by Bob Ciesielski, Atlantic Chapter Energy Chair
Summary of submitted testimony:
On January 19, 2023 a legislative hearing was held to discuss the recommendations of the Climate Action Council (CAC) contained in its Final Scoping plan released in December. The Final Scoping plan contains legislative and budgetary actions needed to implement and achieve the climate goals contained in the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA), including reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and 85% by 2050. An enormous amount of work went into developing this guidance document, beginning with the efforts of sector-specific panels, which reflect the input and expertise of a large number of stakeholders and experts. The Scoping Plan confronts many of the most contentious issues head on and comes to some practical, and in many cases, the only viable solutions for how to proceed in developing an equitable and zero emissions economy. In particular, the Final Scoping Plan appropriately limits the role for new fossil fuels in the electric, transportation and building sectors, confining use of gas and oil to last resort situations of absolute need. As New York continues to meet its renewable energy goals, it should leverage the use of regulations and transparent resource planning processes to ensure the fossil fuel plant replacement and retirement processes are effectively implemented, and “exceptions to the rule” are minimized. The vast majority of technological solutions recommended for the building, electric and transportation sectors also appropriately focus on electrification over the use of hydrogen and “renewable” natural gas, which in most cases is the only workable pathway to deep decarbonization.
We were disheartened, however, to learn that interests largely within or funded by the fossil fuel industry have been spreading concern and misinformation about the implications of the Final Scoping Plan. Not only is it critical that the Climate Action Council and the Legislature not capitulate to this fossil fuel industry pressure — which is based in fear and not fact — but also that the State focus resources on educating the public about the need for the emission limits in the Climate Act, the actual recommendations of the Council, and the fact that the Just Transition Working Group found that implementing the recommendations in the Scoping Plan will be a major catalyst of job and economic growth in New York State.
There are key areas where the legislature must pass new laws and expend state funds to keep the implementation of the CLCPA on track. Our testimony* expressed support for the following:
No new fossil fuel electric generation
No regressive changes to legal definitions
All Electric Buildings by 2024
Synchronization of the Public Service Law with the CLCPA and remove incentives and entitlements for fossil fuels
Funding for more EV Charging Infrastructure, rebates and progressive sales models to drive innovation
Adequate funding and staffing to implement the climate law
Cap and invest: paying for the transition to a renewable energy economy
*Read the full submitted testimony here.
Observations from the Hearing: False Energy Solutions
1. Fracked methane gas is already reducing emissions
At a Climate Action Council (CAC) public hearing in Buffalo, a tech representative from National Fuel Gas stated that the use of natural gas (fracked methane gas) has already reduced emissions by 35% between 1995 and the hearing date in 2020. The CAC’s final scoping plan released December 16, 2022, stated on the first page of the electricity section that “emissions” have been reduced by 46% in New York State since 1990. Senators Krueger, Harckham, and Parker held a hearing on the CAC and the CLCPA on January 19, 2023 in Albany (Krueger hearing). At the hearing, Gavin Donohue (#5) (numbers after speakers’ names denote their positions in presentations at the hearing) from the Independent Power Producers from New York (IPPNY), a Senator Ortt appointee, stated that between 1990 and the Krueger hearing date, “carbon emissions” were reduced by 55% utilizing gas. Donna DeCarolis (#4), from National Fuel Gas Distribution Corporation, another appointee to the CAC, stated that her company has already “reduced emissions” 60% below 1990 levels and predicted that it would further reduce emissions 70% by 2030 and 90% by 2050. There are several questions that arise concerning these claims:
What “emissions” are the gas industry talking about? Methane gas proponents are attempting to equate carbon emissions, or any emissions, with greenhouse gas emissions. Their conflation of the two terms into one idea confuses the terms and obfuscates the discussion.
There is probably a reduction of carbon emissions from the replacement of coal by natural gas in New York State since 1990. But methane combustion still releases 60% of the CO2 of burning coal or oil. I also expect these “emissions” do not include the greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from methane gas which is 86 times more potent a GHG than is CO2 in the first 20 years of its release to the atmosphere. Studies by Robert Howorth and Anthony Ingraffea have shown that methane gas leaks substantially exceed the 1.7% margin at which methane causes greater greenhouse gas emissions than CO2 combustion. A study in 2020 found that global methane content in the atmosphere has increased 30% between the inception of high volume hydrofracking (HVHF) for methane gas in the United States and 2018, a ten year period.
The burning of methane itself releases 60% of the CO2 that the combustion of coal releases. It’s true that energy efficiency has been reducing energy consumption in New York State. However, Donohue’s claim that “carbon emissions” have been reduced by 55% since 1990 and DeCarolis’s claim that her company has reduced emissions by 60% during the same period should be challenged. And the DeCarolis predictions of emission reductions of 70-90% appear to be questionable on their face in light of the fact that a replacement of all coal by gas would only reduce carbon emissions by 40% between the two industries. Coal and gas combined previously only supplied approximately 50% of New York’s power.
The gas industry wants to keep their pipelines in service. Senator Krueger asked DeCarolis about the economics of continuing to build out gas pipelines when zero emissions would be required in 2050. DeCarolis answered that the industry only expects to expand their pipeline infrastructure through 2035. This would be a full 50 years after the first public indications of global climate change caused by fossil fuels in the mid-1980s. It would also give the pipes built in 2035 only a 15-year life span.
On January 23, 2023 Ohio Governor DeWine signed into law an ALEC sponsored law declaring methane gas to be "Green Energy", in an Orwellian feat of fossil fuel propaganda.
2. Hydrogen
Opponents of electrification have attempted to promote hydrogen as a solution to solve problems in the heating and cooling and transportation sectors. Regarding this claim, the basic assumptions of widespread hydrogen use are flawed. Opponents of electrification only speak of “hydrogen”, but imply the use of “Green” hydrogen. They again conflate “green” hydrogen with all manufactured hydrogen to mislead. “Green” hydrogen is produced utilizing renewable energy such as solar, wind or hydro to operate an electrolysis process which breaks down water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. The utilization of renewable energy in electrolysis wastes between 20-50% of the energy producing the hydrogen molecules. The renewable energy used to produce “Green” hydrogen is much more efficiently used in direct electrification. An Energy Justice Network study found that 1 megawatt hour (MWh) of electricity produced from renewable sources offsets approximately 2,200 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent, while the same amount of renewable electricity used to produce “Green” hydrogen offsets only 500 pounds of CO2.
If hydrogen is to be used on the scale suggested by the opponents of electrification, most hydrogen would likely have to be “gray” hydrogen produced by using fossil fuels such as coal, gas, oil, to operate a steam process which breaks down methane ( CH4, another fossil fuel) to produce hydrogen and carbon molecules. Large scale use of this process can only increase GHG emissions. Studies from Europe have found that a full hydrogen energy system could only be powered by approximately 10-20% Green hydrogen because of economic factors, including the cost of producing Green hydrogen.
Opponents of electrification at the Krueger hearing, especially Gavin Donohue, supported a hydrogen economy and mentioned support from the Biden Administration, Senator Schumer and Governor Hochul as justification. Donohue’s request for continued studies of energy options indicated the fossil fuel industry would like to spend much more time doing research, including the hydrogen option. Large scale demonstration projects would also use funds that could be used to build renewables.
NYSERDA has already run a hydrogen experiment on Long Island, which was addressed by Anthony Rogers-Wright (#9) of the New York Lawyers for the Public Interest. He mentioned that the test results from the Long Island demo project showed high (24%) increases in smog-producing nitrous oxide (NOx) in the combustion of hydrogen during the experiment, which is an expected outcome. Significant amounts of water were required to keep the NOx emissions within permitted limits. Also mentioned was a minimal reduction of GHG emissions resulting from mixing hydrogen with fracked gas. A mixture of 35% hydrogen with fracked gas in pipelines only reduced emissions by 14%.
At most only 10% - 20% of hydrogen can be introduced into a fracked gas mix without technical problems, including leakage and the destruction of pipelines caused by hydrogen brittling the metal. Also, with the leakage in hydrogen because of its small molecules, gaps in pipes would have to be retrofitted or replaced in every building and residence being heated before it could be safely utilized.
Hydrogen may be useful in limited niche uses such as where electrification cannot be easily accomplished. Robert Howorth (#2) of Cornell University mentioned use in fuel cells for forklifts, in the steel industry, and possibly as a storage option for renewable electricity. (I personally feel the storage could be obtained in other ways.)
3. “Renewable Natural Gas” (RNG)
The gas industry has been maintaining that renewable natural gas could fill in much of the power needed to create electricity. The history of renewable natural gas in New York has been to derive large quantities of methane gas from large CAFO dairy farms and to transport the methane to inject into regular fracked gas pipelines. This procedure extends the influence of gas throughout the State and gives reason for the pipeline infrastructure.
Arguments in favor of RNG are that other countries use renewable natural gas and anerobic digesters successfully to combat climate change. An examination of the European model reveals that anerobic digesters are operated on smaller scale farms which use their methane in local villages to provide heating gas. The European model is successful in that villages are often located near the smaller farms, and gas can be provided with a minimal system of pipelines to heat locally. The European model does not produce large scale gas for injection into regular fracked gas pipelines.
In general, arguments of the fossil fuel industry against electrification are propped up by loose language which conflate and blend several ideas into one. Do “emissions” include only CO2 emissions, or include all greenhouse gas emissions including methane and nitrous oxide? “Hydrogen” implies that the hydrogen will be produced by the “Green” method, failing to take into account that the major source of industrial hydrogen is from grey hydrogen. “Renewable Natural Gas” fails to account for the different market for European RNG which is used only locally and American RNG which will be transferred to the existing interstate fracked gas pipeline system.
It is my concern that extended studies of these false solutions will be used in an attempt to delay the implementation of electrification measures. Republican Senators at the Krueger hearing said that it would be a mistake to begin the electrification of buildings if it was later found that heat pumps were ineffective or unreliable, and that it would be impossible to reverse if on an erroneous course. In the meantime, gas lines continue to be extended throughout the State with Donna DeCarolis of National Fuel Gas only seeing an end to the build out in 2035.
The goals of the Scoping Plan are not only feasible, but in New York’s best economic interests. It is understandable that such a rapid transition to a 100% electrified and zero emissions building, transportation, and industrial sector will lead to concerns about costs, reliability, labor standards and job security for those especially invested in the old infrastructure. We are confident that if the legislature acts boldly, provides adequate transition funding, sets reasonable target dates and fair market signals, secures strong labor protections and removes regulatory barriers to new technologies, we can keep pace with our necessary climate goals, create healthier communities, and generate economic growth that benefits working families.