Editor’s note: This commentary is by Ross Saxton, of Calais, who is a consultant and contractor on issues such as climate change, water pollution, wildlife/fisheries conservation, and ecological resilience.
[W]e were all reminded in mid-May about one reason why thousands of Vermonters fervently oppose the Vermont Gas natural gas pipeline when new federal regulations on methane emissions were presented. The U.S. has never regulated methane before, and now after realizing that the EPA had been hugely underestimating methane emissions from gas and oil extraction activities, we’re realizing that natural gas is much worse than we thought.
Partly to blame is the EPA’s mistake of relying on industry reporting — a lesson not to be forgotten. You see, it’s well known that burning natural gas for energy is cleaner than burning oil — in fact, natural gas emits nearly half of the carbon dioxide of oil or coal. That’s good, of course. However, we didn’t realize until recently that the extraction and transportation process of natural gas leaks methane in the range of 1-3 percent (or more by some estimates) of all extracted natural gas. One to 3 percent doesn’t sound too bad, right? Well, it is bad when we start calculating the impact of methane compared to carbon dioxide. Methane is up to 100 times more effective at trapping energy (heat) on our planet than carbon dioxide in its first decade or so. Over time, methane does become less potent of a greenhouse gas, but is still at least 30 times more potent over several decades.
Why should $154 million be invested into a polluting fuel source that comes from across the country … when we can go straight to a truly clean, renewable, local and independent source while we power even more homes and businesses and create even more jobs?
It’s mind-blowing that the state of Vermont is willing to increase our use of fracked natural gas even though we banned fracking in the state. The hypocrisy here is embarrassing. The economics don’t make sense, either, which we’ll calculate below in a minute. Beyond massively failing to stay even close to the original $88 million pipeline budget (total costs are now estimated at nearly double that at $154 million, which is not “on budget” as a company spokesperson said during a WCAX interview on April 19), Vermont Gas cannot morally call their pipeline a “clean energy project” when one third of all U.S. methane emissions come from the oil and gas sector, according to the EPA’s latest figures. Even more, a “clean energy project” is not clean when there are practical energy choices that emit much less or no pollution. Considering natural gas to be a “transition to renewables,” as Vermont Gas and a few elected officials have said, is like switching to whole-grain bread from white bread while trying to lose weight. Sure, the bread is a little healthier for you, but the weight-adding carbs are still there!
The new federal methane regulations will require oil and gas companies to capture leaks from new and modified drilling wells and storage tanks, but existing infrastructure is not covered. For us to get close to calling natural gas a clean energy source, we’ll need to stop the leaks from existing infrastructure. Oil and gas companies are losing profits from these leaks, which presents the question of why these companies haven’t already acted on the leaks. With no upcoming mitigation action to address current leaks in sight of which I’m aware, the natural gas pipeline project is far from a transitional fuel that can help us reach a clean energy economy. There are also the issues of contaminated drinking water, seismic activity, and polluted waterways correlated to fracking.
Another point that is used to promote natural gas is its perceived low cost compared to other energy sources. Let’s do some quick math to find out if the gas pipeline project is a good deal or not. Residential solar can be installed for about $6,000 per kilowatt. Divide that into $154 million (cost of the Vermont pipeline project) and we get 25,666 kilowatts of solar panels. Since the average Vermont home can be powered by a 5 kilowatt array of solar panels, we find that about 5,100 homes can be powered by the pipeline project’s budget. Vermont Gas estimates that 4,000 new homes and businesses will be served by the pipeline according to their website, which will also have electricity bills on top of their gas bills. Plus, customers pay for the amount of gas they use while solar panels require no additional costs after installed. So why should $154 million be invested into a polluting fuel source that comes from across the country (and will be phased out eventually — hence, they call it “transitional”) when we can go straight to a truly clean, renewable, local and independent source while we power even more homes and businesses and create even more jobs?
