u.s. natural-gas use must peak by 2030

7/27/2019 U.S. Natural-Gas Use Must Peak by 2030

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-natural-gas-use-must-peak-by-2030 1/26

U.S. Natural-Gas Use

Must Peak by 2030Darryl Banks and Gwynne Taraska July 2013

WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.O



U.S. Natural-Gas UseMust Peak by 2030

Darryl Banks and Gwynne Taraska July 2013

COVER PHOTO In this March 29, 2013 le photo, a worker switches well heads during a short pause in the water pumping phase,at the site o a natural gas hydraulic racturing and extraction operation outside Rie, in western Colorado.

AP PHOTO/BRENNAN LINSLEY



1 Introduction and summary

4 The natural-gas expansion

6 Short-term benefits from natural-gas expansion

8 Short- and long-term environmental and economic prob

with natural-gas expansion

12 Creating a prompt shift to zero-carbon electricity

17 Conclusion

18 About the authors and acknowledgements

19 Endnotes

Contents



1 Center or American Progress | U.S. Natural-Gas Use Must Peak by 2030

Introduction and summary

Te impacs o climae change are already occurring: Tere were 25 climae-

relaed exreme weaher evens in he Unied Saes in he period rom 2011 o

2012 ha each caused a leas $1 billion in damages.1 Forunaely, U.S. carbon

polluion rom energy consumpion is a is lowes poin since 1994, in par

because elecriciy generaion by naural gas is replacing elecriciy generaion

by coal.2 Te modern uel-economy sandards issued by he Obama adminisra-

ion have reduced emissions as well. Noneheless, he U.S. Energy Inormaion

Adminisraion, or EIA, predics ha U.S. carbon polluion will begin o rise again by he end o his decade.

Te Unied Saes is currenly experiencing a boom in naural-gas producion

and use due o advances in drilling and exracion echnologies. Because nau-

ral gas burns more cleanly han oher ossil uels and is currenly aordable and

abundan, i has been celebraed as a so-called bridge o a clean energy uure and

climae sabilizaion.3 In his scenario, naural gas would signicanly displace

coal in he elecric-power secor, which is he larges secor in erms o primary

energy consumpion,4 and serve o balance more inermiten renewable sources

o energy while we develop and deploy zero-carbon elecriciy sysems.

Tis repor nds ha naural gas has an imporan role o play in achieving he

emissions reducions necessary o sabilize he climae and preven he wors

impacs o global warming. In he near erm, naural gas presens opporuniies o

reduce carbon polluion insoar as i burns more cleanly han coal and can be used

o signicanly replace coal in he generaion o elecriciy. I also presens oppor-

uniies in he ransporaion secor, as naural-gas vehicles are a cleaner alerna-

ive o radiional vehicles and increasingly are being used in boh privae and

public ees.5

In addiion, he naural-gas expansion may presen some near-ermeconomic benes or middle- and lower-income Americans by creaing jobs and

simulaing he manuacuring secor.




Horizontal drilling This is the process o

drilling a well that curves

and then extends into

the reservoir horizontally.

Horizontal drilling allows

more o the reservoir rock

to come into contact with

the wellbore, or the drilled

hole, compared to tradi-

tional vertical drilling.6

Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”Fracking is a technique o gas or oil extraction in which a large amount

o chemical-laced water is injected at high pressure into the wellbore,

which creates and expands cracks in subterranean rock.7 Each racking

project uses approximately 2 million to 4 million gallons o water.8

Proppants, which contain sand or ceramic spheres, are injected to hold

open the ractures so that gas can ow to the surace.9

Shale gas Shale gas is natural gas ound in ormations o shale, which is a fne

sedimentary rock. Horizontal drilling and racking have made it pos-

sible and economical to extract natural gas rom shale ormations.

Dry versus wet natural gas Natural gas is considered “dry” when it is nearly pure methane.

“Wet” natural gas contains other hydrocarbon compounds as well,

such as butane and ethane. These are separated rom the methane

beore natural gas is sent to consumers.10 Wet gas is considered more

valuable, as the separated hydrocarbon compounds can be sold in

addition to the methane.

Liquefied natural gas, or LNG

LNG is natural gas that has been liquefed by being cooled to a

proximately -161 degrees Celsius. The volume o LNG is approx

mately 1/600 o the volume o natural gas in its gaseous state,

acilitates transport.11

Fugitive methane emissions Natural gas consists primarily o methane, which lasts or only

years in the atmosphere but is a potent greenhouse gas.12 Com

on a pound-or-pound basis with CO2, methane traps 72 times

much heat over a 20-year timerame.13 Throughout the liecycle

natural gas, rom drilling to end use, methane leaks into the at

sphere. These emissions are called ugitive methane emissions.

Carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS CCS technologies capture CO

2or storage or reuse. The allure o

is that it could be applied to ossil-uel-powered electricity plan

dramatically reduce CO2

emissions. There are a number o tech

or capture, including exposing combustion-exhaust gas to an

or ammonia-based solution that absorbs CO2. No large-scale CC

projects are currently operational in the United States.14

Flowback wastewater, or “flowback”

Flowback is the racking water that returns to the surace. It is cotaminated not only with the original chemical additives, but also

elements extracted rom the shale such as radium or barium.15 In

cellus shale, or example, it is estimated that 25 percent to 100 pe

o the racking uid may return to the surace as owback.16 Flow

is stored in tanks or lined pits beore it is either treated and recyc

use in another well or disposed o in deep injection wells.17

Terminology

Shale

Horizontal

drilling

Vertical

drilling




Beyond he near erm, however, here needs o be a swi ransiion rom naural

gas o zero-carbon energy, paricularly in he generaion o elecriciy. Because he

combusion o naural gas produces carbon polluion, albei less han coal, oo

much reliance on naural gas over he long erm would make i difcul or impos-

sible o mee climae-sabilizaion arges. Failure o sabilize he climae would

increase he requency and severiy o exreme weaher evens, which have beenshown o disproporionaely harm middle- and lower-income Americans, and he

remendous cos o disaser relie would erode any shor-erm economic benes

o he naural-gas boom.18 In addiion, heavy invesmen in naural-gas generaion

capaciy could crowd ou invesmens in long-erm soluions such as wind, solar,

wave, and oher renewable elecriciy sources. A rapid shi rom naural gas o

zero-carbon energy is hereore criical. Our analysis nds ha he use o naural

gas mus peak no laer han 17 years rom now, in 2030—which is sooner han

many policymakers currenly realize is necessary—i he Unied Saes is o mee

is climae goals and avoid he wors impacs o global warming.19

Te expansion o naural-gas producion should be consisen wih our key prin-

ciples designed o proec public healh, he climae, he middle class, and our overall

economy. We recommend ederal and sae policies ha will help o realize hem.

• Tere needs o be a swi ransiion rom coal o a zero-carbon uure by ensur-

ing ha he use o naural gas, paricularly in he elecric-power secor, peaks

wihin he nex 7 years o 17 years.• Te naural-gas expansion mus be managed in an environmenally

susainable manner.• Te expansion o naural gas should be used o creae dedicaed revenues o sup-

por aggressive invesmens in research, developmen, and deploymen o clean

energy echnologies; aggressive invesmens in energy efciency; and inves-

mens in he resilience o communiies hreaened by climae-relaed exreme

weaher. Ta is, he expansion o naural gas should be used o creae a nancial

bridge o a zero-carbon economy and climae sabilizaion.• Measures should be adoped o proec middle-class amilies and manuacuring

companies rom any price increases ha may resul rom liqueed naural gas, or

LNG, expors.

Tis repor covers some background inormaion abou naural gas and climae

sabilizaion and ariculaes deailed policy proposals ha mee he above principles.

There needs to

a swift transition

from natural gas

to zero-carbon

energy.

The use of natu

gas must peak

no later than 17

years from now,

in 2030—which

is sooner than

many policyma

currently realize

necessary—if th

United States is

meet its climate

goals and avoid

worst impacts o

global warming



ecen advancemens in horizonal drilling and hydraulic racuring have

unlocked a large supply o shale gas.20 (see Figure 1) Te resul has been a boom in

he producion and consumpion o naural gas. According o daa rom EIA, he

producion o dry naural gas in he Unied Saes increased 33 percen beween

2005 and 2012, and he consumpion o naural gas in he Unied Saes increased

16 percen during he same

period.21 (see Figures 2 and

3) Te increase in domesicconsumpion o naural gas

has been driven largely by

increased consumpion rom

he elecric-power secor,

which is he larges primary

energy-consuming secor.


The natural-gas expansion

FIGURE 1

Shale production

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20112010

Other US shale gas

Bakken (ND)

Eagle Ford (TX)

Marcellus (PA and WV)

Haynesville (LA and TX)

Woodford (OK)

Fayetteville (AR)

Barnett (TX)

Antrim (MI, IN, and OH)

Bcf/day

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Energy in Brief: What is shale gas and why is it impor tant?”, available athttp://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/article/about_shale_gas.cfm (last accessed July 2013).

http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/article/about_shale_gas.cfm

http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/article/about_shale_gas.cfm




15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

17,500,000

22,500,000

Millions of cubic feet

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20112010 2012

20,000,000

25,000,000

22,500,000

27,500,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20112010 2012

Millions of cubic feet

FIGURE 2

Dry natural-gas production

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, “U.S. Dry Natural Gas Production,” avail-

able at http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9070us2A.htm (last accessed July 2013).

FIGURE 3

Natural-gas total consumption

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, “U.S. Natural Gas Total Consumption,” avail-able at http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9140us2m.htm (last accessed July 2013).




Short-term benefits from

natural-gas expansion

Naural gas has several environmenal and economic benes. Firs, is combus-

ion or elecriciy is cleaner han coal. Naural-gas plans, or example, emi 55

percen less carbon dioxide, 80 percen less nirogen oxides, and 100 percen

less sulur oxides, mercury, oher heavy meals, and pariculae mater han coal

plans. (see Figure 4)

Given ha naural gas has he poenial o signicanly reduce he

domesic consumpion o coal, which has declined rom 2010hrough 2012, i could resul in a shor-erm reducion in carbon

polluion.22 Boh EIA and he U.S. Environmenal Proecion

Agency, or EPA, have credied coal-o-naural-gas swiching in elec-

riciy generaion as being parly responsible or recen declines in

CO2

emissions rom ossil-uel combusion.23 Emissions decreased

6.85 percen rom 2005 o 2011.24 Te Obama adminisraion’s

arge is a 17 percen reducion rom 2005 o 2020.

Second, naural gas is currenly aordable. As prices o naural gas

have declined (see Figure 5), naural-gas-red elecriciy genera-

ors have become more compeiive wih coal-red generaors.

Elecriciy generaion by naural gas and coal acually drew equal

briey in 2012 (see Figure 6) due o a seep decline in he price

o naural gas in he preceding monhs.25 A noe o cauion is ha

he price o naural gas has been climbing rom he recen low

o April 2012. (see Figure 5) Te Henry Hub Naural Gas Spo

Price was $4.17 per 1 million BUs in April 2013. Anoher noe

o cauion is ha he low price o gas is due primarily o he boom

in racking, which has led o a dramaic increase in he supply o naural gas. Tis could resul in large coss because o environ-

menal exernaliies, which we discuss below.

FIGURE 4

Transitoning from coal to natural gpartly responsible for declines in C

emissions

Source: Deutsche Bank Group, “Natural Gas and Renewables: A SecuCarbon Future Energy Plan for the United States” (2010), available at

www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/_media/NaturalGasAndRenewables.pd

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percentage reduction

CO₂ NO SO Parti

max x

http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/_media/NaturalGasAndRenewables.pdf





I is commonly claimed ha he recen aordabiliy o naural gas has conribued o

he revializaion o he manuacuring indusry and he creaion o new manuacur-

ing jobs in he Unied Saes.26 According o he Bureau o Labor Saisics, approxi-

maely hal a million manuacuring jobs have been creaed rom January 2010 o

January 2013.27 Oher acors are likely responsible or his upick as well, such as he

narrowing gap beween labor coss in he Unied Saes and China, he rising produc-

iviy o U.S. workers, and he cyclical upurn o he economy aer he recession.28

In addiion, i is claimed ha he producion o naural gas is adding hundreds

o housands o jobs o he U.S. economy. Presiden Barack Obama, in his 2012

Sae o he Union address, esimaed ha shale-gas developmen would suppor

more han 600,000 jobs by 2020 direcly in gas producion as well as in upsream

and downsream manuacuring, consrucion, and oher indusries hroughou

he economy.29 Tis number was derived rom a repor prepared by IHS Global

Insigh or America’s Naural Gas Alliance.30

Because o hese environmenal and economic advanages, naural gas has been

heralded as a bridge uel. Te idea is ha naural gas can replace coal in he relaively near erm—given ha i is comparaively clean and currenly available and aord-

able—as we ramp up renewable energy and energy efciency and ransiion o a

low-carbon economy. Naural gas could hus carry us rom an economy ha relies

on high-carbon ossil uels o an economy ha relies on a cleaner energy mix.

$0

$3

$6

$9

$12

$15

Henry Hub Gulf Coast natural gas spot price ($/MMBTU)

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

0

Thousand megawatthours

Natural gas

Coal

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

FIGURE 5

Henry Hub spot prices

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Henry Hub Gulf Coast Natural Gas Spot Price,”available at http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdd.htm (last accessed July 2013).

FIGURE 6

Coal and natural-gas electricity generation

Source: U.S. Energy I nformation Administration, “Electricity Data Browser: Net Generation for All SMonthly,” available at http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/0?agg=2,0,1&fuel=vv

&sec=g&freq=M&start=200801&end=201301&ctype=linechart&ltype=pin&pin=&rse=0&maptypaccessed July 2013).

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdd.htm

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdd.htm




Short- and long-term environmental

and economic problems with

natural-gas expansion

Despie hese shor-erm benes, unresrained naural-gas expansion can creae

a number o problems. Firs, he producion o shale gas by hydraulic racuring

poses poenially serious risks o local environmens and communiies.31 I uses

oxic chemicals, such as benzene and ormaldehyde, and hereore has he poen-

ial o conaminae surace waer and groundwaer. I also releases smog-orming

polluans and can disrup local ecosysems wih is inrasrucure o roads and

pipelines. Te Cener or American Progress described a number o cases o airpolluion, waer polluion, and habia desrucion near racking sies in a 2011

issue brie.32 I has also repored on he direc link beween earhquakes and he

injecion o wasewaer underground.33

Second, naural gas consiss primarily o mehane, which is a powerul greenhouse

gas.34 Mehane raps 72 imes as much hea as CO2

over a 20-year imerame.35

Troughou he enire liecycle o naural gas—rom drilling o ranspor o end

use—mehane leaks ino he amosphere. Tese ugiive mehane emissions

could ose some o he emissions reducions o coal-o-naural-gas swiching.

According o amón A. Alvarez and ohers, new naural-gas plans have emissions

benes compared o new coal plans—over all ime rames—i he mehane leak-

age rae is below 3.2 percen rom well-o-power-plan delivery.36 ecen esimaes

o he liecycle leakage rae range rom less han 1 percen o 7.9 percen.37 Te

curren 2013 EPA Invenory o U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks pus

mehane leakage a 1.4 percen.38 Te Environmenal Deense Fund and a number

o oil and gas companies are currenly conducing a series o sudies o deermine

ugiive mehane emissions.39 While he exen o leakage rom naural-gas opera-

ions is no ye setled, ugiive mehane emissions pose a serious hrea o he

climae and should be reduced as much as possible.40

Tird, and he crux o his repor, is ha any long-erm expansion and dependence

on naural gas or elecriciy generaion is incompaible wih climae-sabilizaion

arges because i also resuls in carbon polluion, alhough less han coal. Te




increase in global emperaure mus be kep wihin 2 degrees Celsius above prein-

dusrial levels, which means ha he concenraion o amospheric greenhouse gas

mus be sabilized wihin 450 pars per million, or ppm, CO2

equivalen by 2050.41

Tis is he inernaionally recognized hreshold, which was adoped in 2010 a he

16h session o he Conerence o he Paries o he U.N. Framework Convenion

on Climae Change. Exceeding he 2 degree hreshold would cause severe andrequen droughs, hea waves, oods, and sorms, and lower-income households

would be harmed he mos, as hey are less able o prepare or and recover rom

climae disasers.42

In addiion, ailure o sabilize he climae would be remendously cosly over he

long erm and would erode he shor-erm economic benes rom he naural-gas

boom. Te ederal governmen already has spen nearly $136 billion rom 2011 o

2013 on climae-relaed disaser relie, which amouns o nearly $400 per house-

hold per year.43 Wihou climae sabilizaion, hese coss would rise exponenially.

In an eor o keep he emperaure increase below 2 degrees Celsius, he Obama

adminisraion has se a series o emissions-reducion arges, relaive o 2005 levels.

• A reducion o 17 percen by 2020• A reducion o 42 percen by 2030 as an inermediae arge• A reducion o 80 percen by 2050 or climae sabilizaion44

Te adminisraion’s emissions arge or 2030—a 42 percen economywide

reducion below 2005 levels—ranslaes o an emissions arge o 3,334.3 million

meric ons, or mm, o CO2

rom he combusion o ossil uels (coal, oil, and na-

ural gas).45 Tis is a modes level o emissions reducions; he Inergovernmenal

Panel on Climae Change, or IPCC, endorses a signicanly more ambiious arge

o 25 percen o 40 percen below 1990 levels by 2020.46

In he mos recen se o daa released by EPA, oal domesic CO2

emissions were

5,612.9 mm in 2011, wih 5,277.2 mm o hose CO2

emissions coming rom he

combusion o ossil uels.47 By 2030 i is possible o expec approximaely a 50

percen decline in emissions rom coal and a 30 percen decline rom oil, assum-

ing aggressive vehicle-ee urnover wih new uel-economy sandards, sric EPA regulaions o carbon polluion rom coal plans, and increased coal-o-gas swich-

ing.48 Even i naural-gas use says consan during his inerval o 2030, hereore,

CO2

emissions rom he combusion o ossil uels would sill be a 3,716.5 mm,

which exceeds he modes 2030 emissions-reducion goal o 3,334.3 mm o




CO2.49 Te use o naural gas hereore canno expand unchecked. Even minor

increases in he near erm mean ha we will need o aggressively drive coal and oil

rom he U.S. uel mix.50

A repor by Deusche Bank, or example, has invesigaed he implicaions or

naural-gas use or generaing elecriciy in he conex o he Obama adminisra-ion’s arges or emissions reducions.51 Te repor nds ha he 2020 and 2030

arges are easible even wih a 12 percen increase in he supply o elecriciy rom

naural gas by 2030 i here is a 26 percen reducion in he supply o elecriciy

rom coal and a 12 percen increase in he supply rom solar and wind. In oher

words, or naural gas o work as a bridge uel o climae sabilizaion, a seep

reducion in he use o coal energy is required.

Tere are several reasons o believe ha hese conclusions abou he upper bound

o naural-gas use are overly opimisic. Te repor speculaes ha aer he iniial

subsiuion o naural gas or coal hrough 2030, he 2050 emissions-reducionarge is easible only wih a dramaic change such as a “massive increase in renew-

able energy paired wih naural-gas CCS, or a subsanial build-up in nuclear

energy, or even possibly a geo-engineering or echnology breakhrough.” o dae

CCS has no been proven o be cos eecive or expandable o a sufcien scale.

An addiional poin o concern is ha he repor does no accoun or carbon

polluion rom oal energy use in he Unied Saes. I considers only carbon pol-

luion rom elecriciy, bu decarbonizing he elecriciy marke is only par o he

greaer eor needed o mee arges or emissions reducions. Tis is paricularly

rue given he projeced rise o boh non-CO2

greenhouse gases and nonenergy-

secor emissions ou o 2040. We hus consider 2030 o be an absolue ouer limi

or peak naural-gas use. I is very possibly no near enough o slow he impacs

rom climae change.

In addiion, a paper by Michael A. Levi o he Council on Foreign elaions inves-

igaed he viabiliy o naural gas as a bridge uel in he conex o he 450 ppm

arge.52 In his scenario o sabilizaion a 450 ppm, consumpion o naural gas

increases rom abou 20 percen o he global primary energy mix in 2000 o abou

40 percen in 2020, almos compleely replacing coal. I hen declines o abou 10

percen by 2050, while zero-carbon energy reaches more han 60 percen.

Given ha zero-coal use in 2020 will almos cerainly no occur, he amoun o

naural gas ha can be burned wihou hreaening climae saey is likely much

lower han he analysis above suggess. Again, an addiional poin o cauion is




ha he maximum naural-gas use reerenced in he paper may be an absolue

upper limi because he sudy does no accoun or nonenergy-relaed emissions.

Te maximum naural gas ha can be used, hereore, is likely o be lower han

provided in he sudy.

I is clear ha a long-erm heavy reliance on naural gas beyond 2030 is incom-paible wih he emissions reducions necessary o save o he wors impacs o

climae change. o achieve he necessary reducions using naural gas as a bridge

uel, naural gas mus quickly displace coal and reach is peak wihin 7 years o 17

years, beore i is quickly displaced by renewable power.53 o be compaible wih a

sable climae, hereore, he naural-gas bridge mus be exremely shor.

Tis raises imporan policy quesions, as he operaional liespans o new

gas-red power plans conemplaed oday by uiliy companies are likely o

exend beyond he peak period o when ossil-uel combusion or elecriciy

mus decline. A shor naural-gas bridge would hereore involve greaer use o he uel in he near erm, bu mus sop shor o iniiaing a major new wave o

invesmens in naural-gas urbines, which would be expensive and poliically

painul o power down laer.54




Creating a prompt shift to

zero-carbon electricity

Te naural-gas boom is a realiy: Te Unied Saes produced 22,901,879 million

cubic ee, or MMc, o dry naural gas in 2011 and 24,041,904 MMc in 2012—a

5 percen increase in a single year.55 For a limied ime, naural gas can serve as a

ransiion uel, displacing coal use and providing reducions in carbon polluion.

Long-erm expansion o naural gas, however, would severely challenge meeing

climae-sabilizaion arges, even wih subsanial reducions o coal and oil use

over he nex 20 years. We hereore propose ha he ederal governmen develop

energy policies consisen wih he ollowing our principles.

1. Manage he naural-gas expansion o proec public healh and he environmen.

2. Creae a swi ransiion rom coal-red elecriciy o zero-carbon renewable

and efcien energy.

3. Generae revenue rom he expansion o naural gas during is boom o und

invesmens in a clean energy economy.

4. Adop measures o proec middle-class amilies and manuacuring companies

rom any signican energy price hikes ha may occur due o LNG expors.

We address hese principles below. Increasing he use o naural gas in domesic

elecriciy producion as a bridge o mee our shor-erm 2020 climae goals, or

example, mus be coningen upon codiying a so-called o-ramp such as a clean

energy sandard o ensure ha 2030 climae arges are me. Oherwise, uiliies

will naurally graviae o employ he cheapes uel wihou regard o is exernal

coss, including conribuions o climae change, and here could be a major wave

o invesmen in naural-gas elecriciy-generaion capaciy beyond wha is neededor near-erm peak supply, which would be poliically and economically difcul o

wrie o. Te lack o an o-ramp hus would creae srong headwinds o ransi-

ioning o a clean energy uure aer 2020. Policies hereore mus be enaced o

ensure ha he use o naural gas has a near peak ollowed by a dramaic decline.




Manage the natural-gas expansion to protect public health and

the environment

• Enact and enforce strict federal limits on pollution from shale-gas produc-

tion. Tese limis should include naional environmenal- and healh-proecion

sandards or ugiive mehane emissions, wasewaer disposal, well inegriy, waer qualiy and waer use, and drinking waer. Tis would include eliminaion

o he “Halliburon Loophole” in he Energy Policy Ac o 2005, which prohib-

ied EPA rom proecing groundwaer rom hydraulic-racuring conamina-

ion under he Sae Drinking Waer Ac.56 EPA could se minimum naional

sandards o provide a basic level o proecion, and saes could srenghen he

sandards depending on local dierences. Te saes would implemen he ed-

eral sandards hrough permis, as is currenly he process. Te sandards should

require ull public disclosure o he oxic chemicals and heir amouns used

in he drilling and exracion/racking operaions, such as he rules currenly

being considered in Caliornia and Alaska.57 In addiion, here should be sricenorcemen o EPA’s 2012 rules required by he Clean Air Ac o reduce air pol-

luion rom hydraulically racured naural-gas wells, which are aimed a reduc-

ions o volaile organic compounds—oen smog componens—and oxics, bu

also aciliae some mehane capure.58

• Strengthen fracking rules on federal lands. Te Bureau o Land Managemen

proposed new rules in 2012 or drilling on public lands ha included require-

mens or chemical disclosures, well-inegriy esing, and monioring o ow-

back wasewaer. CAP repored on he gaps in he proposed rules ha needed

o be closed.59 An updaed dra o he new rules was released in May 2013 bu

sill conains gaps.60 Te proposed rules require chemical disclosures only aer

he compleion o racuring, when i is oo lae or adjacen communiies o ac

on his inormaion. In addiion, he rules allow naural-gas operaors o seek

a rade-secre exempion rom disclosing componens o heir racking uid.

Tey also allow naural-gas operaors o sore owback waer in lined, open pis,

which can more easily resul in spillage and conaminaion. Te new dra is cur-

renly in an exended public commen period.61




Create a swift transition from coal-fired electricity to zero-carbon

renewable and efficient energy

• Aggressively phase out coal. Esablishing an adequae price on carbon polluion

would be he mos eecive way o speed he displacemen o coal-red elecric-

iy. Tis could be done direcly hrough an emissions ax or an emissions radingscheme. Phasing ou coal also could be done indirecly hrough sric EPA

regulaions. egulaions o reduce convenional polluans such as sulur diox-

ide, nirogen oxides, and mercury rom ossil-uel-red plans could conribue

o he reiremen o 19 percen o 24 percen o 2011 coal-generaing capac-

iy.62 Wih he implemenaion o he EPA regulaions announced by Presiden

Obama o limi carbon emissions rom new and exising coal power plans, a

wave o coal-plan reiremens likely will resul.63 Oher measures or encourag-

ing he displacemen o coal include esablishing incenives o reire coal-red

power plans and requiring ha carbon oupu be considered when deermining

he dispach order or moving elecriciy ono he grid.64 Tis would prioriizenaural gas and renewable energy over coal.

• Adopt a clean energy standard, or CES, that requires utilities to generate 80

percent of their electricity from no- or low-carbon energy sources by 2035,

with at least 35 percent coming from renewable energy and efficiency. 65 Tis

policy would encourage invesmens in renewable energy and would limi he

porion o naural gas in he elecriciy-generaion mix. A CES would speed he

ransiion rom naural gas o low-carbon echnologies and hus provide an o-

ramp rom he higher levels o naural-gas generaion. As recen and emerging

zero-carbon energy echnologies become more readily available and aordable,

we mus ensure ha hey are no crowded ou o he markeplace by older, pre-

viously subsidized echnologies. Oherwise, we may be rading in one ossil uel

or anoher—coal or naural gas.

• Ensure that natural-gas infrastructure and capacity are not overbuilt. Te

increased supply o naural gas has lowered gas prices, hereby increasing

demand or gas o generae elecriciy. Tis should no, however, lead o a

signican increase in naural-gas elecriciy-generaion capaciy. Modeling o a

naural-gas bridge in he conex o climae change suggess ha naural-gas gen-eraion should peak wihin approximaely 40 percen o oal energy supply.66

Any new naural-gas generaion capaciy in excess o wha is needed o mee his

40 percen hreshold could lead o new capial invesmens in naural-gas plans

ha would have o be reired early once he ransiion o lower-carbon sources




is complee, hereby wasing some o hese invesmens. Wriing o hese asses

would likely ranslae o a rae hike on consumers, a scenario ha would make

a ransiion o zero-carbon uel sources much more expensive and difcul. A

naional CES would help preven overbuilding naural-gas capaciy. Sae-level

renewable porolio sandards, or PS, would help achieve his goal as well.

(An imporan noe o cauion regarding any decision o increase naural-gasexpors is ha increased demand is likely o conribue o overbuil inrasruc-

ure, which, as we noe, could make he ransiion o renewable uels difcul.)

Finally, we mus ensure ha here is adequae elecriciy inrasrucure—rans-

mission and pipelines—so ha exising naural-gas plans can be ully uilized.

Generate revenue from the expansion of natural gas during its

boom to fund investments in a clean energy economy

• Increase revenue from resource extraction on public lands and waters.

Naural-gas, oil, and coal exracion on public lands have risen subsanially

in recen years. Ye energy companies coninue o pay below-marke raes in

royalies and ees o reimburse he American people or he exracion and

sale o hese resources rom public lands. Increasing royalies rom hese ossil

uels exraced on public lands is scally pruden. Exising law provides he

Deparmen o he Inerior wih he auhoriy o raise royaly raes on public

lands wihou congressional approval.67 Any increased revenues should be

dedicaed o invesmens in efciency, clean energy, and/or climae resilience.

Tey could also be used o assis workers and communiies ha are harmed by

he ransiion away rom coal.

• Generate revenue from the broader natural-gas market. Fees should be gener-

aed rom naural gas during his boom ime. Tere are many appropriae

poins during is producion and consumpion cycle, rom levying a price on

naural gas exraced a he wellhead all he way hrough o he poin o sale

o end users. A wellhead ax would primarily burden producers, bu obvi-

ously, mos o he coss would be passed hrough o consumers. Tis would

raise overall gas prices, which may discourage uel-swiching o naural gas

in he shor erm, so we mus have measures o phase ou coal. Te revenuesrom such axes, as well as a possible expor or LNG erminal ee, could und

he prioriies lised above. Tese will bene middle- and lower-income

Americans over he long erm by bringing down he cos o renewables and

providing proecion rom severe weaher evens.




• Develop a domestic carbon price. CAP has advocaed several policies or pric-

ing carbon, boh direcly hrough a carbon ax and marke-based mechanisms

such as cap and rade and indirecly hrough measures such as EPA regulaion.68

A carbon ax would raise revenue, simulae invesmen in clean energy echnol-

ogies, and creae jobs while reducing carbon polluion. I is a win-win measure

ha could unangle he ongoing ederal budge debae.69

Adopt measures to protect middle-class families and

manufacturing companies from any significant energy price hikes

that may occur due to LNG exports

CAP recognizes ha high volumes o LNG expors would pu upward pressure

on domesic naural-gas prices.70 Te impac o hese higher prices on consumers

is acknowledged, o varying degrees, in boh he NER Economic Consuling

repor and he Charles iver Associaes repor on his opic.71 While he NER repor nds ha increased expors would resul in a small posiive ne bene

o he U.S. economy overall, here are worrisome disribuion issues. Owners

o naural-gas resources would bene, whereas labor and capial in energy-

inensive indusries would be harmed.72 Since he Deparmen o Energy is asked

wih deermining i expor licenses are in he naional ineres, a mechanism or

compensaing he impac ha price increases would have on he middle class and

revialized domesic manuacuring should be developed i expor volumes are in

he medium range o high range o projecions. One such mechanism could be

a ee on liqueacion a expor erminals. (During he expor process, naural gas

mus be liqueed, ranspored, and hen re-gasied or use; i is imporan o noe

when considering increasing expors ha each sage carries capial, energy, and

emissions coss.73) Due o a number o acors ha creae uncerainy around he

volume o acual expors, however—including he complexiies o inernaional

demand, domesic price volailiy, and he rade issues invoked by nonari bar-

riers—creaing a compensaion mechanism should be approached very careully.

Te Deparmen o Energy should commission a repor hrough he Naional

Academy o Sciences ha assesses he price increases rom varying volumes o

expors and horoughly addresses he above issues by levying a ee.




Conclusion

Naural gas has an imporan role o play in achieving he emissions reducions

ha are necessary or climae sabilizaion. In he near erm, we should use he

expansion in naural gas o aggressively drive coal rom he marke, given ha

naural gas burns more cleanly han oher ossil uels and is currenly available and

aordable. Te naural-gas expansion, however, needs o be managed saely and

susainably and wihou overbuilding long-erm elecriciy-generaion capaciy

ha would hen need o be reired.

In addiion, because he combusion o naural gas produces signican carbon

polluion, he consumpion o naural gas should peak no laer han 17 years rom

now. Oherwise, he Unied Saes will ail o mee is longer-erm climae goals.

During he near-erm naural-gas expansion, naural gas should be used o aggres-

sively nance invesmens in climae resilience, energy efciency, and he devel-

opmen and deploymen o clean energy echnologies o creae a pah o a clean

energy economy and climae sabilizaion. We urge Congress and he Obama

adminisraion o adop policies ha suppor he principles in his repor.




About the authors

Darryl Banks is Vice Presiden or Energy Policy a he Cener or American

Progress. Prior o joining he Cener, Banks served as he depuy direcor o Te

Naure Conservancy ’s New York sae afliae. He also served as depuy commis-

sioner o he New York Sae Deparmen o Environmenal Conservaion and hada long enure a he World esources Insiue. Banks is a published auhor in he

areas o renewable energy and clean energy echnologies, carbon managemen,

corporae susainabiliy, and environmenal-managemen services. Since 2002

Banks has also served as presiden and owner o BD Consuling, which is an

energy and environmenal-susainabiliy sraegy rm wih principal-level echni-

cal experise in renewable energy and clean energy echnologies and environmen-

al-managemen oversigh.

Gwynne Taraska is a visiing esearch Associae or Energy and Environmen a

he Cener or American Progress. She is also research direcor o he Insiueor Philosophy and Public Policy a George Mason Universiy. araska received a

Ph.D rom he Universiy o Washingon, where she worked on symbolic logics,

specically nonclassical sysems. She has been he managing edior o he journals

Ethics, Policy, & Environment and Hypatia. Her curren work is on climae and

energy policy.

Acknowledgements

We hank our colleagues John Podesa, Carol Browner, ichard W. Caperon,

Michael Conahan, Chrisy Golduss, Melanie Har, Bracken Hendricks, Adam

Hersh, Cahleen Kelly, om Kenworhy, Andrew Ligh, Joseph omm, and Daniel

J. Weiss or heir commens, suggesions, and help wih wriing his issue brie.

We also hank our colleague Adam James or his conribuions o he secions on

LNG expors.




Endnotes

1 Daniel J. Weiss and Jackie Weidman, “Going to Ex-tremes: The $188 Billion Price Tag rom Climate-RelatedExtreme Weather” (Washington: Center or AmericanProgress, 2013), available at http://www.american-progress.org/issues/green/news/2013/02/12/52881/going-to-extremes-the-188-billion-price-tag-rom-

climate-related-extreme-weather/.

2 U.S. Energy Inormation Administration, “Energy-relatedcarbon dioxide emissions declined in 2012,” April 5,2013, available at http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cm?id=10691.

3 Ernest Moniz, or example, advocated the view o natural gas as a bridge uel during the recent Senatehearing to consider his nomination or secretary o energy. Moniz said, “What do we need to do? Go to alow-carbon economy that will include … n atural gasamong traditional sources as, in this country, being abridge, and we are seeing that. We saw that with theEIA announcement yesterday in terms o the lowestCO

2emissions that we’ve had in quite some years in

this country with natural gas playing an important rolein that.” U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and NaturalResources, “Full Committee Hearing: To consider thenomination o Dr. Ernest Moniz to be the Secretaryo Energy,” April 9, 2013, available at http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cm/hearings-and-business-meetings?ID=aa4190a-4c25-4d05-980e-9ab889d2070.

4 U.S. Energy Inormation Administration, Annual Energy Review 2011 (U.S. Department o Energy, 2012), avail-able at http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pd/aer.pd.

5 We ocus in this paper on the short-term emissionsbenets in electricity generation rather than transporta-tion, as approximately only 3 percent o natural gas goesto the transportation sector. See U.S. Energy InormationAdministration, “Primary Energy Sector by Source andSector, 2011.” In ibid., available at http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pecss_diagram.cm .

6 U.S. Energy Inormation Administration, Drilling

Sideways -- A Review of Horizontal Well Technology and Its Domestic Application (U.S. Department o Energy,1993), available at http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/drilling_sideways_well_technology/pd/tr0565.pd .

7 U.S. Energy Inormation Administration, “Shale gas:hydraulic racturing and environmental issues,” avail-able at http://www.eia.gov/orecasts/ieo/hei.cm(lastaccessed July 2013).

8 Tom Kenworthy, “Fracking Can Strain U.S. Water Sup-plies,” Center or American Progress, June 14, 2013,available at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2013/06/14/66544/racking-threatens-u-s-water-supplies/.

9 U.S. Energy Inormation Administration, “Shale gas.”

10 U.S. Energy Inormation Administration, “Natural Gas:Denitions, Sources and Explanatory Notes,” availableat http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/TblDes/ng_enr_deep_tblde2.asp (last accessed July 2013).

11 Caliornia Energy Commission, “Frequently AskedQuestions about LNG,” available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/lng/aq.html (last accessed July 2013).

12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Overview o Greenhouse Gases,” available at http://epa.gov/climat-echange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html (last accessedJuly 2013).

13 Piers Forster and others, “Changes in Atmospheric Con-

stituents and in Radiative Forcing.” In Susan S olomonand others, eds., Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (New York: Cambridge University Press,2007), available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pd/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pd .

14 MIT Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies,“Power Plant Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Proj-ects,” available at http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/index_capture.html(last accessed July 2013).

15 Penn State News, “Analysis o Marcellus Flowback Finds High Levels o Ancient Brines,” Press release,December 17, 2012, available at http://news.psu.edu/story/143694/2012/12/17/analysis-marcellus-owback-nds-high-levels-ancient-brines.

16 Natural Energy Technology Laboratory, “SustainableManagement o Flowback Water during Hydraulic Frac-turing o M arcellus Shale or Natural Gas Production,”available at http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/Petroleum/projects/Environmental/Produced_Wa-ter/00975_MarcellusFlowback.html(last accessed July2013).

17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Hydraulic Frac-turing Background Inormation,” available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicractur-ing/wells_hydrowhat.cm (last accessed July 2013).

18 Daniel J. Weiss, Jackie Weidman, and MackenzieBronson, “Heavy Weather: How Climate Destruc-tion Harms Middle- and Lower-Income Americans”(Washington: Center or American Progress, 2012),available at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/11/16/45135/heavy-weather-how-climate-destruction-harms-middle-and-lower-income-americans/.

19 This peak is discussed in the section “Short- and long-term environmental and economic problems withnatural-gas expansion,” which begins on page 8 o thisreport.

20 Aaron A. Ketter and others, “A Field Study in OptimizingCompletion Strategies or Fracture Initiation in BarnettShale Horizontal Wells,” SPE Production & Operations 23(3) (2008): 373–378, available at http://www.spe.org/ejournals/jsp/journalapp.jsp?pageType=Preview&jid=EPF&mid=SPE-103232-PA.

21 U.S. Energy Inormation Administration, “U.S. Dry Natu-ral Gas Production,” available at http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9070us2A.htm (last accessed July 2013).

22 It already has been widely reported that competitionrom natural gas is a contributing cause o recent coalretirements. EIA, or example, reports that coal-red

capacity planned to be retired between 2012 and 2 016is more than our times higher than retired coal-redcapacity rom the preceding ve years. It attributesthe retirements o coal generators to natural-gas com-petition and air pollution standards, as well as otheractors. See U.S. Energy I normation Administration, “27gigawatts o coal-red capacity to retire over next veyears,” July 27, 2012, available at http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cm?id=7290.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2013/02/12/52881/going-to-extremes-the-188-billion-price-tag-from-climate-related-extreme-weather/




http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10691


http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings-and-business-meetings?ID=aa419f0a-4c25-4d05-980e-9ab889d207f0




http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/aer.pdf


http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pecss_diagram.cfm


http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/drilling_sideways_well_technology/pdf/tr0565.pdf



http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/hei.cfm

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2013/06/14/66544/fracking-threatens-u-s-water-supplies/



http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/TblDefs/ng_enr_deep_tbldef2.asp


http://www.energy.ca.gov/lng/faq.html


http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html


http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf


http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/index_capture.html


http://news.psu.edu/story/143694/2012/12/17/analysis-marcellus-flowback-finds-high-levels-ancient-brines



http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/Petroleum/projects/Environmental/Produced_Water/00975_MarcellusFlowback.html



http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/11/16/45135/heavy-weather-how-climate-destruction-harms-middle-and-lower-income-americans/




http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9070us2A.htm































http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/hei.cfm





















23 U.S. Energy Inormation Administration, “U.S. energy-related CO

2emissions in early 2012 lowest since 1992,”

August 1, 2012, available at http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cm?id=7350; U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, “Trends in Greenhouse Gas Emis-sions.” In Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2011 (U.S. Department o Energy, 2013),available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Down-loads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2013-Chapter-2-Trends.pd .

24 Ibid.

25 Natural gas is available and aordable in the short run,but there is evidence that this situation is not perma-nent. We argue in the rest o this paper that natural gasshould not be relied upon in the long term regardlesso its uture price or availability. See J. David Hughes,“Energy: A reality check on the shale revolution,” Nature, February 20, 2013, available at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v494/n7437/ull/494307a.html.

26 See, or example, America’s Energy Advantage, “TheFacts,” available at http://www.americasenergyadvan-tage.org/ino/the-acts (last accessed July 2013).

27 U.S. Bureau o Labor Statistics, “Databases, Tables &Calculators by Subject,” available at http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES3000000001?data_tool=XGtable (lastaccessed July 2013).

28 Brad Plumer, “Is U.S. Manuacturing Making a Come-back — Or Is It Just Hype?”, Wonkblog, May 1, 2013,available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/01/is-u-s-manuacturing-set-or-a-comeback-or-is-it-all-hype/.

29 The White House, “Blueprint or an America Built toLast” (2012), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/deault/les/blueprint_or_an_america_built_to_last.pd .

30 Jim Estathiou Jr., “Obama’s 600,000 Fracking-JobForecast Includes Lawyers, Realtors,” Bloomberg,January 26, 2012, available at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-26/obama-s-600-000-racking-job-orecast-includes-lawyers-realtors.html.

31 Tom Kenworthy and others, “Drilling Down on FrackingConcerns” (Washington: Center or American Progress,

2011), available at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2011/03/21/9241/drilling-down-on-racking-concerns/; See also The New York Times, “Drilling Down series,” available at http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/DRILLING_DOWN_SERIES.html?_r=0 (last accessed July 2013).

32 Kenworthy and others, “Drilling Down on FrackingConcerns.”

33 Ryan Koronowski, “Dierent Kind o Boom: Replac-ing Extracted Oil and Gas With Toxic WastewaterCauses Earthquakes,” Climate Progress, March 27,2013, available at http://thinkprogress.org/cli-mate/2013/03/27/1780101/dierent-kind-o-boom-replacing-extracted-oil-and-gas-with-toxic-wastewater-causes-earthquakes/.

34 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Overview o

Greenhouse Gases.”

35 Forster and others, “Changes in Atmospheric Constitu-ents and in Radiative Forcing.”

36 Ramón A. Alvarez and others, “Greater ocus neededon methane leakage rom natural gas inrastruc-ture” (2012), available at http://www.pnas.org/con-tent/109/17/6435.ull.

37 Robert W. Howarth, Renee Santoro, and AnthonyIngraea, “Methane and the Greenhouse-Gas Footprinto Natural Gas rom Shale Formations,” Climatic Change106 (4) (2011): 679–690, available at http://www.sustainableuture.cornell.edu/news/attachments/Howarth-EtAl-2011.pd ; Andrew Burnham and others,“Lie-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions o Shale G as,Natural Gas, Coal, and Petroleum,” Environmental Sci-ence and Technology 46 (2) (2012): 619–627, available athttp://pubs.acs.org/doi/ipd/10.1021/es201942m.

38 James Bradbury and Michael Obeiter, “5 Reasons Why

It’s (Still) Important to R educe Fugitive Methane Emis-sions,” WRI Insights, May 6, 2013, available at http://insights.wri.org/news/2013/05/5-reasons-why-its-still-important-reduce-ugitive-methane-emissions.

39 Environmental Deense Fund, “What will it take to getsustained benets rom natural gas?”, available at http://www.ed.org/methaneleakage (last accessed July 2013).

40 Howarth, Santoro, and Ingraea, or example, estimatethat the ootprint o shale gas is at least 20 percentgreater than coal over a 20-year span. See Howarth,Santoro, and Ingraea, “Methane and the Greenhouse-Gas Footprint o Natural Gas rom Shale Formations.”Michael A. Levi, in contrast, argues that methaneleakage is not likely to oset the climate benets o replacing coal i natural gas is used in the near term.See Michael A. Levi, “Climate Consequences o NaturalGas as a Bridge Fuel,” Climatic Change 118 (3/4) (2013):

609–623, available at http://www.cr.org/energyenvi-ronment/climate-consequences-natural-gas-bridge-uel/p29772. A new paper rom the World ResourcesInstitute examines the seriousness o methaneemissions or global warming and compares paperson methane leakage, including the Howarth and Levipapers. See James Bradbury and others, “Clearing theAir: Reducing Upstream Greenhouse Gas Emissionsrom U.S. Natural Gas Systems.” Working Paper (WorldResources Institute, 2013), available at http://pd.wri.org/clearing_the_air_ull.pd .

41 Lower targets are unrealistic—the concentration o CO2

alone reached 394 ppm in 2012—and higher targetsmake it increasingly likely that we will exceed the 2degree Celsius threshold.

42 Even an increase o 2 degrees Celsius would be disastrousor many natural and human systems. Andrew T. Guzman

describes the droughts, oods, storms, shortages, migra-tions, diseases, and violent conicts that accompany a2 degree Celsius warmer world. See Andrew T. Guzman,“Overheated: The Human Cost o Climate Change”(New York: Oxord University Press, 2013), available athttp://global.oup.com/academic/product/overheated-9780199933877;jsessionid=5303A409B31246C04A5E96C74E1AF083?cc=us&lang=en&; Weiss, Weidman, andBronson, “Heavy Weather: How Climate DestructionHarms Middle- and Lower-Income Americans.”

43 Daniel J. Weiss and Jackie Weidman, “Disastrous Spend-ing: Federal Disaster Relie Expenditures Rise AmidMore Extreme Weather” (Washington: Center or Ameri-can Progress, 2013), available at http://www.american-progress.org/issues/green/report/2013/04/29/61633/disastrous-spending-ederal-disaster-relie-expendi-tures-rise-amid-more-extreme-weather/.

44 Ofce o the Press Secretary, “President to AttendCopenhagen Climate Talks,” Press release, November25, 2009, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-ofce/president-attend-copenhagen-climate-talks; Ofce o the Press Secretary, “Meeting theInternational Clean Energy and Climate Change Chal-lenges,” Press release, July 9, 2009, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_ofce/FACT-SHEET-Meeting-the-International-Clean-Energy-and-Climate-Change-Challenges/.



http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2011-Chapter-2-Trends.pdf



http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v494/n7437/full/494307a.html


http://www.americasenergyadvantage.org/info/the-facts


http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES3000000001?data_tool=XGtable


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/01/is-u-s-manufacturing-set-for-a-comeback-or-is-it-all-hype/



http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/blueprint_for_an_america_built_to_last.pdf



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-26/obama-s-600-000-fracking-job-forecast-includes-lawyers-realtors.html



http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2011/03/21/9241/drilling-down-on-fracking-concerns/



http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/DRILLING_DOWN_SERIES.html?_r=0



http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/27/1780101/different-kind-of-boom-replacing-extracted-oil-and-gas-with-toxic-wastewater-causes-earthquakes/




http://www.pnas.org/content/109/17/6435.full


http://www.sustainablefuture.cornell.edu/news/attachments/Howarth-EtAl-2011.pdf



http://pubs.acs.org/doi/ipdf/10.1021/es201942m

http://insights.wri.org/news/2013/05/5-reasons-why-its-still-important-reduce-fugitive-methane-emissions



http://www.edf.org/methaneleakage


http://www.cfr.org/energyenvironment/climate-consequences-natural-gas-bridge-fuel/p29772



http://pdf.wri.org/clearing_the_air_full.pdf


http://global.oup.com/academic/product/overheated-9780199933877;jsessionid=5303A409B31246C04A5E96C74E1AF083?cc=us&lang=en&



http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2013/04/29/61633/disastrous-spending-federal-disaster-relief-expenditures-rise-amid-more-extreme-weather/




http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-attend-copenhagen-climate-talks



http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/FACT-SHEET-Meeting-the-International-Clean-Energy-and-Climate-Change-Challenges/




























http://pubs.acs.org/doi/ipdf/10.1021/es201942m







































45 Greenhouse-gas emissions were 7,195.3 mmt in 2005.CO

2emissions were 6,109.3 mmt, with 5,748.7 mmt o

those CO2

emissions rom ossil-uel combustion. SeeU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2011, available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Down-loads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2013-Main-

Text.pd .

46 This translates to a goal o 3,710.0 mmt o greenhouse-gas emissions and 2,849.1 mmt o CO

2emissions

rom ossil-uel combustion in 2020 (in the 40 percent

decrease scenario). Greenhouse-gas emissions in 1990were 6,183.3 mmt, and CO

2emissions rom ossil-uel

combustion were 4,748.5 mmt. See B. Metz and others,eds., “Contribution o Working Group III to the FourthAssessment Report o the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change.” In IPCC Fourth Assessment Report:Climate Change (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 2007), available at http://www.ipcc.ch/publica-tions_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/contents.html.

47 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S.Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2011.

48 Deutsche Bank Group, “Natural Gas and Renewables: The Coal to Gas and Renewables Switch Is On” (2011),available at http://www.cleanlineenergy.com/sites/cleanline/media/resources/Natural-Gas-and-Renew-ables.PDF.

49 CO2 emissions rom coal were 1,821.9 mmt in 2011;CO

2emissions rom natural gas were 1,290.3 mmt; and

CO2

emissions rom petroleum were 2,164.6 mmt. SeeU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S.Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2011.

50 A orthcoming report (Fall 2013) rom the Center orAmerican Progress and the Political Economy ResearchInstitute at the University o Massachusetts developsa baseline projection to 2030 under business-as-usualconditions and compares it to the administration’sclimate targets.

51 Deutsche Bank Group, “Natural Gas and Renewables: ASecure Low Carbon Future Energy Plan or the UnitedStates” (2010), available at http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/_media/NaturalGasAndRenewables.pd .

52 Levi, “Climate Consequences o Natural Gas as a Bridge

Fuel.”

53 The range o years is circumscribed by the Levi andDeutsche Bank studies. S ee Levi, “Climate Consequenc-es o Natural Gas as a Bridge Fuel”; Deutsche Bank Group, “Natural Gas and Renewables: A Secure LowCarbon Future Energy Plan or the United States.”

54 Adam James, “U.S. Natural Gas Capacity Must Peak Soon To Achieve Sustainable Pathway,” ClimateProgress, December 10, 2012, available at http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/12/10/1296991/how-the-us-can-get-80-percent-co2-reductions-by-2050-in-the-middle-o-a-natural-gas-boom/ (last accessed July2013).

55 U.S. Energy Inormation Administration, “U.S. Dry Natu-ral Gas Production.”

56 Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109–58, avail-able at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/emp/pds/epact_2005.pd.

57 Ellen M. Gilmer, “Fracking uid suppliers deend tradesecrets on West Coast,” Energy & Environment Publish-ing, March 12, 2013, available at http://www.eenews.net/public/energywire/2013/03/12/1.

58 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Oil and NaturalGas Air Pollution Standards: Regulatory Actions,”available at http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/actions.html (last accessed July 2013).

59 Tom Kenworthy, “New Oil and Gas Requirementsa Good Start but Could Be Better” (Washington:Center or American Progress, 2012), available athttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/06/25/11651/new-oil-and-gas-require-ments-a-good-start-but-could-be-better/.

60 The new drat o proposed rules can be ound here:Bureau o Land Management, Oil and Gas; Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands (U.S. Departmento the Interior, 2013), available at http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Communications_Direc-torate/public_aairs/hydraulicracturing.Par.91723.File.tmp/HydFrac_SupProposal.pd.A synopsis released bythe Bureau o Land Management is available here: Bu-reau o Land M anagement, “Interior Releases UpdatedDrat Rule or Hydraulic Fracturing on Public and IndianLands or Public Comment,” Press release, May 16, 20 13,available at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/ino/news-room/2013/may/nr_05_16_2013.html.

61 Comments may be submitted to the Bureau o LandManagement at the ollowing link: Regulations.gov,“Oil and Gas: Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal andIndian Lands,” available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=BLM_FRDOC_0001-0062 (last

accessed July 2013).

62 The low estimate corresponds to a scenario o lenientregulations; the high estimate corresponds to ascenario o stricter regulations. Current regulationsall on the lenient end o the scale. See Metin Celebi,Frank Graves, and Charles Russell, “Potential Coal PlantRetirements: 2012 Update” (Cambridge, Massachusetts:Brattle Group, 2012), available at http://www.brattle.com/_documents/UploadLibrary/Upload1082.pd .

63 Ofce o the Press Secretary, “Remarks by the Presidenton Climate Change,” Press release, June 25, 2013,available at http://www.whitehouse.gov//the-press-ofce/2013/06/25/remarks-president-climate-change.

64 John Podesta and Timothy E. Wirth, “Natural Gas:A Bridge Fuel or the 21st Century” (Washington:Center or American Progress, 2009), available at

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2009/08/10/6513/natural-gas-a-bridge-uel-or-the-21st-century/.

65 Richard W. Caperton and others, “Helping America Winthe Clean Energy Race” (Washington: Center or Ameri-can Progress, 2011), available at http://www.american-progress.org/issues/green/report/2011/02/07/9016/helping-america-win-the-clean-energy-race/.

66 Levi, “Climate Consequences o Natural Gas As a BridgeFuel.”

67 Puneet Kollipara, “No Final Decision Yet on Oil Royalties,Ofcial Says,” The Houston Chronicle, March 20, 2012,available at http://www.chron.com/business/article/No-nal-decision-yet-on-oil-royalties-ofcial-3422434.php.

68 See, or example, Richard W. Caperton, “A ProgressiveCarbon Tax Will Fight Climate Change and Stimulate theEconomy” (Washington: Center or American Progress,2012), available at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/12/06/47052/a-progressive-carbon-tax-will-ght-climate-change-and-stimulate-the-economy/.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2013-Main-Text.pdf



http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/contents.html


http://www.cleanlineenergy.com/sites/cleanline/media/resources/Natural-Gas-and-Renewables.PDF





http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/12/10/1296991/how-the-us-can-get-80-percent-co2-reductions-by-2050-in-the-middle-of-a-natural-gas-boom/




http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/epact_2005.pdf


http://www.eenews.net/public/energywire/2013/03/12/1


http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/actions.html


http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/06/25/11651/new-oil-and-gas-requirements-a-good-start-but-could-be-better/



http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Communications_Directorate/public_affairs/hydraulicfracturing.Par.91723.File.tmp/HydFrac_SupProposal.pdf




http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2013/may/nr_05_16_2013.html


http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=BLM_FRDOC_0001-0062


http://www.brattle.com/_documents/UploadLibrary/Upload1082.pdf


http://www.whitehouse.gov//the-press-office/2013/06/25/remarks-president-climate-change


http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2009/08/10/6513/natural-gas-a-bridge-fuel-for-the-21st-century/



http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2011/02/07/9016/helping-america-win-the-clean-energy-race/



http://www.chron.com/business/article/No-final-decision-yet-on-oil-royalties-official-3422434.php



http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/12/06/47052/a-progressive-carbon-tax-will-fight-climate-change-and-stimulate-the-economy/























































69 Ibid.

70 NERA Economic Consulting, “Macroeconomic Impactso LNG Exports rom the United States” (2012), availableat http://www.ossil.energy.gov/programs/gasregula-tion/reports/nera_lng_report.pd .

71 Ibid.; Charles River Associates, “US Manuacturingand LNG Exports Economic Contributions to the USEconomy and Impacts on US Natural Gas Prices” (2013),available at http://www.crai.com/uploadedFiles/Publi-cations/CRA_LNG_Study_Feb2013.pd .

72 This has been pointed out by Wallace Tyner o PurdueUniversity. See Wallace E. Tyner and Kemal Sarica,“Comparison o Analysis o Natural Gas Export Impactsrom Studies Done by NERA Economic Consultants andPurdue University” (U.S. Department o Energy, 2013),available at http://www.ossil.energy.gov/programs/gasregulation/authorizations/export_study/30_Wal-lace_Tyner01_14_13.pd .

73 A comprehensive assessment o all the costs—capital,energy, and environmental costs—associated with ascenario o signicant natural-gas exports is outsidethe scope o this analysis. It is estimated, however,that it costs approximately $4 or liqueaction andtransportation o 1,000 cubic eet o natural gas to Eu-rope and approximately $6 to Asia, and that construc-tion o a liqueaction acility can cost up to $4 billion

per billion cubic eet o daily export capability. SeeMichael Levi, “A Strategy or U.S. Natural Gas Exports”(Washington: Brookings Institution, 2012), availableat http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/les/papers/2012/6/13%20exports%20levi/06_ex-ports_levi. Because the stages o exporting naturalgas—liqueaction, shipping, and re-gasication—areenergy intensive, it is estimated that exports wouldresult in more than doubling the upstream emissions(i.e., emissions beore combustion) o natural-gas pro-duction in the United States. See James Bradbury andJennier Morgan, “What Exporting U.S. Natural Gas

Means or the Climate,” WRI Insights, May 20, 2013,available at http://insights.wri.org/news/2013/05/what-exporting-us-natural-gas-means-climate (lastaccessed July 2013). This, however, is complicatedby the act that natural-gas exports could reduceglobal emissions in the near term by displacing coal inelectricity generation, although domestic emissionswould increase. Levi estimates an increase o 2 milliontons o emissions in the United States per billion cubiceet o daily exports and a reduction o up to 15 mil-lion tons o emissions globally per billion cubic eeto daily exports. When considering increased exports,it is important to note the global parallel to our argu-ment, which is that natural gas may present somenear-term emissions-reduction benets by displacingcoal in the generation o electricity, but it must beensured that natural gas declines globally beyond thenear term so as not to crowd out clean energy.

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/gasregulation/reports/nera_lng_report.pdf


http://www.crai.com/uploadedFiles/Publications/CRA_LNG_Study_Feb2013.pdf


http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/gasregulation/authorizations/export_study/30_Wallace_Tyner01_14_13.pdf



http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/6/13%20exports%20levi/06_exports_levi



http://insights.wri.org/news/2013/05/what-exporting-us-natural-gas-means-climate
















The Center or American Progress is a nonpartisan research and educational institute

dedicated to promoting a strong, just, and ree America that ensures opportunity

or all. We believe that Americans are bound together by a common commitment to

these values and we aspire to ensure that our national policies relect these values.

We work to ind progressive and pragmatic solutions to signiicant domestic and

international problems and develop policy proposals that oster a government that

is “o the people, by the people, and or the people.”

u.s. natural-gas use must peak by 2030

Documents