2020, which would, according to some scientists, not even begin to have a positive effect on the global climate, the ozone layer, or long-term temperatures. I don’t hear ANY legislator talking about that reality or about the climate “benefits” we can expect in return for the burdensome costs they are proposing. I do beleive that the best hope for our future is to evolve into a nation that relies more heavily on nuclear and natural gas sources for eledctric power, with coal still playing a key role. By the way, for all of the hype, those of us in the industry realize that renewable energy, especially solar and wind, will likely never be capable of producing inexpensive, reliable basleoad energy and we must stop deluding ourselves otherwise.

[Reply]

Tell us what you're thinking...and don't forget you can check the 'Notify me of followup comments via e-mail' box under the submit button. If you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!