The first speaker presented statistical evidence on the "emissions benefits" from all the incentivizing we have done so far. There was no mention of the methane venting and leakage associated with all the "cleaner-burning indigenous fuels" that the Commonwealth has been trying to encourage via a percentage of the meager impact fee's funds that are set aside for vehicle purchases and natural gas (NG) fueling infrastructure.

 

The second presenter assured us she has a "laser beam focus on the energy and advanced manufacturing sectors...working to broaden the benefits of the extraction, processing, and transmission of this resource." It is just plain depressing to have such a highly-educated Governor pushing the "expansion of existing companies...the attraction of new facilities that are large consumers of natural gas for energy and/or natural gas liquids and their derivatives as raw materials in their manufacturing processes." Her claims were made as if there are no consequences from all the emissions these facilities and consumers will be permitted to release into the air we breathe once the capital investment is made.

 

In fairness, there was a nod in the direction of "balance": "we understand that we must balance natural gas and renewable energy production to ensure we have a diverse energy economy and a sustainable future." Noble words, but at the rate PA is going and the direction the Governor wants it to go, we'll have to fill the whole state up with windmills, solar panels and batteries of batteries to offset the amount of NG and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions coming out of the Commonwealth for the foreseeable future.

 

The second panel was on "Whether Some Natural Gas Incentives Are Better Than Others." The first speaker informed us that last year his organization, Penn Future, identified "over $3.2 billion dollars in fossil fuel subsidies provided by Pennsylvania during fiscal year 2012- 2013." He explained how "providing a tax exemption for energy purchases and not energy efficiency favors energy consumption over conservation." He pointed out how PA's property tax policy favors development of NG: Oil and gas reserves and operating wells are exempt. (Note: Do you think these are exempt from property tax in Texas? They are not. Do you think coal reserves and mines are exempt in PA? They are not.) The Penn Future presenter ended by saying, "We believe Pennsylvania can build a vibrant and growing economy on clean and renewable energy. We ask our Legislature to help lead us to that future."

 

The second speaker, Carnegie Mellon professor of engineering and public policy W. Michael Griffin, began by simply stating: "First, natural gas is NOT a bridge fuel to a renewable energy system, it is simply a bridge to nowhere." He explained that, "the availability of low priced abundant natural gas displaces more than just coal-fired electricity production and substantially increases economic activity in general. The combined effect is that there is no discernible reduction in fossil fuel GHG emissions out to 2050."

 

Dropping that for a moment, Griffin went on to explain the major benefit of NG for electrical power production: "...a complete switch (presumably by the entire USA) to NG from coal can result in a reduction of monetized health and environmental damages of between $20B and $50B annually. The majority of this reduction is in the PJM ISO electrical grid [which includes all of] PA!" Griffin also said, "We should expect similar health benefits (but not as large) can be expected for natural gas replacement of diesel fuel because of the particulate emissions associated with diesel combustion."  

 

Griffin then cited two recent studies showing that "vehicles using NG fuels have slightly higher GHG emissions based on a delivery of the intended service, the distance traveled, or freight movement per ton." He concluded, "There is really no GHG emissions advantage for NG use."  He claimed the only advantage of NG over diesel fuels lies in health-related impacts of using compressed natural gas (CNG) fuel for "transit buses, return to base delivery trucks, garbage trucks, and school buses ...(in) heavily populated cities and suburbs." Griffin concluded with his advice to lawmakers, "A program targeted with these vehicles to aid in switching from diesel to natural gas will likely have monetized health impacts larger than the associated economic benefits. Thus if one must incentivize, do so where it can do the most good."

 

The third panelist from "The Center for Climate Strategies" in D.C. was, as you might imagine, highly wonky. His testimony also emphasized health related benefits: "Expanded NG production can be used to expand renewable and efficient energy through the provision of indigenous, low cost feed stocks for advanced chemicals and materials inputs to renewable and efficient technology development and production with the net effect of reducing public risk associated with pollutants... An industrial strategy that overtly links NG with renewable and efficient energy is an important option for Pennsylvania given its production, domestic consumption and export potential."

 

Maybe that kind of thinking resonates with our MIT-educated Governor, but try selling that one to the majority of the PA legislature who reflexively reach for their concealed carry pistols at the slightest mention of "renewable energy" and who would find great humor in the suggestion of "using PA's NG advantage to expand the competitiveness of renewable and efficient energy, not as competition against it." Or his suggestion of "establishing or improving the full costing of negative externalities associated with NG production effects to incentivize market adjustments toward low footprint production, and through mechanisms that enable reinvestment of price adders to help renewable and efficient technology expansion."

 

The last panel focused on "NG Incentives and Our Carbon Budget." First was Donald Brown, Scholar in Residence and Professor of Law at Widener University. Brown started off with what surely would have been met with great disdain had any number of legislators from the majority party showed up. He titled his presentation: "How to Set National GHG Emissions Reduction Target After the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement." The professor was quite passionate about the issue. He brought up what he called the justice question: "What levels of GHG's will be permitted... given that the higher the levels - the greater the harm to those countries and millions of poor people that have done little [in the way of GHG emissions], [and are facing] an existential threat?" It is a worthy question, and one I expect you will also hear asked by Naomi Klein in the upcoming RDA film screening on April 7th.

 

He also brought up the question of equity. This is basically, "Who gets to use up what atmospheric space is left to safely add GHG emissions given historical contributions so far and the needs of poor countries that want to grow economically? He pointed out the result of business as usual: "If a nation emits more than its fair share of the remaining carbon budget, it will require other nations to reduce their GHG emissions to levels smaller than their fair share of the remaining budget, or guarantee dangerous climate change." He ended with the question, "What should the USA's and PA's GHG target emissions reduction target be?" His answer: "Carbon neutral as soon as possible, but no later than 2040...to limit warming to 1.5 degrees." One has to wonder what the MIT folks would have to say about Professor Brown's questions.

 

Next up was Cornell Professor Robert Howarth, whose work on the GHG footprint of shale gas should be well known to anyone who has followed the controversy over time. He pointed out that "methane emissions from shale gas have had a major impact on the GHG inventory of the US." He explained why his analysis differs from that of the EPA: "1) the EPA continues to underestimate the extent of methane emissions as noted by a growing number of critics including the inspector general of the US EPA"; and "2) the EPA continues to use outdated science to compare the influence of methane and carbon dioxide."

 

Professor Howarth pointed out how in Paris, "The 195 nations of the world came together... [and] acknowledged the increasing risk of climate catastrophe should the planet warm above 1.5 degrees C", and explained how, "...the planet responds very quickly to reductions in methane emissions..." and that "...the oil and gas industry is the largest source of methane emissions in the US and shale gas development has greatly increased these emissions."

 

Howarth concluded: "... I strongly recommend that society move as quickly as possible away from using shale gas as a fuel. We have alternatives: embrace wind, solar, and highly efficient 21st Century technologies for using electricity for transportation and heating. I urge that the House Democratic Policy Committee show leadership and help move the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to this alternative energy future."

An interfaith group of religious organizations held a rally at the state Capitol at the same time as the House Democratic Policy Committee Hearing described above. Those present called on Governor Tom Wolf to halt natural gas development, asking for what they call a "moral-torium" on unconventional gas development and related infrastructure.