Search Climate Insights Directory

The document contends that continued investment in US gas distribution infrastructure is counterproductive to climate goals, as the transition to electric appliances will likely leave these systems underutilized. It argues that low-carbon gases like hydrogen and biomethane are too expensive for residential and commercial use and should be reserved for industrial applications. Furthermore, it suggests that electrification and targeted leak detection are more cost-effective ways to reduce methane emissions than massive pipeline replacement programs, which risk creating stranded assets and imposing high costs on consumers.

The report analyzes the role of hydrogen in the energy transition, contrasting 'green hydrogen' (produced via renewable-powered electrolysis) with the current industry standard of steam methane reformation (SMR) from fossil fuels. It warns that the oil and gas industry uses hydrogen rhetoric to justify continued fossil fuel infrastructure and delay electrification. The authors argue that green hydrogen should be reserved for 'hard-to-electrify' sectors like maritime shipping and high-heat industrial processes, while being rejected for use in passenger vehicles, home appliances, and gas-fired power plants due to energy inefficiency, high costs, and pollution risks.

The document outlines eight benefits of building electrification in the United States, asserting it is the only established way to eliminate carbon pollution from residential and commercial heating and cooking. It highlights that all-electric homes are cheaper to build than mixed-fuel homes, improve indoor air quality—particularly for children and marginalized communities—and can create millions of jobs. The text dismisses alternatives like renewable natural gas (RNG), hydrogen, and synthetic methane as too costly or limited in scale, while noting that nearly 60 percent of new US homes are already built all-electric.

The submission argues that the proposed legislation should be based on Article 192 TFEU for environmental protection and calls for a comprehensive framework including mandatory measurement, reporting and verification (MRV), rigorous leak detection and repair (LDAR), and a ban on routine venting and flaring (BRVF). It emphasizes the need for granular data, the inclusion of abandoned wells and mines, and the establishment of methane intensity standards, such as a 0.2% limit for the upstream oil and gas industry by 2025, to drive innovation and align with EU climate targets.

The document argues for a stronger legal basis under Article 192 TFEU and proposes rigorous standards for measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV), leak detection and repair (LDAR), and a ban on routine venting and flaring (BRVF). It specifically highlights the need for granular data, the inclusion of abandoned wells and mines, and the implementation of methane intensity limits to drive innovation and align with EU climate targets.

The document serves as a guide for state policymakers to assess the viability of renewable natural gas (RNG)—also called biomethane or upgraded biogas—in meeting climate and waste management goals. It specifically addresses the ease of project deployment, the potential for RNG to contribute to environmental targets, and the trade-offs involved when comparing RNG to other decarbonization strategies.

The document advocates for clean fuel standards to decarbonize the transportation sector, which is the largest source of global warming pollution in the US. It explains how these standards use carbon intensity (CI) and a credit/deficit system to make clean fuels more affordable and polluting fuels more expensive. The text highlights the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard as a successful model and emphasizes the need for an equitable transition that benefits overburdened communities.

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.

The report argues that current utility regulation is incompatible with an all-electric future and proposes ten strategies to decarbonize US buildings. It emphasizes electrification via heat pumps as the primary solution, warning that alternative fuels like biomethane are costly and limited in scale. Key recommendations include reforming electricity rate designs, updating energy efficiency standards to account for total emissions, and proactively managing the retirement of gas infrastructure to avoid stranded asset risks and inequitable cost burdens on low-income customers.

ENTSOG denies that its role in the Ten Year Network Development Plan (TYNDP) creates a conflict of interest or undermines EU climate goals. It asserts that the European Commission, National Regulatory Authorities, and ACER maintain final decision-making power over PCI selection. ENTSOG highlights that its TYNDP 2020 process now includes 'Energy Transition Related projects' and that its scenario-building is increasingly integrated with ENTSO-E to reflect decarbonisation targets.

The policy brief contends that the proposed $1 billion Northeast Supply Enhancement Project (NESE) gas pipeline is incompatible with New York's Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). It argues that a 'no infrastructure' approach—combining energy efficiency, electrification (specifically heat pumps), and demand response—is a more cost-effective and reliable path to meeting energy needs while reducing emissions. The author asserts that National Grid's cost analysis underestimates the benefits of customer-focused solutions by ignoring air conditioner cost savings, externality costs of pollution, and the long-term savings beyond a 15-year net present value calculation.

The report finds that the EU is proposing or building gas infrastructure worth €99 billion, which would increase import capacity by over 30% despite existing capacity already being nearly double current consumption. This expansion contradicts EU climate goals to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, which require a sharp reduction in fossil gas use. The author highlights that many of these projects, including those on the European Commission's 4th list of Projects of Common Interest (PCI), are unnecessary for energy security and risk becoming stranded assets. Additionally, the report notes that EU gas-fired power plants are currently underutilized compared to global averages and are increasingly uncompetitive against renewable energy portfolios.

The document advocates for a transition to cleaner transportation fuels in the US Midwest, highlighting the region's leadership in biofuels and wind energy. It proposes clean fuels standards as a mechanism to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation, promote higher ethanol blends, and accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles (EVs).

Reaching climate neutrality in Estonia by 2050 is technically possible and potentially profitable in the long term, requiring an estimated total investment of 17.3 billion EUR between 2021 and 2050. The strategy emphasizes accelerating energy efficiency in buildings, transport, and industry, alongside a transition to renewable energy and carbon sequestration in the LULUCF sector. While the first decade (2021-2030) will be investment-heavy, resulting in higher costs than revenues, subsequent decades are expected to see revenues outweigh costs. The transition will likely cause a modest negative impact on GDP (approximately 10%) and long-term employment in fossil-fuel sectors, particularly oil shale in Ida-Virumaa, but will create short-term construction and technology jobs.

The Bioenergy Criteria provide a framework for certifying use-of-proceeds instruments, physical assets, and bioenergy companies. Certification requires meeting specific life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emission thresholds that decline over time toward a 'close to zero' target by 2050. It also mandates that biomass feedstocks meet sustainability requirements, often verified through pre-accepted certification schemes, and that facilities implement comprehensive adaptation and resilience plans to manage physical climate risks.

The Sierra Club argues that the proposed Biomethane Tariff by Sempra Utilities is a 'greenwashing' exercise that fails to meet California's incrementality standards for green energy programs. The protest highlights that the tariff would allow the sale of renewable attributes from existing methane sources, potentially including those outside the United States, without ensuring the development of new renewable facilities. Furthermore, the Sierra Club contends that the program lacks a finalized certification protocol and a transparent methodology for calculating greenhouse gas reductions, while potentially incentivizing industrial dairy operations that cause localized air and water pollution. The document suggests that the limited supply of biomethane—estimated at less than four percent of California's total gas demand—should be reserved for hard-to-electrify applications rather than voluntary subscriptions that perpetuate reliance on gas infrastructure.

The analysis finds that available clean fuels, including electricity, ethanol, biodiesel, and renewable diesel, could support a 11.2 percent reduction in average carbon intensity by 2028. Under an 'Accelerated Progress Scenario', reductions of 13.1 percent by 2028 and 16.5 percent by 2030 are achievable. The study also models the impact of electric vehicle (EV) penetration, noting that a 'High EV' scenario could reach a 15.9 percent reduction by 2030, while a 'Low EV' scenario would reach 11.1 percent. Additionally, the report estimates that credit values at $100 per metric ton of CO2 equivalent could fund EV rebates growing from $2,200 per vehicle in 2022 to $3,000 in 2028.

The document highlights that transportation accounts for 43 percent of Washington's global warming pollution. It advocates for a clean fuel standard to transition from imported petroleum to locally produced low-carbon alternatives, including electric vehicles (EVs), biomethane, and various biofuels. The report emphasizes the economic benefits of keeping fuel spending within the state and the potential for Washington to lead in sustainable aviation fuels.

The report analyzes the HYBRIT process, which replaces coal with hydrogen for the direct reduction of iron ore combined with an electric arc furnace to create fossil-free steel. While technically feasible and potentially cost-competitive depending on electricity and carbon prices, the transition faces systemic barriers including high investment risks, the need for large-scale electrolysis infrastructure, and the risk of carbon leakage in a globally competitive market.

The document examines the production and use of renewable natural gas (RNG) as a climate strategy in the United States, focusing on its potential to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions when derived from organic waste. It identifies that RNG is most effective when produced from waste rather than dedicated land and when it results in net methane emissions reductions. The paper highlights promising feedstocks such as food and yard waste diverted from landfills and livestock manure. While RNG production costs are higher than conventional natural gas, the report notes that economic viability is supported by low-carbon fuel standards and federal incentives. However, it warns that RNG can increase net methane emissions if it comprises 'new methane'—methane that would not have otherwise entered the atmosphere—due to supply chain leakage. The authors call for more data on methane leakage and life-cycle carbon intensities to better integrate RNG into long-term climate plans.