Sykes for Barron’s: There’s Still a Deal to Be Made on Permitting Reform

By Elan Sykes

When President Biden agreed to a debt limit deal with House Republicans in June, he greenlit many of their changes to the federal approval process for energy projects, typically referred to as permitting reform. Both parties came away with a win. Job well done, right?

Not quite, especially when it comes to the growth of clean energy in this country. Permitting reform isn’t just a Republican priority. Democrats passed significant new financing for the energy transition earlier in Biden’s presidency, but without further permitting reform that addresses their key issues, it won’t achieve nearly enough. And Republicans who may have taken a victory lap on the debt-limit deal have permitting goals to accomplish, too. A better deal could still be had. 

Keep reading in Barron’s.

Bledsoe for The Messenger: A Melting Arctic Will Bring Climate Disaster Without Urgent Action

By Paul Bledsoe

President Joe Biden met with both U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and then King Charles this week to discuss climate change, and action on the Arctic should have been at the top of the agenda since the melting of Arctic sea ice is rapidly destabilizing the climate more powerfully than any other immediate cause.

As the Arctic’s reflective sea ice continues to melt, more and more heat is absorbed by the darker ocean underneath, disrupting the world’s weather and inflicting punishing and hugely expensive climate impacts in the U.S., U.K. and around the globe.

The loss of sea ice also is rearranging geopolitical power in very dangerous ways for the West, as Russia and China cooperate on newly opened Arctic sea lanes and plot to jointly exploit oil, gas and other minerals made more accessible as the ice disappears.

But there is still a choice: temporary riches from oil and gas for a few, or planetary safety for all.  This should be an easy call.  But it doesn’t seem to be.

Read more.

This story was originally published by The Messenger on July 11, 2023.

Bledsoe and Gresser for The Messenger: A Trade-Based Climate Policy Can Cut Emissions Globally

By Paul Bledsoe and Ed Gresser

The recent reopening of diplomatic dialogue by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Chinese leaders highlighted the enormous importance of climate change action by the world’s two largest greenhouse gas emitters. But it did not yield immediate progress on China’s huge annual carbon emissions.

In contrast, the U.S., European Union and their G7 allies are taking historic actions to reduce greenhouse emissions. America’s effort includes hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies for domestic private-sector investments in clean energy, intended to reduce emissions by 50% or more by 2030 and reach “net-zero” emissions before mid-century.

Action by the G7, however, isn’t nearly enough. Total global emissions continue to grow, setting another record last year. The reason is emissions growth from large middle-income countries. China produces nearly one-third of the world’s 36 billion tons of annual carbon dioxide emissionsmore than all developed countries combined, while Russia, India, Brazil and Indonesia add 5.6 billion tons. Emissions from all these countries are still rising.

As emissions and global temperatures increase, hugely expensive and deadly climate impacts are multiplying, from last year’s floods in Pakistan to this year’s Canadian wildfires and many others in every region of the world. These are clear warnings of a future of far more devastating climate disasters unless global emissions begin falling very soon.

Read more.

This story was originally published in The Messenger on July 3, 2023.

Alliance for Clean Trade: Creating a New Climate and Trade Alliance Between the U.S., EU, and Allies

The United States and the European Union have recently implemented ambitious domestic greenhouse gas reduction programs. But reducing global emissions will not be possible unless China and other middle-income emitting countries cut their emissions. And the different approaches the EU and U.S. have taken create a risk of policy and trade conflicts that divert both from the larger goal of limiting world emissions.

Today, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) released a new report titled, “Alliance for Clean Trade: A Framework Proposal for a New Climate and Trade Alliance Between the U.S., EU, and Allies” outlining a new low-emissions trade deal that would help the United States, European Union, and their allies harmonize approaches to transition to clean energy and incentivize China and other nations to reduce emissions.

Report authors Paul Bledsoe, Strategic Advisor at PPI and a former Clinton White House climate official, and Ed Gresser, Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets and former Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade Policy and Economics, lay out a policy framework where the U.S., EU, and other G7 countries set emissions standards for high-carbon industries, and impose a fee applying to both local production and imported goods with high emissions rates. This trade agreement would help countries meet their emissions goals, avoid imposing trade penalties on each other, and give China and other large emitting, middle-income countries incentives to follow suit.

“The Alliance for Clean Trade (ACT) proposes that the U.S. and our G7 allies ban together to create powerful trade incentives for China and other nations to cut their emissions, so global emissions can fall and we can prevent the worst of climate change impacts,” said Paul Bledsoe. “Without new economic incentives to reduce emissions, our world will see dangerous climate impacts and rising household costs that will soon swamp our ability to adapt and protect public safety at home and around the world. Our framework helps provide a pragmatic, yet ambitious way forward, while also complying with World Trade Organization rules.”

“The world has just had a shining example of U.S.-Europe-Asian collaboration to develop new technologies and products needed to meet a worldwide threat in the case of the COVID-19 vaccines. We need a similar collaborative effort to meet the challenge of climate change, and to induce the large middle-income economies that are the source of new net emissions to become more efficient,” said Ed Gresser. “This paper is an effort to outline such a program, through trade incentives based on common charges for over-production of carbon in the highest-emissions industrial sectors.”

The framework seeks to address three major problems with current policies and other proposals:

  • The framework creates powerful economic incentives for China and other large emitting, middle-income countries to cut emissions since they now export to the U.S., EU and other allied countries without penalty for higher CO2 emissions.
  • The framework also harmonizes increasingly disparate climate policies among US, EU and G7 allies for trade purposes, using low emissions intensity by sector as the key metric.
  • The framework complies with World Trade Organization principles of national treatment and non-discrimination, avoiding the risk that proposals currently being considered in the U.S. Congress might violate U.S. trade obligations, but without requiring widespread U.S. carbon pricing.

 

Read and download the report here:

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C., with offices in Brussels, Berlin and the United Kingdom. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.

Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.

Find an expert at PPI.

###

Media Contact: Amelia Fox, afox@ppionline.org

Alliance for Clean Trade: A Framework Proposal for a New Climate and Trade Alliance Between the U.S., EU, and Allies

ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN TRADE

A low-emissions trade deal to help the United States, the European Union, and their allies harmonize approaches to the clean energy transition and incentivize China and other nations to reduce emissions.

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

After many years of discord and false starts, the United States, the European Union, and most other major developed economies are implementing ambitious domestic greenhouse gas emissions reduction programs. U.S. and EU emissions, respectively the world’s secondlargest and third-largest flows of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, are likely to continue to fall sharply as a result.

But their efforts won’t be enough. To avert a disastrous rise in global temperatures, the larger, necessary goal is to reduce global emissions. For this, however, China — whose emissions are now greater annually than the U.S., EU, and all other developed countries combined — must reduce its emissions, and so must other major middle-income emitting countries. So far, that isn’t happening.

Here’s a program that can help: An Alliance for Clean Trade (ACT) that minimizes climate and trade policy conflict among low-emissions economies including the U.S. and EU, accelerates the reduction of emissions in some of their major industrial sectors, and creates strong economic incentives for others, including eventually China, to reduce their own emissions.

The core idea is for the U.S. and EU, joined by other G7 countries and eventually OECD nations, to set emissions standards for high-carbon industries, and impose a fee applying to both local production and imported goods with emissions rates above an agreed emissions intensity standard. This would help them meet their emissions goals, avoid counterproductive rivalries and imposition of trade penalties on one another, and give China and large emitting, middle-income countries incentives to do the same.

READ THE FULL REPORT

PPI Urges Congress to Adopt Permitting Reforms Included In Debt Ceiling Agreement

Paul Bledsoe, Strategic Advisor at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), released the following response in reaction to the permitting reforms included in the reported agreement-in-principle to raise the debt ceiling.

“PPI supports the permitting reforms included in the budget agreement, including tighter deadlines for environmental impact statements, designation of lead agencies, and other improvements we recommended in PPI’s major report on permitting reforms last fall. We therefore urge adoption of these reforms by Congress.

“But far more extensive reforms will be needed to expedite the thousands of new energy projects that are pending approval, and to reduce both consumer costs and emissions in the long-term. These reforms include provisions to more quickly and cost-effectively build large electric power lines, natural gas and other pipelines, wind and solar projects, advanced nuclear power, electricity storage, and many other energy technologies. We look forward to working with Congress and the Administration to pass these additional and urgently needed reforms into law.”

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.

Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.

Find an expert at PPI.

###

Media Contact: Amelia Fox – afox@ppionline.org

PPI Applauds New Democrat Coalition’s Bipartisan Permitting Reform Priorities

Elan Sykes, Energy Policy Analyst at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), released the following response in reaction to the New Democrat Coalition’s bipartisan permitting reform proposal.

“Combatting the climate crisis requires the ability to swiftly build and deploy massive new infrastructure and technology, without a thicket of federal and state regulations that slow the transition and in many cases even penalize cleaner technologies relative to fossil fuels. The Progressive Policy Institute has long advocated for updates to the existing regulatory framework to better reflect the impact and benefits of clean energy technologies for the climate and the U.S. economy.

“PPI supports the New Democrat Coalition’s proposal, which builds on successful, existing reforms while highlighting the need for ambitious modernization of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and specific new reforms for electricity transmission to place it on par with rules for natural gas. In September, PPI released policy recommendations for permitting reform legislation and is pleased to see those recommendations included in the New Democrat Coaliton’s plan.

“Securing permitting reforms will not only help address climate change with the proper urgency, but it will also lower household energy costs for American families in a time of concerning inflation. Congress must take effective, bipartisan action to break through this outdated, bureaucratic red tape and let America build.”

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.

Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.

###

Media Contact: Amelia Fox – afox@ppionline.org

La Sombrita: Dysfunctional Urban Governance in our Changing Climate

Last week, the Los Angeles Department of Transportation held a press conference and ribbon-cutting ceremony to launch its latest facility: a bus shade and lamp roughly the size of a streetside parking sign called “La Sombrita.” Pictures displaying the device showed an internet eager for Sombrita content and its limited ambitions (see the viral chatter on Twitter and TikTok), as it provides little or no shade at certain times of day and the lamp is pointed so it doesn’t even illuminate its surroundings:

 

 

The Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) and Kounkuey Design Initiative (KDI), the nonprofit behind La Sombrita’s design, explicitly acknowledge that the structure was specifically designed for situations where permitting delays, agency conflicts, or narrow sidewalks prevent the installation of street trees or traditional bus shelters with a roof and seating. Indeed, highlighting these constraints may have been the most valuable contribution that La Sombrita makes to the Los Angeles bus system, because these limitations are self-imposed, or at the very least, stem from a narrow political vision that must be widened for cities to govern effectively through coming challenges.

Despite the humorous tone of the discussion — and La Sombrita certainly deserves the jokes at its expense — the issues of shade, nighttime lighting, and general infrastructure needs for pedestrians and bus users are all quite serious business. Bus riders — often low-income workers using current American bus systems as a mode of last resort — are forced to wait for infrequent service under the scorching sun with nowhere to sit, and without coverage from street trees like those common in richer neighborhoods. The structure’s lamp was included to meet an identified need for better lighting to help provide security for women against the risk of gendered violence. Narrow sidewalks and poor maintenance hurt all users, but they make any further obstruction especially difficult for people with mobility disabilities to pass by. And for the public and planet at large, infrastructure that improves low-emissions transportation methods like buses and walking will be increasingly important to us all as climate change continues to raise temperatures and reduce cloud cover in a brutal feedback cycle.

Just as the clean energy transition requires updating old federal environmental regulations holding back the deployment of renewables, transmission, and mass transit, cities working to mitigate and adapt to climate change while growing and maintaining their vibrancy through the social and workplaces transitions that follow the COVID pandemic must reform these local regulatory thickets holding back city governments like LADOT from building out effective networks of infrastructure for neglected modes of low-carbon transportation. The problem is not limited to Los Angeles either, as the decade-long slog to build bus lanes in San Francisco and a million-dollar bus stop in Arlington, Virginia, demonstrate.

Cities around the world have shown that climate-friendly urban infrastructure projects can be delivered quickly and at low cost. Consider the COVID pop-up bike lanes of Paris, which increased ridership by 60% in just two years, or the world-class bus rapid transit network that Mexico City built in the time it took San Francisco to build just one lane, or Vienna’s Cool Streets program that provide shade and water features at places for city residents to cool off in the fresh air on select streets during hotter and hotter summers.

Adopting programs like these in the U.S. will never succeed if every program is launched as an expensive pilot project forced to jump through the hoops of countless agencies’ rules and forced through tortuous process requirements. U.S. cities aiming for ambitious progress on climate, mobility, and equity should be applauded for the results they achieve rather than the ideals they profess in service of overpriced half-measures. A comprehensive and forward-looking mode of urban governance does not require spending lavish sums on vanity projects but should instead focus on:

 

  • Enabling real infrastructure deployment by streamlining the permitting process, consolidating and coordinating across separate agencies, and empowering agencies to buy and implement off-the-shelf components faster and cheaper.
  • Ending land-use restrictions on urban density including zoning, setbacks, and parking requirements that limit shade from buildings and disperse destinations to inhibit walking and bus transport.
  • Treating pedestrian and bus infrastructure investment on par with other transport modes.
  • Encouraging wider adoption of solar shading and cooling facilities in hot and warming cities.

 

If America’s cities get out of their own way with unnecessary requirements and limitations to embrace a vision of livable and vibrant cities, the next $200,000 spent on urban infrastructure will go much further than La Sombrita.

 

Bledsoe for The New York Times: Speeding Up the Update of Our Electrical Grid

By Paul Bledsoe

To the Editor:

Re “We Desperately Need a New Electrical Grid. Here’s How to Make It Happen” (editorial, May 7):

Kudos for recognizing that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is the agency best equipped to consider and approve proposals to build long-distance interstate electric transmission needed to deliver affordable but remote renewable energy to where it is needed. Otherwise, America will not be able to decarbonize our grid or our economy.

Fortunately, the proposed Streamlining Interstate Transmission of Electricity (SITE) Act would provide F.E.R.C. the authority it needs to help solve this problem.

Read the full Letter to the Editor in The New York Times here.

Bledsoe for NYDN: President Biden’s Earth Day promise: The incumbent has a real plan for a greener future, unlike Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis

By Paul Bledsoe

Last week, a meeting of Florida flooding policy managers was washed out in South Florida by a deluge of 26 inches of rain in just eight hours, unprecedented rainfall made far larger due to the climate change crisis that Gov. Ron DeSantis and former President Donald Trump consistently belittle. And it’s not even hurricane season yet. In fact, climate change causes extreme flooding year around since warmer air holds more water vapor, making storms produce additional “heavy precipitation events,” according to the U.S. National Climate Assessment.

Sunshine State homeowners now face massive increases in home insurance costs due to climate change impacts, if they can get insurance at all. Since DeSantis became governor four years ago, policy home insurance rates have gone up 50% for Floridians, and increases aren’t stopping. And experts expect reinsurance costs to go up another 50% more this summer.

“Most homeowners’ insurance policies do not include flood insurance,” says state Insurance Commissioner David Altmaier. Flood insurance can easily add another $1,500 to the bill. All of these costs help make inflation higher in Florida than the national average. By 2100, if greenhouse gas emissions are not dramatically reduced, Florida could face sea levels rise by up to 6 feet, with more than 900,000 properties at risk of being underwater. Welcome to the world of increasingly brutal climate disasters that will make the lives of average Americans, especially the elderly, far more insecure and expensive, if emissions are allowed to continue rising, as they will if Trump or DeSantis becomes president after the next election.

Read more in New York Daily News. 

Bledsoe and Sykes for The Hill: Permitting reform can cut consumer energy costs and emissions

By Paul Bledsoe and Elan Sykes

America could have cleaner, cheaper energy if only we could agree to get out of our own way. The obstacle we have created is a thicket of federal and state regulations requiring energy projects to undergo lengthy, expensive, one-by-one government studies, in theory, to determine their environmental impact. But as Earth Day approaches, it’s time we align these regulations with the need to rapidly build clean energy infrastructure to both address the climate crisis and reduce consumer energy costs.

This regulatory process is termed “permitting” because of more than 60 types of federal government permits that can be required for projects, and it stems primarily from the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Initially conceived as a quick and simple examination for most routine projects, the combination of project siting, NEPA review and issuing permits has morphed into a many-years-long process rife with opportunities for narrow interests to block projects even where they demonstrably serve consumer and public interests and cut emissions. Perversely, clean energy projects, especially low-cost solar power, are most often the projects facing the longest delays.

Read more in The Hill.

Bledsoe for The Hill: Maximizing the climate benefits of natural gas exports

By Paul Bledsoe

A major question facing American energy and climate policymakers today is what role abundant U.S. natural gas should play in the global clean energy transition. Some environmental activists oppose all gas use. But a new report from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) finds that expanding U.S. liquefied natural gas exports can lower global greenhouse gas emissions significantly, especially if fugitive emissions of methane are deeply reduced.

The climate benefits of America’s shale gas revolution have been evident domestically for years. More than three-fifths of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions reductions over the period 2005 to 2020 were due to coal-fired power plants being replaced by natural gas plants.

In the last year, since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. has also become the world’s largest liquefied natural gas (LNG) exporter, more than doubling deliveries to Europe. This has helped the EU’s economy withstand the cutoff of most Russian gas, with clear geopolitical and economic benefits. Less appreciated are the emissions reductions achieved, since American LNG has limited the growth in the EU’s coal and also reduced use of higher methane-leaking Russian gas.

Read more in The Hill. 

PPI on the SOTU: Energy

President Joe Biden has achieved remarkable success for U.S. climate policy halfway through his term, and his first State of the Union after the midterms should reflect the accomplishments that Democrats have made in passing the Inflation Reduction Act and Democrats and Republicans both for their roles in the IIJA, CHIPS and Science Act, and the ratification of the Kigali Amendment. But what PPI’s Energy and Climate team wants to see most is what comes next: What are President Biden’s climate plans for the next two years of a divided Congress, for 2024, and beyond? And how will Biden position U.S. energy policy amidst continued turbulence in global markets as Russia’s war in Ukraine drags on?

As hundreds of billions in spending and loans flow out of these new federal programs to firms, households, and state and local governments, President Biden and both parties in Congress should look to finally strike a deal reforming federal and other barriers to the deployment of crucial new clean energy technologies held back by the permitting process, environmental review delays, and inter-jurisdictional conflicts. Biden should also call on Congress to fully fund the energy-related provisions of the CHIPS and Science Act authorizing roughly $54 billion for R&D over the next 5 years through programs at ARPA-E, the NSF, and elsewhere. The 2023 Omnibus bill only included partial funding for these investments in basic science and early-stage energy technologies and only for the coming year; fully funding them for the next 5 years will help the U.S. maintain its position at the cutting edge of the energy transition.

Lastly, Biden’s biggest climate challenge is not domestic but international. As my PPI’s Paul Bledsoe has noted, emissions from China alone are greater than all developed countries combined and still growing. The administration must work with our allies to find more effective means of compelling developing nations to reduce their emissions. Simultaneously, working more closely with allies like the EU, U.K., Japan, and South Korea that lack trade agreements with the U.S. will allow closer cooperation on provisions in the IRA that grant bonuses to countries with existing agreements, like Canada and Mexico. And with Russia’s war against Ukraine ongoing, American LNG exports continue to play a vital role in European and global energy markets by maintaining energy security, offering especially low-methane supplies, and displacing coal-fired generation.

Let’s hope 2023 is a year of continued success for America’s clean energy leadership.

This post is part of a series from PPI’s policy experts ahead of President Biden’s State of the Union address. Read more here

New U.S. Policy on Rare Earths Elements Critical for America’s Future Security and Economic Prosperity, Argues New Innovation Frontier Project Report

Today, the Progressive Policy Institute’s Innovation Frontier Project (IFP) released a new paper urging United States policymakers to establish a new framework on domestic rare earth element production, including streamlined permitting, tax reform, and high-impact R&D. Report author Daniel Oberhaus argues this new framework is critical for America’s future economic prosperity and the fight for innovation and economic leadership with China.

“When it comes to establishing a robust American rare earths industry, time is of the essence,” writes Daniel Oberhaus in the report. “…China’s dominance of this sector has been wielded for political leverage in the past with disastrous economic consequences that were felt across the globe. This may very well happen again in the future, but the stakes will be even higher given the increasingly central role that rare earths play in our daily lives.”

The report outlines four policy recommendations for a Rare Earths Elements strategy in the U.S., including:

  • Introducing tax incentives for domestic rare earth elements producers
  • Establishing a federal coordinating body for rare earths elements mine permitting
  • Establishing a federal rare earths elements recycling program; and
  • Prioritizing federal support for rare earths elements alternatives

Read and download the paper here:

Daniel Oberhaus is a science writer based in Brooklyn, New York. He was previously a staff writer at Wired magazine covering space exploration and the future of energy. His first book, Extraterrestrial Languages, is about the art and science of interstellar communication and was published by MIT Press in 2019.

Based in Washington, D.C., and housed in the Progressive Policy Institute, the Innovation Frontier Project explores the role of public policy in science, technology and innovation. The project is managed by Jordan Shapiro. Learn more by visiting innovationfrontier.org.

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.

Follow PPI on Twitter: @ppi

Find an expert at PPI.

###

Media Contact: Aaron White; awhite@ppionline.org

PPI Issue Brief Recommends Expanding Exports of U.S. Natural Gas to Help Global Climate Goals

Urges Deep Cuts in U.S. Methane from Gas to Maximize Climate Benefit

new issue brief authored by the Progressive Policy Institute’s Paul Bledsoe argues the United States can help become a clean energy superpower by leveraging both green innovations and exports of low-emitting U.S.-made natural gas. The issue brief is the first of a series authored by Mr. Bledsoe on the role of U.S. natural gas in the ongoing domestic and global clean energy transition, and is titled “The Climate Case for Expanding U.S. Natural Gas Exports.”

“The policy question for America is: Can and should the U.S. systemically produce and export more gas to reduce domestic and global emissions? This study suggests the answer is emphatically: Yes,” writes report author Paul Bledsoe. “But achieving large security, economic, and climate benefits from increased gas production will require additional actions by the U.S., the industry, our allies, and even coal-consuming nations, especially major reductions of methane emissions.”

Key policy recommendations from the issue brief include:

  • Increase Domestic Gas Production
  • Double U.S. Gas Exports
  • Cut Life Cycle Methane Emissions from Oil and Gas to 0.3%
  • Retire Coal Plants More Quickly
  • Improve Gas Infrastructure
  • Set Goal of Zero-Net Emissions from Gas by 2040
  • Establish Accurate Global Methane Emissions Data Center; and
  • Urge Gas-Importing Nations to Establish Methane Emissions Content Standards

 

Read and download the full report:

The Progressive Policy Institute will be releasing a series of issue briefs on key topics supporting the policy recommendations outlined in this report in the coming weeks, including briefs on how the entrenchment of global coal power locks in record global emissions; Europe’s continuing need for U.S. LNG to displace the use of coal and Russian-exported gas; the actions needed to increase U.S. natural gas production and exports; and how reducing methane and CO2 from U.S. natural gas will maximize climate benefits.

Paul Bledsoe is a strategic adviser at the Progressive Policy Institute and a professorial lecturer at American University’s Center for Environmental Policy. He served on the White House Climate Change Task Force under President Clinton, at the U.S. Department of the Interior, as a staff member at the Senate Finance Committee and for several members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Read his full biography here.

The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C., with offices in Brussels and Berlin. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.

Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.

Find an expert at PPI.

###

The Climate Case for Expanding U.S. Natural Gas Exports

ISSUE BRIEF

A key question for current American climate, energy, and security policy is what role abundant U.S. natural gas should play in the ongoing domestic and global clean energy transition. This report finds that expanding U.S. natural gas production and exports can cut coal use, lowering domestic and global greenhouse gas emissions, along with other policies to increase renewable power and other forms of clean energy.

Studies consistently show that coal-to-liquefied natural gas (LNG) switching provides net greenhouse gas emissions reductions, usually between 40-50%, meaning the extent of global emissions reductions from coal displacement will be in part determined by how much U.S. liquefied natural gas reaches overseas coal-using nations. In China, for example, coal emissions have grown by 15% over the last decade due to new coal-fired power plants, and data shows gas power plants have the potential to reduce Chinese emissions by up to 35%.

Large reductions in coal emissions are urgently needed for climate protection. Last year, global coal consumption reached an all-time high, fueled by record coal output in China, India, and Indonesia, the world’s three largest producers. Europe, facing sharp reductions in Russian natural gas, also increased coal consumption for the second year in a row, and the U.S. still uses coal for 22% of its electricity. Global coal-fired generation reached an all-time high in 2021, pushing CO₂ emissions from coal power plants to record levels. These increases in coal use drove worldwide greenhouse gas emissions to record highs in 2022, belying any notion that current climate policies alone have been effective in rapidly reducing coal emissions.

In addition, recent investigations by Bloomberg News have found that Chinese coal mines emit massive plumes of methane so large that they accounted for roughly a fifth of total global methane emissions from all oil, gas, coal, and biomass combined. Such huge methane emissions from coal mining suggest that the overall greenhouse gas emissions footprint from China’s coal industry is larger than previously understood, making the case for coal-to-gas switching in China and other coal-producing nations around the world even more compelling.

But to maximize the climate change benefits of American gas displacing coal at home and abroad, the U.S. must also pursue increasingly aggressive reductions of fugitive emissions of methane. Not only is methane a greenhouse gas 86 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in causing warming over the next two decades, but mitigation of methane is uniquely important for limiting near-term global temperature increases that are causing dangerous and expensive climate impacts.

The good news is that ambitious new U.S. methane mitigation regulations from the Biden Administration, methane emission taxes, mitigation funding in recent legislation, and renewed efforts by industry can drive down fugitive emissions of methane from U.S. gas rapidly and far below recent levels. Moreover, three-quarters of methane emissions can be mitigated with current technology, and half can be eliminated at zero net costs to the oil and gas industry. In contrast, estimates of methane emissions from Russian gas are at least 2.8% of total gas volume, and likely much higher, since Kremlin estimates are unreliable and deliberately misleading, and are not subject to any serious new mitigation efforts, making Russian gas worse than coal for the climate.

The climate value of the U.S. shale gas revolution has been evident for many years. According to EIA data, coal to gas switching accounted for as much as 61% of the U.S. emissions reductions over the period 2005-2020. More than 100 U.S. coal plants were converted to natural gas plants from 2011 to 2020.

Meanwhile, abundant U.S. gas has lowered energy and heating prices for U.S. consumers and benefited American manufacturing, not to mention the large balance of payments benefits of revenue flowing into the U.S. from gas exports. If the geopolitical value of U.S. gas was not already evident, Russia’s war on Ukraine has dramatically illustrated its vital importance to America’s allies. U.S. gas exports to Europe over eight months of 2022 tripled, as detailed recently by PPI’s Elan Sykes, rapidly helping Europe move toward its new goal of shaking free of Vladimir Putin’s energy blackmail, while keeping EU natural gas prices far lower than expected in the last several months. Indeed, U.S. gas supplies have now been credited with lowering overall European inflation, boosting the EU economy at a crucial moment.

But Russia’s war on Ukraine shows no signs of resolution, so increased U.S. LNG exports will continue to be crucial to Europe’s emissions reductions for many years to come, helping the EU further reduce its reliance on high-methane-leaking Russian natural gas while also limiting EU coal use. 

Leading analysts like Kaushal Ramesh at Rystad Energy expect large growth in EU LNG demand from about 72mn tons a year in 2021, to more than 110mn tons each year from now until at least 2030. Trevor Sikorski of Energy Aspects anticipates tight EU and global gas supply through 2025, and says that gas will play an EU role until 2040.

Similarly, expanding U.S. gas exports to fast-growing Asian nations and others around the world now primarily reliant on coal consumption can cut emissions and help prevent Russia from dominating new global gas export markets. Economic growth in the region, particularly in China and India, is expected to drive demand for a wide range of energy sources, including natural gas. Due to low lifecycle emissions of methane, U.S. liquefied natural gas delivered to China has, on average, at least 30% lower lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than Chinese coal does, and according to many measures, U.S. LNG has about 50% less or even lower lifecycle emissions than older Chinese coal-fired plants. A similar industry study finds a 48% emissions reduction.

A private study by a leading environmental organization finds that net reductions from existing coal-fired power plants in Vietnam switching to U.S. LNG would be about 40%. Research by EQT, a leading U.S. gas supplier, finds that replacing older coal plants in Vietnam with Northeastern Pennsylvania gas would result between 53% and 58% life-cycle net emissions reductions. The EQT analysis finds that U.S. LNG is currently replacing ~900,000 tons of international coal per day. As noted, IEA finds in general that coal-to-gas switching reduces emissions by 50%.

On this basis, we argue that Asia should not only increase its use of natural gas to displace coal, but do so particularly by purchasing LNG imports from the United States and other lower methane-emitting sources, rather than sourcing natural gas from Russia. We find that lower methane emissions gas systems give the United States a significant competitive advantage versus other sources of gas, an advantage that is likely to grow as the U.S. institutes ever more stringent methane regulations.

U.S. proven natural gas reserves are massive and can accommodate large increases in domestic and global use for several decades, to help reduce coal domestically and globally. But as a practical matter, large increases of U.S. LNG exports will require even larger domestic production increases so that domestic gas prices stay low and popular political support for exports continues. Studies show that the U.S. can dramatically increase gas exports and production for more than two decades during the clean energy transition while keeping domestic prices low, at roughly $3 per million British thermal unit (MMBtu), which is likely to be the benchmark for cost-effective production in the long term. Additional U.S. gas production will be needed to meet growing EU demand of perhaps 7 billion and 8 billion cubic feet per day (bcfd) demand in the next three to five years, but can offer export prices of less than $8/MMBtu, compared to recent peak European gas prices of $40 to $70/MMBtu.

But this will require expanding U.S. natural gas infrastructure, including gas pipelines, LNG export terminals, and other facilities as part of an overall energy deployment policy based on permitting reform, which will provide even greater benefits to renewable energy. In particular, the U.S. should prioritize efforts to provide pipelines and other infrastructure to bring low-cost Appalachian gas to domestic and international markets, helping to limit inflation. All of this suggests that along with unprecedented U.S. incentives for other forms of cleaner energy passed in major bills over the last two years, American policymakers should now add the climate change benefits of expanding U.S. gas production and exports to the already strong geopolitical and domestic economic case for greater gas production in the near-term.

Indeed, the combination of a huge build-out of American clean energy technologies and low-emitting natural gas puts the U.S. in a uniquely enviable position to both dramatically reduce its domestic greenhouse gas emissions and help catalyze major global greenhouse gas reductions, in effect becoming a clean energy superpower. The U.S. will increasingly export not only natural gas, but also key technologies like carbon capture and storage (CCS) and electricity storage, and others. CCS, in particular, will be necessary for economies around the world to not just limit emissions from natural gas power plants, but to decarbonize heavy industries like steel, cement, aluminum, and other sectors that make up roughly 20% of U.S. and global carbon dioxide emissions. Advances in using CCS in natural gas plants can play a role in this process, especially if industrial use brings down costs. Overall, one can imagine a sustainable U.S. system in which renewable energy, electric vehicles, electricity storage, nuclear power, hydropower, and natural gas with carbon capture create a near-or-net-zero emissions energy economy well before 2050.

Yet, ironically, some left-leaning climate advocates oppose coal-to-natural gas fuel switching, even as worldwide coal consumption has continued to grow. These doctrinaire advocates insist on grouping coal and natural gas together as sources that must be immediately curtailed, despite the fact that gas displaced roughly half of U.S. coal in the last 15 years, and coal-to-gas switching was responsible for more than 60% of U.S. emissions cuts during that period. It’s time honest climate advocates faced a fundamental fact: Natural gas production can have a crucial role in a successful global climate and clean energy transition, especially in the near-term. Indeed, it seems clear that as a practical economic and geopolitical matter, the greatest extent of near-term climate progress cannot be made without gas (along with renewable power) helping to balance electricity grids and rapidly phase out coal, in the West, in Asia, and elsewhere.

At the same time, small but vocal elements on the political right are in denial about the need to deeply and quickly cut methane emissions from natural gas (and, over time, CO₂) so that gas can reduce emissions to the greatest extent possible. But analysis consistently finds that both coal-to-gas switching and deep methane cuts must take place to maximize the economic, geopolitical and climate value of overall U.S. energy approaches. Policymakers should ignore these ideological, not factual, appeals emanating from both fringes of the political debate. 

In the next two decades, much more electric power will be needed in America and globally. Electricity demand will grow significantly, in part due to the electrification of transportation through the adoption of electric vehicles, which could raise U.S. electric power demand alone by as much as 38%. One underappreciated advantage of natural gas power plants is their ability to provide rapid onset baseload power to balance electric grids increasingly dependent on intermittent renewable energy, with gas plants able to cycle up to full power within five or 10 minutes, providing synchronicity with renewable energy. In contrast, other forms of baseload power like nuclear and coal plants take far longer to deliver power to the grid when the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing. Natural gas-fired plants that operate in a combined-cycle configuration are more efficient than coal-fired plants, producing electricity with significantly less energy input than coal, helping to further lower CO₂ emissions.

But U.S. gas must continue to dramatically reduce emissions of both methane and carbon dioxide. As new methane detection technologies are deployed, the U.S. gas industry will be able to prove that American natural gas can achieve among the lowest emissions of methane of any gas exports in the world, gaining a competitive advantage over higher-leaking systems and rival exports like those from Russia. Currently, many

gas-importing nations, especially in Europe, are skeptical of large methane emissions reductions achieved by the U.S. in recent years. Such a competitive advantage of proving low fugitive emissions of methane from U.S. gas should also jumpstart global efforts by other major gas exports to limit methane leaks from their gas exports, as importers favor lower methane-leaking gas.

This “race to cut methane” can greatly increase the climate benefits of using gas to displace higher-emitting coal globally, and has already begun as evidenced by methane emissions reductions programs by major gas exports like Qatar. More rapid adoption of carbon capture technologies on gas fired power plants will be needed to cut overall GHG emissions from gas.

Total U.S. LNG exports increased only slightly in the first eight months of 2022, since short-term capacity is largely fixed, so the main way that gas shipments to the EU increased involved exporters redirecting shipments away from other destinations, mainly Asia. Europe received 23% of U.S. LNG in 2021, but 54% through August of 2022.

Of course, a main reason U.S. LNG was redirected to Europe was the higher price, with European spot natural gas prices often running several times those in other markets, including Asia. But for now, thanks in part to U.S. LNG, European prices have moderated.

In 2022, U.S. exports of natural gas as LNG rose 8% to 10.6 bcfd, just behind Australia’s 10.7 bcfd. The United States remained ahead of Qatar, which in third place shipped 10.5 bcfd., though the U.S. is set to take the global lead on LNG exports early in 2023.

Overall, the U.S. gas industry is forecast to produce approximately 100 bcfd in 2023, so exports are likely to be somewhat more than 10% of national production. 

Total U.S. LNG exports are expected to rise in 2023, although by how much is uncertain, as major new export facilities are not expected to reach full output until 2025.

The long-term role of gas beyond this decade is less clear. It may turn out that over the coming years renewable energy will continue to see dramatic price reductions making it far cheaper than other sources, although renewable energy would still need to be built more quickly and at tremendous scale. And other technologies like electricity storage may see advances that allow for electric grids to absorb greater amounts of intermittent renewable energy. But these developments are also uncertain. What is clear is that both the U.S. and EU have used gas to displace coal in large amounts, and to stabilize their electric grids to use more renewable energy, while much of the rest of the world has not. That presents a near-term opportunity for U.S. LNG exports to reduce global coal use significantly, limiting emissions in the process.

The policy question for America is: Can and should the U.S. systemically produce and export more gas to reduce domestic and global emissions? This study suggests the answer is emphatically: Yes. But achieving the security, economic, and climate benefits from increased gas production will require additional actions by the U.S., the industry, our allies, and even coal-consuming nations. To gain these benefits from increased gas production and exports, this report recommends the following policy actions.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Increase Domestic Gas Production

The United States should increase natural gas production substantially to allow for expansion of exports to Europe, Asia, and other markets through this decade, while at the same time keeping domestic natural gas prices low to help U.S. consumers, America’s industrial economy, and further phasing out of domestic coal. The precise size of U.S. gas production and export increases will be dependent on a range of market, gas price, regulatory, and investment factors, but a national goal of increasing overall gas production from 2022 levels by 2028 is achievable and in U.S. economic, security, and climate interests. For example, to account for a doubling of new LNG exports, U.S. overall gas production would expand by about 10%.

Double U.S. Gas Exports

Internationally, the U.S. should increase LNG export levels as an explicit goal of U.S. policy, as articulated by President Joe Biden in 2021, specifically to help Europe end its dependence on Russian gas and help the EU reduce their dependence on high-emitting coal. The U.S. should also increase LNG exports to many other coal-dependent nations, including China, to encourage

coal-to-gas switching as a critical element in reducing overall global greenhouse gas emissions. The total size of U.S. LNG export growth will be in part dependent on natural gas prices in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere. But given new LNG export facility construction, we propose an overall U.S. goal of doubling LNG exports over 2022 levels by 2028, in keeping with increases in total U.S. gas production with some of that increase going to phase out domestic coal more quickly. Today the U.S. has six major LNG export terminals. Three new U.S. LNG export facilities now under construction will be at full output by 2025, and provide about half the LNG needed to meet the doubling goal. But several additional export facilities would still need to be built or existing exports expanded. The U.S. Energy Information Agency expects U.S. LNG exports to increase 65% by 2033.

Retire Coal Plants More Quickly

The U.S. should increase the pace of unabated coal-fired power plant retirements (coal still provides 22% of U.S. electricity) as a climate policy priority, using all available methods, including new power plant emissions regulations, increased energy efficiency, renewable energy, nuclear and hydropower, and coal-to-natural gas switching; the latter which has been responsible for well over half of U.S. emissions reductions since 2005.

Improve Gas Infrastructure

Meeting these objectives will require significant new investments in and permitting of U.S. natural gas pipelines and export facilities, as well as broader energy permitting reforms that will benefit renewable energy, gas, long-distance, high voltage electric power lines, and other elements of America’s clean energy infrastructure. U.S. policy should encourage all of these investments consistent with broader U.S. decarbonization and clean energy goals.

Cut Life Cycle Methane Emissions from Oil and Gas to 0.3%

The U.S. should adopt a national goal of driving down lifecycle methane emissions from domestically-produced gas to less than 0.3% of overall gas volume by 2030, from about 1.7% in recent years, so that U.S. gas has demonstrably the lowest methane emissions in the world. New methane detection technologies in the U.S. can help prove these reductions. Overall, the net cost of such mitigation is low, and will be more than made up for on a national level by revenue from increased LNG exports.

Set Goal of Zero-Net Emissions from Gas by 2040

The U.S. should also embrace a goal of near-zero methane emissions by 2040, as well as net-zero carbon dioxide emissions from U.S. natural gas power plants by 2040, through carbon capture and storage, hydrogen, direct air capture, and other technologies.

Establish Accurate Global Methane Emissions Data Center

OECD nations should within two years establish a definitive, accurate inventory of methane emissions from major natural gas producing and exporting countries, to improve on the current situation in which wildly differing methane data are offered by governments, industry, and NGOs, each with their own agendas and methods. It is in the interest of the U.S. that such definitive and accurate methane emissions data numbers be derived, since U.S. methane emissions are far lower than many other global exporters, specifically Russia, and falling rapidly. New satellite, drone, and other methane detection technologies should allow the accumulation of accurate statistics regarding methane emissions in the next year or two if needed investments are made. The International Energy Agency could be one organization considered to act as a clearinghouse for such accurate methane emissions data.

Urge Gas-Importing Nations to Establish Methane Emissions Content Standards

As accurate methane data is established, major gas-importing regions like the EU should establish methane emissions regulations for all gas imports, driving the global system toward stringent methane standards to make gas even more beneficial to the climate while freezing out Russia’s antiquated, leaky system, and in the long-run forcing it to reform.

NOTE TO READERS

PPI will be releasing additional Issue Briefs on key topics supporting these recommendations in the next few weeks, including on:

 

  • Entrenchment of Global Coal Power Locks in Record Global Emissions
  • Europe’s Continuing Need for U.S. LNG to Displace Coal and Russian Gas
  • Asia’s Growing Opportunity for Coal-to-Gas Switching
  • Actions Needed to Increase U.S. Natural Gas Production and Exports
  • Reducing Methane and CO₂ from U.S. Natural Gas to Maximize Climate Benefits

 

Taken together, today’s recommendations and these upcoming briefs will compromise a comprehensive report on the topic.