RHETORIC VS. REALITY

The report refutes the claim that fossil gas alternatives (FGAs) can decarbonize buildings, asserting that their limited supply and high costs make them an inefficient choice compared to electrification. It highlights that FGAs can only replace a small fraction of gas demand and may exacerbate pollution and health risks. The document further alleges that the gas industry uses FGAs as a rhetorical tool and employs 'front groups' to stall the transition to all-electric buildings to protect its financial interests.

• Fossil gas alternatives (FGAs) cannot fully decarbonize the gas grid because their potential supply is very low. Research from the gas industry's own American Gas Foundation indicates that even after 20 years of scaling, FGAs could only replace between 6% and 13% of existing fossil gas demand.
• Producing FGAs is significantly more expensive than using fossil gas. Landfill gas is estimated at $10-$20/MMBtu, while dairy manure projects are projected at nearly $40/MMBtu. Some analyses suggest blended costs for hydrogen and synthetic natural gas are 8 to 17 times higher than fossil gas price trajectories.
• FGAs do not eliminate the health and environmental risks associated with gas combustion. Burning these fuels in buildings continues to produce toxins and NOx emissions, and the distribution process remains susceptible to methane leakage regardless of whether the gas is synthetic, biogenic, or fracked.
• The report argues that FGAs are best reserved for 'harder-to-decarbonize' sectors rather than buildings. Recommended uses include high-heat industrial production (such as steel), chemical production (ammonia and iron ore), and heavy road, air, and maritime transportation.
• The gas industry is accused of using 'front groups' and misinformation to fight building electrification policies. Examples include SoCalGas funding 'Californians for Balanced Energy Solutions' (C4BES) and Hawaii Gas hiring consultants to create 'Our Energy Choice' to oppose limits on gas water heaters.

APA

Saadat, S., Vespa, M., & Kresowik, M. (2020). RHETORIC VS. REALITY. Earthjustice. https://earthjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/report_building-decarbonization-2020.pdf

Chicago

Saadat, Sasan, Matt Vespa, and Mark Kresowik. RHETORIC VS. REALITY. Earthjustice, 2020. https://earthjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/report_building-decarbonization-2020.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Saadat |first1=Sasan |last2=Vespa |first2=Matt |last3=Kresowik |first3=Mark |title=RHETORIC VS. REALITY |publisher=Earthjustice |date=July 2020 |url=https://earthjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/report_building-decarbonization-2020.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{saadat2020rhetoric, author = {Saadat, Sasan and Vespa, Matt and Kresowik, Mark}, title = {{RHETORIC VS. REALITY}}, institution = {Earthjustice}, year = {2020}, month = jul, url = {https://earthjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/report_building-decarbonization-2020.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }