issue: Energy & Environment

EU Imports of Methane-Heavy Russian Gas Undermine Climate Goals Finds New Report from PPI; New EU Methane Regs are Needed

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Report Finds Opportunity for Lower-Methane U.S. LNG to Gain Market Share in EU and Globally While Reducing Emissions and Cutting Kremlin Revenue 

A new report authored by the Progressive Policy Institute’s Paul Bledsoe finds that the European Union’s huge reliance on high-methane emitting Russian gas undermines the EU’s climate goals. The report, entitled “The Role of Natural Gas in Limiting European Union Emissions: Key Opportunities to Cut Methane, Coal and CO2,” also has major implications for U.S. and global climate policy. Cutting methane from gas, first in the EU and U.S., then globally, can greatly reduce near-term emissions, speeding up the phase out of coal in the EU and Asia, and providing new market share for lower-methane U.S. liquefied natural gas exports. This report is the first of four reports on the role of natural gas in reducing emissions.

“Due to massive methane leaks in its production system, Russian gas is worse than coal for the climate, yet Europe, the world’s largest gas importer, gets 25% of its total gas supply from Russia right now. To meet climate goals, the EU must adopt regulations to require low methane gas, including from imports. This can provide a new opportunity for U.S. LNG exports to Europe to outcompete Russia on lower emissions, as strict U.S. methane regulations and the gas industry rapidly reduce methane from U.S. gas production,” said Paul Bledsoe, Strategic Adviser for the Progressive Policy Institute. “Russia also continues to use its gas as a geopolitical weapon against Europe, threatening Ukraine with impunity and handing Putin and Gazprom record profits because of the EU addiction to the Kremlin’s gas. The U.S. and EU each have strong climate and geopolitical incentives to limit natural gas emissions and Russia’s malign policies by displacing Russian gas with both cleaner gas and renewable energy.”

The dominance of Russia in the European gas market is troubling — with Russia providing nearly half of total EU gas imports in 2020. This Russian natural gas has extremely high rates of fugitive emissions of methane, a super-potent greenhouse gas, and is a leading factor in Russia being by far the world’s largest methane emitter.

However, new sources of gas, including liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports from the United States and other clean sources, can reduce the EU’s reliance on Russian gas. The United States has long had better methane and carbon dioxide reporting standards and measurements than other gas exporters, leading the world in both methane science and efforts to reduce methane emissions. And importantly, the Biden Administration, Congress, and the U.S. natural gas industry are beginning to undertake a series of strategic steps to make U.S. gas super-low emitting compared to gas from Russia and other major exporters.

PPI’s report calls for an international effort to accurately verify and monitor methane emissions from domestic and imported gas and then regulate emissions to as close to zero as possible. These actions, if taken together, could play a major role in reducing greenhouse as global emissions as renewable energy grows.

Select key recommendations from the report include:

 

  • The EU should put in place rigorous monitoring, reporting and verification rules covering all natural gas, both domestically produced and imported.
  • Over the next few years, the EU should require gas exporters to accurately verify lifecycle emissions of methane as a condition for gaining access to the EU market.
  • The EU and United States should harmonize their monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) regimes of lifecycle emissions from natural gas as a key interim step in this process. This step is crucial in setting a global benchmark for MRV emissions from gas.
  •  The EU should consider adopting stringent methane emissions regulations for domestically produced natural gas immediately, and then extend these requirements to imported gas at the earliest opportunity.
  • The EU should seek to diversify and expand its natural gas importation sources both to reduce gas prices to phase out coal and to pressure importers of all types to begin to cut its lifecycle methane and carbon emissions.
  •  The United States should accelerate its already significant measures to drive down U.S. methane emissions from natural gas production and transportation.
  • The EU should measure precisely the extent to which Russian gas with high fugitive methane emissions is undermining progress toward both EU and global climate change goals. Specifically, Brussels should study potential emissions from gas transported through the Nord Stream 2 pipeline before allowing the pipeline to become operational.
  • Over time, the EU should require all natural gas used in the EU achieve super-low methane and CO2 emissions, as gas will be needed to displace coal in the EU to meet climate goals.
  • Increasing low-emitting U.S. liquefied natural gas imports to the EU can play a key role in this process, and should be a domestic and international climate change policy priority for both the EU and U.S.
  • The EU should prioritize LNG port construction, access, and related infrastructure to spur a competition toward super-low emitting gas, and to displace Russian gas.
  • The EU can advance its own energy and security interests, as well as its climate goals, by acting on its stated policy of reducing its dependence on Russia gas, cutting imports by at least half during the current decade.

 

Read the full report:

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.

###

The Role of Natural Gas in Meeting Global Energy and Climate Change Goals

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The European Union in recent actions and the United States under President Joe Biden have both offered bold visions for deeply reducing greenhouse gas emissions and asserting leadership in the global fight against climate change. Each is taking important steps to reduce harmful emissions from natural gas, including more aggressive methane controls, emissions reporting, and investments in carbon capture and storage technology.

These initiatives hold great promise in helping Europe lessen its dependence on coal and other dirtier fuel types, as well as ensure that gas imported into the EU is as clean as possible to help Europe meet its climate goals.

For example, on July 14, 2021, the European Union announced sweeping new climate change goals in its “Fit for 55” directive. The extraordinarily ambitious program requires the EU to reduce its greenhouse emissions by 55% below 1990 levels by 2030, relying on the EU carbon trading and pricing market, new Green Deal programs, a wide range of clean energy subsidies, and the beginning of some fossil fuel use restrictions. Most climate experts see the EU proposal as the first-ever attempt by one of the world’s three major centers of economic growth and innovation to reduce emissions in keeping with the key Paris agreement goal of reaching net zero emissions globally by 2050 and keeping temperatures from rising more than 1.5 Celsius.

However, today, the EU still gets at least 15% of its electricity from coal, with far higher percentages in Germany, Poland, and other eastern European countries.  Analysis by the International Energy Agency and other leading experts predicts that the EU will use a mix of renewable energy and natural gas to displace coal. Indeed, most studies find that gas use in the EU will grow over the next decade to balance increased intermittent renewable energy on the EU electrical grid as other forms of baseload power (coal and much nuclear power) are phased out.

Yet even as the European Union undertakes these unprecedented steps to reduce emissions, it is increasing its reliance on natural gas from Russia’s notoriously leaking, antiquated, and nontransparent gas production and transport system, which has extremely high fugitive emissions of methane, a super-potent greenhouse gas. The EU imports about 40% of its total natural gas from Russia — despite data showing that Russian gas is worse from a climate change perspective than the very coal natural gas is meant to displace. Indeed, new data from the International Energy Agency (IEA) shows that Russia is the world’s largest methane emitter, with massive new “super-emitting” methane plumes detected this year, even as studies how Russia has consistently lied about and covered up its emissions for decades.

The EU’s importation of high methane emitting Russian gas is a profound flaw in the EU’s climate plans which may prevent it from truly reaching its 2030 emissions goals. While huge methane emissions from Russian gas imports may not be technically counted under the EU’s greenhouse gas accountancy system, they are nonetheless causing massive greenhouse gas emissions of methane (84 times more potent than CO2) at precisely the time leading experts say cutting methane emissions is the key to keeping temperatures below the Paris targets of 1.5°C and 2°C.

Indeed, in mid-September 2021, the EU recognized the urgent need to cut emissions of methane in an agreement with the United States, the United Kingdom, and other nations to reduce overall methane emissions from all sources within their borders by 30% before 2030. Such admirable efforts to reduce methane, however, will be swamped and rendered ineffectual by global methane emissions from Russian gas and other sources of the EU’s gas imports which are outside of this agreement.

In recent months, in fact reducing methane emissions has become a centerpiece of climate protection, as evidenced by the EU, U.S. and over 100 other nations signing a pledge at the recent UN climate negotiations in Glasgow, Scotland, to cut methane by 30% by 2030. However, Russia, Iran, Qatar and other major gas exporters and methane emitters have not signed the pledge.

This report finds that the EU has an array of new options to reduce near-term dependence on Russian gas. These include greater renewable energy use, electricity storage technologies, and imports of lower-emitting U.S. liquefied natural gas. Current high natural gas prices are roiling European markets and consumers, spotlighting the increasing need for larger liquefied natural gas shipments from the US and other sources, both this winter and for years to come. In fact, specific methane reducing actions by the EU and U.S. can play the key role in forcing all global gas imports to lower their emissions dramatically by creating demand competition for low-emitting gas.

The most important imperative is for the lifecycle of methane emissions from natural gas production to be driven down as close to zero as possible by both major exporters and importers. In the United States, President Joe Biden and Congress are acting to both impose stringent regulations on methane emissions and take new steps to sharply reduce fugitive emissions and the venting of gas from existing and old unused wells. Such efforts are crucial to limiting near- term temperatures globally as a series of studies have concluded, especially the August 2021 urgent report by the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change.

Moreover, as the IEA noted in its “methane tracker” report released in January 2021, it is in the “strong interest” of natural gas companies to cut methane emissions, since, over time, users will demand, and nations will require, the lower- emitting methane gas sources. “Aside from the environmental gains, oil and gas operations with lower emissions intensities are increasingly likely to enjoy a commercial advantage,” the report said.

Nonetheless, government action to limit methane globally is critical. This should include requirements by the EU, the world’s largest natural gas importer, that methane emissions from both domestic and imported gas be accurately verified and monitored, and then regulated to as close to zero as possible. Such a “global race to near-zero fugitive methane emissions” among natural gas competitors would dramatically cut global emissions, even as gas displaces remaining coal in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere. In this way, super-low-methane gas exports (and also low-CO2 gas with carbon capture and storage) can play a major role in reducing greenhouse gas global emissions even as renewable energy grows.

The IEA and other top analysts believe that the EU will have to use natural gas to displace remaining coal use and balance the EU grid, with gas over the next two decades providing baseload electric power as intermittent renewable energy becomes a higher percentage of the EU’s power supply and as the demand for electricity increases due to electrification of transportation and broader growth. Methane from oil and gas is Europe’s third largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, reducing methane emissions from all EU natural gas sources, including imports, is essential to meet the European goal of cutting emissions 55% compared to 1990 levels by 2030.

The EU imports more than 60% of its gas, and total methane emissions from gas-exporting countries like Russia are at least three and eight times the emissions from the domestic EU gas supply chain. If these “imported methane emissions” are calculated by the European Union as it determines its overall emissions profile, they will swamp progress made on other fronts and prevent true reduction of its total emissions. The EU also imports more than 40% of its total natural gas from Russia. Yet data consistently shows that Russian gas is even worse than coal in contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. Russia has deliberately prevented attempts to fully assess its high methane emissions for decades, choosing instead to point the finger at other gas producers and use the echo chamber of its influence operations in Europe to attempt to discredit attempts to hold Moscow to account.

The EU Commission has committed to reducing methane emissions in its domestic energy sector and engaging in a dialogue with its international partners about what carrots and sticks could be used to lower the methane profile of imported gas. But it has not yet promulgated standards to accomplish these goals.

Fortunately, new and more accurate methane detection technologies are increasingly being deployed. They should become standard in the world’s major natural gas producing nations. Nations that refuse to have their gas monitored and verified should be denied import status by the EU and other major importers over time.

New sources of gas, including liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports from the United States and other clean sources, can reduce the EU’s reliance on methane-heavy Russian gas. But of course, that will require the United States and other exporters to drive down methane and carbon dioxide emissions from the lifecycle as close to zero as possible, and verify their reductions with credible methodologies.

Moreover, the geopolitical costs of Russian gas continue to plague the EU broadly, and Ukraine and other Eastern European nations specifically. EU imports of Russian gas have actually increased since Moscow’s illegal annexation of the Crimea in 2015. Over time, limiting Russian gas imports thus could diminish its political leverage over Europe while also helping the EU achieve its climate goals.

Given these realities, European support for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia to Germany is a massive strategic mistake. Making the pipeline operational would clearly increase Russia’s leverage over Ukraine and other Eastern European countries. In addition, allowing Russia to operationalize the pipeline will dramatically reduce the EU’s leverage to compel the state- owned Russian monopoly Gazprom to reduce its methane emissions.

The United States has long had better methane and carbon dioxide reporting standards and measurements than other gas exporters, leading the world in both methane science and efforts to reduce methane emissions. More importantly, the Biden Administration, Congress, and the U.S. natural gas industry are beginning to undertake a series of strategic steps to make U.S. gas super- low emitting compared to gas from Russia and other major exporters. This would give U.S. gas a competitive advantage in world markets, boost U.S. LNG sales abroad, and enable European gas importers to make deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions as they transition away from burning coal.

 

Summary of Key Recommendations:

• The EU should put in place rigorous monitoring, reporting and verification rules covering all natural gas, both domestically produced and imported.
• Over the next few years, the EU should require gas exporters to accurately verify
lifecycle emissions of methane as a condition for gaining access to the EU market.
• The EU and United States should harmonize their monitoring, reporting, and verification(MRV) regimes of lifecycle emissions from natural gas as a key interim step in this process. This step is crucial in setting a global benchmark for MRV emissions from gas, given the much greater transparency and accuracy of emissions measurements from natural gas produced in the EU and U.S.compared to other gas exporters to the EU.
• The EU should consider adopting stringent methane emissions regulations for domestically produced natural gas immediately, and then extend these requirements to imported gas at the earliest opportunity.
• The EU should seek to diversify and expand its natural gas importation sources both to reduce gas prices to phase out coal and to pressure importers of all types to begin to cut its lifecycle methane and carbon emissions.
• The United States should accelerate its already significant measures to drive down U.S. methane emissions from natural gas production and transportation. In the near-term, the U.S. should aim at making its gas super-low emitting, with fugitive emissions of less than 0.5% of total volume, by far the lowest emitting in the world. In time, U.S. gas should be even lower-emitting, with close to zero methane emissions, and dramatically increase the deployment of carbon capture and storage technologies for CO2 emissions from gas.
• The EU should measure precisely the extent to which Russian gas with high fugitive methane emissions is undermining progress toward both EU and global climate change goals. Specifically, Brussels should study potential emissions from gas transported through the Nord Stream 2 pipeline before allowing the pipeline to become operational.
• Over time, the EU should require all natural gas used in the EU achieve super-low methane and CO2 emissions, as gas will be needed to displace coal in the EU to meet climate goals. Such EU actions during the current decade can help not only meet its own greenhouse gas emissions goals for 2030, but begin the process of bringing natural gas emissions to the lowest possible levels around the world and using it to displace global coal use.
• Increasing low-emitting U.S. liquefied natural gas imports to the EU can play a key role in. this process, and should be a domestic and
international climate change policy priority for both the EU and U.S.
• The EU should prioritize LNG port construction, access, and related infrastructure to spur a competition toward super-low emitting gas, and to displace Russian gas.
• The EU can advance its own energy and security interests, as well as its climate goals, by acting on its stated policy of reducing its
dependence on Russia gas, cutting imports by at least half during the current decade.

 

Download and read the full report:

 

 

U.S. Primed to Harness Untapped Geothermal Energy Potential, Argues New Report from PPI’s Innovation Frontier Project

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

With clean energy a central component of the Biden Administration’s climate strategy, any divestment from existing oil and gas projects should go hand in hand with exploring geothermal energy, a largely untapped renewable resource, argues a new report from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI)’s Innovation Frontier Project.

The report, authored by Daniel Oberhaus and Caleb Watney and titled “Geothermal Everywhere: A New Path for American Renewable Energy Leadership,” identifies the technological, political, and economic reasons that the U.S. has failed to utilize its valuable geothermal resources, along with actionable policy recommendations to lay a new foundation for green energy and international geothermal expansion.

“The far-reaching potential of geothermal energy provides a rare opportunity for the United States to capitalize upon a new renewable energy pathway, not just for domestic production but sustainable development globally. With strong leadership and smart policy–as Oberhaus and Watney identify–we can rapidly accelerate the development of geothermal projects, leading the world on climate while encouraging innovation and creating jobs,” said Jack Karsten, Managing Director of the Innovation Frontier Project at PPI.

Oberhaus and Watney argue that while less than 0.5% of U.S. electricity generation is derived from geothermal resources, our abundant hot rock resources and deep talent pool in the oil and gas sector uniquely prepare us to lead on that technology. They conclude that with the right policy implementations, geothermal energy production could increase 26-fold by 2050.

The report makes the following recommendations for incentivizing geothermal investment and expanding production capacity:

Streamline the federal permitting process for geothermal projects.

Increase the federal budget for large scale geothermal R&D projects, particularly those led by public-private partnerships.

Create incentives for geothermal generation in state electricity markets.

Establish federal innovation prizes, or related mechanisms, for the development of key geothermal technologies.

Reskill oil and gas workers for geothermal projects through federal jobs programs and private investment.

Read the report and expanded policy recommendations here:

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 Jack Karsten. 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.

###

Media Contact: Aaron White; awhite@ppionline.org

Bledsoe for The Hill: Can America prevent a global warming cold war?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

By Paul Bledsoe

At the 11th hour of climate negotiations in Scotland last week, the U.S. and China released a “Joint Glasgow Declaration on Enhancing Climate Action in the 2020s” outlining increased cooperation on a wide range of climate and clean energy topics. The communique’s careful language was redolent of Cold War détente documents, increasing a sense that climate change bargaining with China, Russia and other adversaries is becoming like Cold War nuclear nonproliferation negotiations: failure could be catastrophic, so enhanced cooperation is crucial, but often slow-going.

Yet, the climate crisis doesn’t permit the luxury of time. Leading science finds that to limit devastating near-term climate impacts, and reduce risks of runaway warming, China especially must cut its emissions as soon as possible this decade, not just in the long-term.  So far, however, despite the new declaration, and climate discussions this week between President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping, Beijing has made no such commitment. In fact, Chinese coal use just reached an all-time high.

Read the full piece in The Hill. 

Bledsoe for the New York Times: How to Limit Temperature Increases in the Very Near Term

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

By PPI’s Paul Bledsoe, Durwood Zaelke and Gabrielle Dreyfus, for the New York Times.

If the years of devastating droughts, floods, heat waves and wildfires since the Paris climate agreement was adopted have taught us anything, it’s that we have underestimated the pace of extreme, destabilizing climate change.

The world has warmed by about 1.1 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels, much of it occurring since 1950, and the pace continues. That’s why it was so important that more than 100 countries joined a coalition led by the United States and the European Union last week to cut global emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane by at least 30 percent by 2030.

But delegates meeting at a world climate conference in Glasgow have more to do: For the security of the planet, they need to act further and faster to limit near-term temperature increases.

Read the full piece in the New York Times.

Gov. Cooper’s Ambitious Climate Deal in North Carolina Should Inspire Democrats in Congress

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Even as Congressional Democrats on both the left and center continue to bargain over the scope of President Biden’s “Build Back Better” economic, climate, and social funding plans, North Carolina’s Democratic Governor Roy Cooper has forged an agreement on a major climate change bill with Republicans in the state legislature. The legislation will likely be considered by both the North Carolina Senate and House later this week.

Gov. Cooper was able to achieve significant climate improvements in the legislation supported by Republicans through tough negotiations, including increasing the greenhouse gas emissions reductions under the bill from 64% to a remarkable 70% by the end of this decade. The legislation will shut down five high-polluting major coal-fired power plants, grow renewable energy substantially by least 4,700 megawatts over the next decade (enough to power millions of homes), and fund planning for a possible new advanced nuclear power plant within the state.

Importantly, Gov. Cooper was able to retain the regulatory authority of the North Carolina Public Utilities Commission while also guaranteeing that they follow least cost guidelines in setting consumer rates. In particular, the governor insisted on stripping out mandates limiting the Commission’s options regarding what kind of generation would replace the retired coal plants, allowing the Commission to determine which new sources of power can best keep costs down, cut emissions, and ensure consumer electricity reliability. The legislation is expected to create thousands of new jobs over the next decade, while also including assistance for low-income households.

It is worth remembering that President Biden also gained bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate for his major infrastructure bill, that contains a series of major climate change measures. And it is notable that many of the 19 Senate Republicans who voted for the infrastructure bill have lobbied their House Republican colleagues to support the measure over the objections of the House Republican leadership. Congressional negotiations now hinge on getting agreement among moderates and liberals on the scope of the climate, economic, and social legislation using the budget reconciliation process.

President Biden has indicated that the scope of the reconciliation legislation may include between $1.9 and $2.3 trillion in overall funding. The Progressive Policy Institute has issued a detailed budget proposal which includes $600 billion in climate change funding as well as other key economic and social priorities for a total about $2 trillion, written by PPI budget expert Ben Ritz and PPI President Will Marshall. It is a principled compromise emphasizing inclusion of key programs that will be most helpful to the American people, and one that Congressional Democrats on both left and center should consult closely as they attempt to rapidly conclude their own negotiations. And they should also take inspiration from the important and ambitious climate change work of Governor Cooper and his colleagues in North Carolina.

PPI Unveils Radically Pragmatic Blueprint for Reconciliation

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Today, the Progressive Policy Institute’s Center for Funding America’s Future released a focused blueprint for delivering on President Biden’s promise to Build Back Better while addressing the concerns of moderates who cannot support $3.5 trillion of new spending. The report is titled “Reconciling with Reality: The top priorities for building back better,” and is authored by Ben Ritz, Director of the Center for Funding America’s Future.

Rather than cutting corners and using gimmicks to cram the entire progressive wish list into a smaller bill, PPI believes the party’s goal should be a more focused and disciplined reconciliation bill that sets clear priorities and accomplishes a few big objectives well. Specifically, this report outlines a bold plan to deliver on three urgent priorities of the Democratic party within the confines of a roughly $2 trillion bill: supporting working families, combating climate change, and expanding access to affordable health care for those in need.

“Despite the drama last week, President Biden and Democrats in Congress can still deliver the historic economic and social investments they promised during the campaign — but they need to spend smarter, not just bigger. Our blueprint is a reality-based approach to crafting the reconciliation bill, which will allow for an enormous advance of progressive government. Now is the time for the party to come together and show America they can govern,” said Ben Ritz, Director of the Center for Funding America’s Future.

“We urge Democrats to compromise around a set of urgent priorities the American people can understand, develop a consensus plan to fully pay for it, and work in a radically pragmatic spirit to get this big progressive win across the finish line. That’s the best way to help President Biden and their party deliver for the American people,” said Will Marshall, President of the Progressive Policy Institute.

The bipartisan infrastructure bill passed by the U.S. Senate in August remains snagged by internal disagreements among Congressional Democrats about the size and cost of the follow-on social investment package party leaders hope to pass with reconciliation rules that are not subject to a Republican filibuster. Democrats will likely need to reach a compromise on the reconciliation package by October 31st so they can pass the infrastructure bill before funding for the nation’s highway program expires.

Read the blueprint here:

 

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.

Launched in 2018, PPI’s Center for Funding America’s Future works to promote a fiscally responsible public investment agenda that fosters robust and inclusive economic growth. We tackle issues of public finance in the United States and offer innovative proposals to strengthen the foundation of our economy and build shared prosperity.

Follow the Progressive Policy Institute.

###

Media Contact: Aaron White – awhite@ppionline.org

Senator Hickenlooper Joins PPI Event with Energy Experts on the Future of U.S. Clean Energy 

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Today, the Progressive Policy Institute hosted an event with U.S. Senator John Hickenlooper (D-CO) and a panel of energy experts, focused on expanding power line capacity to enable renewable energy deployment.

“Senator Hickenlooper has forged a compelling record as a leader on clean energy and the fight against climate change, from his service as Governor of Colorado to the U.S. Senate. PPI was grateful to have facilitated this engaging roundtable with the senator and our panel of distinguished experts, centering the goals of maintaining the integrity of the electrical grid, expanding capacity while lowering consumer costs, and aggressively confronting climate change with innovative, forward-thinking solutions. Prioritizing these efforts will deliver benefits from public health, to climate, to cost reduction — while protecting our environment and driving job creation,” said Paul Bledsoe, PPI Strategic Advisor and moderator for the event.

Watch the event livestream here:

Senator Hickenlooper serves on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

“There are lots of benefits from this. It’s going to provide revenue and jobs in rural communities — in other words, this is going to really tie together the country,” said Senator Hickenlooper during the event. “…By investing in transmission and the grid, we’re going to get a level of resiliency that, based on what we’ve seen this year, is sorely lacking in the existing system.”

This event’s panelists included Donnie Colston, Director of Utilities for IBEW; Bob Kump, President of Avangrid; Sue Tierney, energy analyst and author of the National Academy Sciences Report; Macky McCleary, energy consultant and former Rhode Island Utility regulator; and Bill Parsons, Chief Operating Officer for the American Council on Renewable Energy.

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: Aaron White – awhite@ppionline.org

Bledsoe for NYDN: Climate devastation is upon us. Congress must act.

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

By Paul Bledsoe

Last week, on the 16th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Ida unleashed 150 mile-an-hour winds and slammed into New Orleans, super-fueled to huge size and rain-making power by the Gulf of Mexico whose temperatures are 3 to 5 degrees higher than the average just 30 years ago. In its wake, more than a million people in Louisiana and neighboring states have been left without water, power or air conditioning amid stifling hundred-degree heat. Then the remnants of Hurricane Ida delivered torrential rain and flooding in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York so intense it killed at least 40 people across the region while paralyzing New York City. Even before the Northeast flooding, economic costs from Ida were estimated to be $80 billion.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, another devastating year of fire fueled by climate change-exacerbated drought and high temperatures keeps getting worse. The massive Caldor fire, already more than 200,000 acres, has been roaring through the Lake Tahoe area, sending tens of thousands of citizens fleeing in chaos. Caldor was only the second fire in history to begin on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada mountains and cross to the eastern side. Last year alone, five of the ten largest fires in California history occurred, burning over 4.2 million acres, killing 30 people, and shockingly becoming the new normal.

Read the full piece in New York Daily News.

Improving Electricity Transmission Siting Opportunities to Meet America’s Consumer, Economic, and Clean Energy Climate Goals

 

Join the Progressive Policy Institute as we convene a virtual event on improving the siting opportunities for electricity transmission lines on September 14 at 10:00 AM ET. The event will generate a discussion focused on timely and critical questions including:

• What scale of the transmission line expansion is needed to fulfill President Biden’s goal of 100% clean energy from the electric sector by 2035?
• How do America’s current planning, siting and permitting federal and state laws and practices interfere with or enable this expansion?
• What are the prospects of addressing this challenge in the infrastructure bill or other legislative vehicles in Congress?
• What is the proper relationship between federal and state governments on electric transmission line planning?

Panelists:

• Donnie Colston, Director of Utilities, IBEW
• Bob Kump, President of Avangrid
• Sue Tierney, energy analyst and author of recent National Academy of Sciences Report
• Macky McCleary, Energy Consultant and former State of Rhode Island utility regulator
• Bill Parsons, Chief Operating Officer, American Council on Renewable Energy

Moderated By: Paul Bledsoe, Strategic Advisor, PPI

With a SPECIAL MESSAGE from U.S. Senator John Hickenlooper (D-CO)!

Register here.

The Next Frontier of Renewable Energy is in Space, Argues New Report from PPI’s Innovation Frontier Project

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

Today, the Innovation Frontier Project, a project of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), released a new report from Daniel Oberhaus, titled “Space Solar Power: An Extraterrestrial Energy Resource for the U.S.” 

“As Daniel Oberhaus lays out in this fascinating report, space-based solar power is becoming an increasingly viable option for providing energy on Earth, in orbit, and for deep space exploration. The falling costs of solar power and vehicle launches allow for the creation of satellites that can collect energy from the Sun all day long throughout the year,” said Jack Karsten, Managing Director of the Innovation Frontier Project at PPI.

In his report, Oberhaus argues that space-based solar power (SSP) projects offer a solution to advancing both clean energy production and space exploration. Space-based solar power is renewable, cost-efficient, and could meet a substantial portion of the Earth’s energy needs, even in geographically distant locations. This could also provide a renewable energy source for moon bases and deep space missions.

Oberhaus’s report concludes that the U.S. must allocate substantially more human and financial capital to SSP as part of its national security, domestic energy, and space exploration strategies.

Read the report here:

 

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 Jack Karsten. 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.

###

PPI’s Paul Bledsoe Joins Charles Ellison on WURD Radio

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

WURD Radio · Reality Check 6.29.2021 – Paul Bledsoe

PPI Strategic Advisor Paul Bledsoe joined Charles Ellison on WURD Radio for a conversation about the human cost of climate change, cutting Trump-era policies around methane regulations, and President Biden’s efforts to include bipartisan climate policy in his infrastructure package, among other things.

Listen to the full interview on WURD Radio’s Soundcloud.

Bledsoe for The Hill: Cleaner US Gas Can Reduce Europe’s Reliance on Russian Energy

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

As President Biden meets with European Union leaders in Brussels and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Geneva, the EU and U.S. determination to reduce greenhouse gas emissions remains high on the agenda. Yet, as part of it, a Cold War-style contretemps has flared up, centered on whether U.S. or Russian natural gas exports are cleaner in helping the EU eliminate coal and cut its climate emissions.

President Putin recently asserted, without providing any evidence, that Russian natural gas exports are low-emitting. American officials, including Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, contend Russian gas is the “dirtiest form of natural gas on Earth.” While offering no new analysis of Russian gas, the Biden team has provided detailed data on U.S. gas emissions.

Getting to the bottom of these claims is crucial to informing Europe’s way forward on the role of gas imports in meeting growing electricity needs while also achieving aggressive near-term climate goals. Accurate data on gas emissions should also influence the EU’s broader climate and geopolitical strategy during its clean energy transition, including any role for the nearly completed Nordstream 2 gas pipeline from Russia to Germany.

The Russian government has systematically prevented measurements of emissions from its gas sector for many decades. What evidence there is suggests Russia operates a leaky, antiquated, unregulated system with high fugitive emissions of methane of at least 5 to 7 percent of total gas volume. Since methane has 85 times the warming potency of carbon dioxide, natural gas with leaks or fugitive emissions during production and transport of more than 3.5 percent is worse than coal from a climate perspective. This means the EU’s single largest source of gas has significantly higher greenhouse gas emissions than the coal it is meant to replace.
Many climate advocates wish for an entirely renewable energy-powered EU electricity sector, but recent trends suggest that natural gas will play a major role in EU generation for years to come, since it stabilizes Europe’s power grid as increasing amounts of intermittent wind and solar power are used and current baseload power from coal and German nuclear energy is curtailed. In 2019, the last year of full pre-pandemic demand, natural gas was the largest source of electricity in the EU. More than 60 percent of EU gas was imported, with Russian gas providing about 45 percent of total EU gas.

A major 2019 study by the U.S. National Energy Technology Laboratory finds Russian gas piped to Europe has up to 22 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than European coal.  U.S. liquified natural gas (LNG) delivered to the EU, in contrast, has up to 56 percent fewer total emissions than EU coal, the report shows. Overall, natural gas production in the United States has fugitive emissions of 1.4 percent of total gas volume, according to analysis from the Environmental Protection Agency done during the Obama administration.

The U.S. is also acting to lower methane emissions from its gas still further. Congress recently voted to restore Obama-era methane regulations former President Trump had repealed, mandating 45 percent economy-wide methane reductions below 2012 levels by 2025, and requiring oil and gas companies to check every six months for methane leaks and plug them within one month. The Biden administration has committed to even deeper methane cuts, particularly from oil and gas development — and proposed a crash $16 billion program to plug unused or abandoned gas wells and limit gas flaring. The EU imported 36 percent of U.S. LNG gas in 2019, although from a very low baseline, and even higher amounts last year.

Indeed, EU natural gas import share from Russia  actually increased over the decade 2010-2020, despite Russia’s incursions into Ukraine and Georgia and illegal annexation of Crimea more than six year ago, among other geopolitical outrages.

 

A study by the European Parliament called “Energy as a Tool of Foreign Policy of Authoritarian States, in particular Russia” found Russia “uses gas supplies to punish and to reward….supply disruptions, price discounts or hikes, and alternative transit routes such as Nord Stream 2 and Turkish Stream, are used by Russia to further its foreign policy ambitions… The lack of transparency about Russia’s energy policy decisions contributes to this.” The study also analyzed the extraordinary reliance of Moscow on the European market for funding its autocratic government, “One-third of Russia’s natural gas production is exported. Almost all of which, some 87% in 2016, goes to Europe.” More than 40 percent of the Russian government budget comes from oil and gas exports revenues.
The EU, the world’s largest importer of gas, is clamping down on methane, too, and by the end of the year is expected to propose environmental standards. Those standards will initially apply only to gas developed within the EU, but may eventually include imports. In the meantime, the Nordstream 2 pipeline from Russian to Germany could be fully operational by the fall, with the potential to lock-in decades of methane-laden gas that will break the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions budget.

The EU should insist on uniform monitoring, reporting, and verification of natural gas emissions from all its import sources, procedures which over time should become the norm globally. The EU, U.S. and others should work together to standardize these measurements as quickly as possible. Otherwise, along with its already high geopolitical costs, the EU’s continuing addiction to high-emitting Russia gas will continue to weigh down Europe’s climate efforts, as well.

Paul Bledsoe is a professorial lecturer at American University’s Center for Environmental Policy and a strategic advisor at the Progressive Policy Institute. He served on the White House Climate Change Task Force under President Bill Clinton, as an Interior Department official, as well as a U.S. Senate and House of Representatives professional staff member.

Read the Piece in The Hill.

Bledsoe for The Hill: A modern electric grid is crucial to reach our clean energy climate goals

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

 

President Biden has issued a bold pledge to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that increasingly endanger our livelihoods, health and security — reducing U.S. emissions by 50 percent below 2005 levels over the next decade. In his recent address to Congress, the president showcased how his infrastructure proposal, the American Jobs Plan, will help prioritize investments toward a sustainable, clean energy economy. In particular, Biden highlighted building new electric transmission lines as central to U.S. goals, declaring, “the American Jobs Plan will create jobs that lay thousands of miles of transmission lines needed to build a resilient and fully clean grid.”

This commitment to modernizing our electricity transmission is crucial. Reducing greenhouse gases will require ramping up renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and hydropower, deploying electric vehicles and cutting methane from natural gas. But transmission lines must be built to deliver this cleaner electricity to customers who often live distant from the cleanest, low-cost energy sources.

Our current electricity grid is old and outdated, getting a dreadful C- rating from the American Society of Civil Engineers this year. We must update our transmission system to be more resilient against more frequent severe weather events climate change is causing, better able to repel cyber-attacks and to carry more clean energy so our citizens have reliable sources of power.

But here is a sobering reality — these ambitious clean energy goals will not be successful without a strong commitment by federal and state governments, and local communities, to support the construction of necessary transmission infrastructure. The “not in my backyard” sentiment, often stoked by misinformation campaigns, ends up placing barriers to creating long-term energy and climate solutions.

Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson recently held a conversation on climate change and energy technology at the New York Economic Club with Bill Gates, where transmission infrastructure was called out as one of the key challenges to a clean energy future. “There are days when I see…the pace of innovation and I feel, wow we can do this,” Gates said. “Then there are days when you look at like how [hard] it is to get transmission permitted in the U.S. and how that is just a conundrum that we don’t have a clear plan for.”

He was referring in part to a specific project underway in Maine — the New England Clean Energy Connect line — that will bring 1,200 megawatts of clean, low-cost baseload hydropower from Canada into Maine and New England.  Experts at the Maine Department of Public Utilities have found the project will cut about 10 percent of the region’s carbon pollution emissions from electricity, the equivalent of reducing all the pollution from 700,000 cars every year. Just as important, the Maine independent experts found that the project would save consumers in New England $388 million each year in electricity costs over the next 15 years.

The New England project is a leading example of the clean energy infrastructure upgrades being championed by Biden, since the hydropower is an on-demand but clean back-up source for renewable energy — when wind isn’t blowing hard enough or sun isn’t shining enough to satisfy all electric needs.

Construction on the New England power lines has begun, but a major new obstacle has been placed in its path. In a case of moving the goalposts after the game has started, project opponents, funded in part by fossil fuel companies with legacy energy interests, have put a measure on the 2021 Maine ballot to retroactively prohibit the siting of a crucial segment of the line. The measure will also require an affirmative vote of the Maine legislature on all large-scale future transmission projects.

Opponents are spreading misinformation to Maine voters about the project’s environmental impacts, which are minor (two thirds of the line will be built in an existing transmission corridor, while the other one third will pass through land whose primary use is commercial logging).  Low-income consumers will particularly benefit due to a $40 million low-income customer benefits, and rural Mainers will benefit from a $15 million broadband fund to bring high speed internet to homeowners that currently aren’t well served. If the ballot referendum passes, it will likely cripple this key project and have a chilling effect on the potential for new transmission projects in the region and the nation. This is no way to create a modern electric grid and clean energy economy while meeting the urgent climate change crisis.

Congress should consider legislation to provide greater federal siting authority to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for projects like these that are clearly in long-term national security, climate protection and consumer interests. A recent National Academy of Sciences report on achieving net zero U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 found that new siting and permitting for transmission must be pursued to “put in place, in a timely fashion, the kind of high-voltage interstate transmission system that is needed for deep decarbonization.”

As the president and Congress contemplate investment priorities for a more sustainable energy future, we must come together to support the infrastructure needed to deliver these benefits to consumers, our economy and our climate. America’s future investment in infrastructure and the clean energy economy cannot afford to be held captive by roadblocks from narrow, single-interest groups. Our people are counting on action now to lower energy prices, create good jobs and leave a cleaner world to future generations.

Paul Bledsoe is strategic advisor at the Progressive Policy Institute and professorial lecturer at American University’s Center for Environmental Policy. He served on the White House Climate Change Task Force under President Bill Clinton.

Read this piece in The Hill 

Funding Clean and Green Energy, with Special Guest Rep. Jim Himes

 

Join the Progressive Policy Institute for a conversation with PPI’s Paul Bledsoe, climate leaders, and Congressman Jim Himes (CT-04) on ways America can finance new, innovative investments in clean energy projects across the country. 

WHEN: Wednesday, June 2, 2pm ET

KEYNOTE ADDRESS: Rep. Jim Himes (CT-04)

PANEL: PPI’s Paul Bledsoe and Bryan Garcia, President and CEO of the Connecticut Green Bank

Watch the event here

Carolina Postcard: Will NC Get Real on Climate Change?

Posted on by The Progressive Policy Institute

By Gary Pearce

When I think about climate change, I think about my brother-in-law Tillman.

Tillman spent his career with Big Oil. He travelled the world finding places to drill, baby, drill. He’s now comfortably retired in Dallas, Texas. And he’s a Republican.

You may suspect he’s a climate-change denier.

Wrong.

Tillman has a PhD in geology from UNC. He’s smart and studious. Some years back, he delved into a study of climate change.

Like most geologists, he concluded it’s real – so real he tells his eight grandchildren that the family’s vacation home on North Carolina’s Outer Banks may be gone when they’re his age. “Act now,” he writes, “to slow the change and preserve this wonderful place.”

The question is whether we – the world, the nation and North Carolina – will get real about fighting climate change.

In North Carolina, environmentalists want Governor Roy Cooper to join Virginia and 10 other states to our north in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI, like “Reggie”). The other states are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont.

Under RGGI, a power plant has to buy an allowance for each ton of carbon dioxide pollution it emits into the atmosphere. Allowances can be bought and sold in a regional auction, which helps to keep costs down. The number of available allowances is reduced over time to reduce pollution.

 


Duke Energy’s Roxboro plant

 

The goal: reducing carbon emissions from power plants 70% from 2005 levels by 2030.

Advocates say RGGI is North Carolina’s least expensive and most efficient option – and the only action the Governor can take without the legislature. They fear the legislature will let Duke Energy adopt a less ambitious carbon-reduction plan.

The Southern Environmental Law Center, on behalf of Clean Air Carolina and the North Carolina Coastal Federation, has petitioned the state Environmental Management Commission to adopt rules so North Carolina can join RGGI:

“The threat to North Carolina from global climate change is real, it is present, and it is getting worse…. Sea levels have risen and continue to rise. Extreme precipitation has become more common and will be even more common in the future. The intensity of hurricanes and the frequency of other severe storms will increase. Flooding will increase, but so too will droughts and wildfires. Each of these changes will hit our most vulnerable residents hardest. Unabated, climate change will exact substantial costs on our environment, our economy, and the lives of all North Carolinians.”

President Biden has set an ambitious national goal: an overall 50% reduction in emissions from power plants and transportation by 2030. Joining RGGI would jibe with Biden’s goal and allow North Carolina to do our part, environmentalists say.

The New York Times said Biden’s plan “would require rapid and sweeping changes to virtually every corner of the nation’s economy, transforming the way Americans drive to work, heat their homes and operate their factories.”

Polls show that Americans, especially young people, believe climate change is real and that real action is needed. Yet, there is a stubborn resistance, much like the resistance to masks and Covid vaccines.

Climate-change deniers rely on scare tactics, not science. They claimed Biden’s climate plan cuts “90% of red meat from our diets by 2030.”

No, it doesn’t.

Biden framed his plan not as cutbacks and restrictions, but as an economic engine. He said it would create “millions of good-paying, middle-class, union jobs” – building a resilient electrical grid, cleaning up abandoned oil and gas wells and abandoned coal mines, building electric vehicles, installing charging stations and building clean-power plants.

And maybe saving the Outer Banks.

 

SELC’s full petition to the EMC and DEQ. Go to page 89 for an overview of how the climate crisis harms North Carolina. https://files.nc.gov/ncoah/documents/Rules/Petitions/2021-01-11-Environmental-Management-Commission-Petiton-for-Rulemaking-with-Attachments.PDF

Explainer video on RGGI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlNgAIyTDNc&t=278s.