vox--2020-02-20--2020 Democrats’ campaign finance pledges, explained

Ahead of the Nevada caucuses and Super Tuesday , Sen. Elizabeth Warren appears to be walking back her opposition to Super PAC support , softening a stance that had once made her one of the most stringent candidates in the Democratic field .
Warren made the comments after a Democratic debate in which she stood out for her attacks on billionaire ( and former New York City mayor ) Mike Bloomberg .
The New York Times reported that the new Super PAC supporting Warren would spend $ 1 million in Nevada before the caucuses there on Saturday .
After third- @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hampshire , respectively , Warren needs a strong performance in Nevada to give her faltering campaign momentum .
Her debate performance was a fundraising boon for her campaign ; now a Super PAC is coming in to help — despite Warren ’ s previous pledge .
Democrats running for president in 2020 had been making a big show of turning away top-dollar donors early in the campaign .
Most of these campaign finance pledges sound good , and they are certainly better than not making such a promise .
But these are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with presidential candidates .
“ For years , candidates for both parties publicly declared support for limiting money ’ s influence on politics but then privately exploited every campaign finance loophole they could find , ” Brendan Fischer , director of federal reform at the Campaign Legal Center , told me last summer .
“ We ’ re in an entirely different environment this cycle , and I think that ’ s a good thing.
” Corporate PACs , something every Democrat running for president swore off , tend to provide a relatively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told me .
So turning down their support probably isn ’ t going to hurt a candidate ’ s bottom line too much .
Rejecting PAC money also isn ’ t the same as rejecting support from high-level executives .
“ The no-corporate-PAC pledge is popular .
It ’ s a symbolic expression of a candidate ’ s commitment to reform , ” Fischer said .
“ But it may not make a huge dent in their fundraising.
” Turning down support from federal lobbyists also isn ’ t as simple as it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try to influence lawmakers and policy are not actually registered as lobbyists with the government .
Influential people can still give to candidates without the campaigns having violated that pledge .
Fischer gave the example of former Vice President Joe Biden attending a fundraiser with Comcast ’ s David Cohen , who oversees the telecom giant ’ s lobbying shop but isn ’ t registered as a lobbyist himself .
Still , the very fact that candidates feel they need to make these pledges is real change .
Vox surveyed the 24 Democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from all 24 of them .
Every campaign that responded to us said it was refusing donations from corporate PACs .
Most also said they were rejecting support from the fossil fuel industry and from registered federal lobbyists .
A handful of them were forgoing support from Super PACs of any kind ( though that is subject to change , as Warren and Joe Biden show ) .
Two candidates — Sens .
Bernie Sanders and Warren — swore off high-dollar private fundraisers .
“ The pledge that seems the most meaningful is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and donor perks , ” Fischer said .
“ One way wealthy donors can have a broader influence on politics and politicians is at fundraisers .
We kind of take it for granted wealthy donors can buy access.
” The loopholes in these pledges — and the willingness of many Democratic candidates to solicit donations from elite , wealthy donors — has been a reminder of how difficult the problem of money in politics will be to fix .
But the Democratic field ’ s renunciation of certain streams of major campaign donations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What the 2020 Democratic campaigns actually promised on donations In June 2019 , Vox asked every Democratic campaign to provide the promises they had made regarding which industries , groups , and people they would not accept financial support from .
The inquiry was intentionally open-ended .
Every campaign provided a response .
The promises generally covered four kinds of donations : from the fossil fuel industry , from corporate PACs , from all Super PACS , and from federal lobbyists .
But not all of these pledges have stuck : Warren and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least not disavowing ) Super PAC support .
Note : This chart was made in June 2019 ; since then , some of these candidates have changed their positions and most have dropped out of the race .
Here were the raw tallies : • 19 campaigns were rejecting donations from the fossil fuel industry • 9 campaigns were rejecting donations from all Super PACs Some of the campaigns added other entities to their blacklist .
Biden wasn ’ t accepting money from “ unions , federal contractors , national banks or foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Mayor Pete Buttigieg also rejected donations from the pharmaceutical industry .
California Rep. Eric Swalwell didn ’ t want support from “ the NRA or tobacco industry.
” New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio specified any lobbyists or businesses that do business with New York City in his response .
The official No Fossil Fuel Money pledge pushed by anti-climate change grassroots organizers , signed by 16 candidates ( Biden ’ s campaign said he would not accept support from the industry but he is not listed as a signatory of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With climate change as the greatest threat to humanity ’ s future , Democratic candidates have shunned the industry that voters hold responsible for it .
Rejecting corporate and federal lobbyist money is a signal of a candidate ’ s willingness to ignore the traditionally influential interests in Washington .
But the reality , of course , is a little more complicated .
The potential loopholes in these 2020 campaign finance pledges Some of these pledges can still be subverted .
Disavowing corporate ( fossil fuel or otherwise ) PAC money does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ executives , though some campaigns added them to their pledge .
There are plenty of people in Washington who still wield influence and persuade officials without actually being registered as lobbyists .
Closed-door , high-dollar fundraisers remain perhaps the most pernicious means of influence in modern-day politics , and most of the Democratic candidates still participating in those , as the Washington Post ’ s Michelle Ye Hee Lee documented .
But even there , a few candidates stand out : Warren has promised she will not attend any exclusive gatherings like that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out corporate influence in US politics .
Sanders has also disavowed any high-dollar private events and any donor perks .
“ I ’ m not taking a dime of PAC money in this campaign .
I ’ m not taking a single check from a federal lobbyist .
I ’ m not taking applications from billionaires who want to run a Super PAC on my behalf .
And I challenge every other candidate who asks for your vote in this primary to say exactly the same thing , ” Warren said when announcing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promise isn ’ t perfect ; Cory Booker said he didn ’ t want Super PAC support , but a wealthy Democratic donor started one backing his candidacy anyway .
And because of the rules prohibiting coordination between campaigns and Super PACs , there technically wasn ’ t much Booker could do about it .
Those soft spots are why Fischer regards the rejection of closed-door , high-dollar fundraisers as the gold standard for campaign finance pledges .
Even if we were to give candidates the benefit of the doubt , their attendance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to spend thousands of dollars to join is going to skew — intentionally or not — their views on what issues are important and what should be done about them .
“ The only people inside can write a $ 2,800 check .
They get face time with the candidates .
The candidate spends an inordinate amount of time with donors , hearing about their concerns and pitching themselves as someone who is going to be responsive to those concerns , ” Fischer said .
“ Even the best-intentioned candidate is going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s comments reassuring donors that “ nothing will fundamentally change ” for wealthy people under a Biden presidency were made at a fundraiser ; his campaign does allow press to cover those events , however .
Warren and Sanders were the only candidates to swear off such events in their response to Vox .
The one private event that the Vermont senator held had tickets available for $ 27 , the Washington Post reported , not a huge barrier for middle- or working-class voters who want to attend .
The evidence shows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outcomes These days , “ quid pro quo ” corruption is pretty rare , Fischer emphasized .
Politicians and moneyed interests are simply too savvy to get caught making a specific offer of money for a specific deed .
But campaign contributions can still buy big donors access to elected officials .
It ’ s not just common sense and anecdotal evidence that prove it , either .
Empirical research has shown what some well-placed donations can get you .
A 2016 paper from two University of California Berkeley researchers , published in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ran a remarkable experiment .
A political organization tried to schedule meetings with 191 congressional offices between lawmakers and their campaign donors .
For some of the requests , the group disclosed that the donor had given money to the campaign ; for other requests , they withheld that crucial information .
It was a truly randomized experiment .
This is what it yielded ( emphasis mine ) : Other studies have found a similar connection .
Researchers from Stanford and the University of Wisconsin examined campaign donations from corporations to members of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They found industries would drop donations to members who were leaving an influential committee and instead direct their money to incoming members , even those of the opposite party .
“ We provide evidence that corporations and business PACs use donations to acquire immediate access and favor , ” the authors wrote , “ suggesting they at least anticipate that the donations will influence policy.
” The Roosevelt Institute ran its own data , examining the behavior of lawmakers who initially voted in favor of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill and then took @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s provisions , and found that “ for every $ 100,000 that Democratic representatives received from finance , the odds they would break with their party ’ s majority support for the Dodd-Frank legislation increased by 13.9 percent.
” Sometimes , it doesn ’ t require any academic rigor to see how money influences policy .
Rep. Chris Collins ( R-NY ) said before the Republican tax bill passed in 2017 that his donors had told him to pass the bill , legislation that would hit his home state harder than most , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me again.
” The pressure on Democratic campaigns : Ideals versus practical needs Ever since Citizens United allowed corporations and rich donors to write blank checks to support their chosen political activities and candidates , Democrats have sworn that they will do whatever they can to put a check on money buying access in politics .
The pledges the 2020 candidates made demonstrate commitment to that goal .
But Democrats often find these promises hard to keep .
In prior elections , presidential and otherwise , Democrats accepted Super PAC support while decrying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by arguing Republicans had no such qualms about allowing big donors to boost their campaigns .
Indeed , defeating President Donald Trump remains at the top of Democrats ’ agendas — and they may care a lot less about how such a campaign is funded .
They don ’ t want to fall behind in an arms race ; Trump has already raised more than $ 150 million for his 2020 reelection campaign .
The expansive nature of the 2020 Democratic primary field has put new pressure on these pledges .
The Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who once swore off any private fundraisers , had held an exclusive event with maxed-out donors .
Buttigieg , Kirsten Gillibrand , Amy Klobuchar , Beto O ’ Rourke , and Michael Bennet might have disavowed corporate PAC money but they still attended closed-door events with donors in Manhattan or the San Francisco Bay Area for their campaigns , according to the Post .
Warren and Biden have softened their opposition to Super PACs when the going got tough .
Some of these candidates found there simply isn ’ t enough grassroots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As the Post ’ s Michelle Ye Hee Lee summarized her findings : It ’ s easy to promise you ’ ll turn off the spigot of big money — until you find yourself choosing between an underfunded campaign and compromising on your ideals .
This is the same dilemma Democrats always find themselves in on large campaign donors : They don ’ t want them , but they think they need them .
Money has a way of grinding down even the best intentions .
While 2020 has been an improvement on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end up another chapter in that age-old tale for many of its campaigns .

Ahead of the Nevada caucuses and Super Tuesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren appears to be walking back her opposition to Super PAC support, softening a stance that had once made her one of the most stringent candidates in the Democratic field.
Warren made the comments after a Democratic debate in which she stood out for her attacks on billionaire (and former New York City mayor) Mike Bloomberg.
NEW: Here is video of Warren declining to disavow the new super PAC supporting her:
“If all the candidates want to get rid of super PACs, count me in. I'll lead the charge. But that's how it has to be. It can't be the case that a bunch of people keep them and only 1 or 2 don’t.” pic.twitter.com/byxQRjGMfs — Shane Goldmacher (@ShaneGoldmacher) February 20, 2020
The New York Times reported that the new Super PAC supporting Warren would spend $1 million in Nevada before the caucuses there on Saturday. After third- and fourth-places finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire, respectively, Warren needs a strong performance in Nevada to give her faltering campaign momentum. Her debate performance was a fundraising boon for her campaign; now a Super PAC is coming in to help — despite Warren’s previous pledge.
Democrats running for president in 2020 had been making a big show of turning away top-dollar donors early in the campaign. Most of these campaign finance pledges sound good, and they are certainly better than not making such a promise. But these are not necessarily airtight safeguards against money buying influence with presidential candidates.
“For years, candidates for both parties publicly declared support for limiting money’s influence on politics but then privately exploited every campaign finance loophole they could find,” Brendan Fischer, director of federal reform at the Campaign Legal Center, told me last summer. “We’re in an entirely different environment this cycle, and I think that’s a good thing.”
Corporate PACs, something every Democrat running for president swore off, tend to provide a relatively small chunk of the money, Fischer told me. So turning down their support probably isn’t going to hurt a candidate’s bottom line too much. Rejecting PAC money also isn’t the same as rejecting support from high-level executives.
“The no-corporate-PAC pledge is popular. It’s a symbolic expression of a candidate’s commitment to reform,” Fischer said. “But it may not make a huge dent in their fundraising.”
Turning down support from federal lobbyists also isn’t as simple as it sounds. Many people in Washington who try to influence lawmakers and policy are not actually registered as lobbyists with the government. Influential people can still give to candidates without the campaigns having violated that pledge. Fischer gave the example of former Vice President Joe Biden attending a fundraiser with Comcast’s David Cohen, who oversees the telecom giant’s lobbying shop but isn’t registered as a lobbyist himself.
Still, the very fact that candidates feel they need to make these pledges is real change. Vox surveyed the 24 Democratic presidential campaigns last June and received responses from all 24 of them. Every campaign that responded to us said it was refusing donations from corporate PACs. Most also said they were rejecting support from the fossil fuel industry and from registered federal lobbyists. A handful of them were forgoing support from Super PACs of any kind (though that is subject to change, as Warren and Joe Biden show). Two candidates — Sens. Bernie Sanders and Warren — swore off high-dollar private fundraisers.
“The pledge that seems the most meaningful is the one that eschews closed-door big-money fundraisers and donor perks,” Fischer said. “One way wealthy donors can have a broader influence on politics and politicians is at fundraisers. We kind of take it for granted wealthy donors can buy access.”
The loopholes in these pledges — and the willingness of many Democratic candidates to solicit donations from elite, wealthy donors — has been a reminder of how difficult the problem of money in politics will be to fix. But the Democratic field’s renunciation of certain streams of major campaign donations is still a sign of progress.
What the 2020 Democratic campaigns actually promised on donations
In June 2019, Vox asked every Democratic campaign to provide the promises they had made regarding which industries, groups, and people they would not accept financial support from. The inquiry was intentionally open-ended. Every campaign provided a response.
The promises generally covered four kinds of donations: from the fossil fuel industry, from corporate PACs, from all Super PACS, and from federal lobbyists. But not all of these pledges have stuck: Warren and Biden are now tacitly accepting (at least not disavowing) Super PAC support. Note: This chart was made in June 2019; since then, some of these candidates have changed their positions and most have dropped out of the race.
Here were the raw tallies:
24 campaigns were rejecting donations from corporate PACs
19 campaigns were rejecting donations from the fossil fuel industry
13 campaigns were rejecting donations from federal lobbyists
9 campaigns were rejecting donations from all Super PACs
Some of the campaigns added other entities to their blacklist. Biden wasn’t accepting money from “unions, federal contractors, national banks or foreign nationals.” Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg also rejected donations from the pharmaceutical industry. California Rep. Eric Swalwell didn’t want support from “the NRA or tobacco industry.” New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio specified any lobbyists or businesses that do business with New York City in his response.
The official No Fossil Fuel Money pledge pushed by anti-climate change grassroots organizers, signed by 16 candidates (Biden’s campaign said he would not accept support from the industry but he is not listed as a signatory of the pledge), is self-explanatory. With climate change as the greatest threat to humanity’s future, Democratic candidates have shunned the industry that voters hold responsible for it. Rejecting corporate and federal lobbyist money is a signal of a candidate’s willingness to ignore the traditionally influential interests in Washington.
But the reality, of course, is a little more complicated.
The potential loopholes in these 2020 campaign finance pledges
Some of these pledges can still be subverted. Disavowing corporate (fossil fuel or otherwise) PAC money does not mean disavowing support from individual CEOs and executives, though some campaigns added them to their pledge. There are plenty of people in Washington who still wield influence and persuade officials without actually being registered as lobbyists.
Closed-door, high-dollar fundraisers remain perhaps the most pernicious means of influence in modern-day politics, and most of the Democratic candidates still participating in those, as the Washington Post’s Michelle Ye Hee Lee documented.
But even there, a few candidates stand out: Warren has promised she will not attend any exclusive gatherings like that as part of her platform to weed out corporate influence in US politics. Sanders has also disavowed any high-dollar private events and any donor perks.
“I’m not taking a dime of PAC money in this campaign. I’m not taking a single check from a federal lobbyist. I’m not taking applications from billionaires who want to run a Super PAC on my behalf. And I challenge every other candidate who asks for your vote in this primary to say exactly the same thing,” Warren said when announcing her candidacy.
Even the no-Super PAC promise isn’t perfect; Cory Booker said he didn’t want Super PAC support, but a wealthy Democratic donor started one backing his candidacy anyway. And because of the rules prohibiting coordination between campaigns and Super PACs, there technically wasn’t much Booker could do about it.
Those soft spots are why Fischer regards the rejection of closed-door, high-dollar fundraisers as the gold standard for campaign finance pledges. Even if we were to give candidates the benefit of the doubt, their attendance at those private events where participants had to spend thousands of dollars to join is going to skew — intentionally or not — their views on what issues are important and what should be done about them.
“The only people inside can write a $2,800 check. They get face time with the candidates. The candidate spends an inordinate amount of time with donors, hearing about their concerns and pitching themselves as someone who is going to be responsive to those concerns,” Fischer said. “Even the best-intentioned candidate is going to be affected by that.”
Joe Biden’s comments reassuring donors that “nothing will fundamentally change” for wealthy people under a Biden presidency were made at a fundraiser; his campaign does allow press to cover those events, however.
Warren and Sanders were the only candidates to swear off such events in their response to Vox. The one private event that the Vermont senator held had tickets available for $27, the Washington Post reported, not a huge barrier for middle- or working-class voters who want to attend.
The evidence shows that campaign donations buy access and policy outcomes
These days, “quid pro quo” corruption is pretty rare, Fischer emphasized. Politicians and moneyed interests are simply too savvy to get caught making a specific offer of money for a specific deed.
But campaign contributions can still buy big donors access to elected officials. It’s not just common sense and anecdotal evidence that prove it, either. Empirical research has shown what some well-placed donations can get you.
A 2016 paper from two University of California Berkeley researchers, published in the American Journal of Political Science, ran a remarkable experiment. A political organization tried to schedule meetings with 191 congressional offices between lawmakers and their campaign donors. For some of the requests, the group disclosed that the donor had given money to the campaign; for other requests, they withheld that crucial information.
It was a truly randomized experiment. This is what it yielded (emphasis mine):
When informed prospective attendees were political donors, senior policy makers made themselves available between three and four times more often.
Other studies have found a similar connection. Researchers from Stanford and the University of Wisconsin examined campaign donations from corporations to members of congressional committees that affect their business. They found industries would drop donations to members who were leaving an influential committee and instead direct their money to incoming members, even those of the opposite party.
“We provide evidence that corporations and business PACs use donations to acquire immediate access and favor,” the authors wrote, “suggesting they at least anticipate that the donations will influence policy.”
The Roosevelt Institute ran its own data, examining the behavior of lawmakers who initially voted in favor of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill and then took later votes to weaken the bill’s provisions, and found that “for every $100,000 that Democratic representatives received from finance, the odds they would break with their party’s majority support for the Dodd-Frank legislation increased by 13.9 percent.”
Sometimes, it doesn’t require any academic rigor to see how money influences policy. Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY) said before the Republican tax bill passed in 2017 that his donors had told him to pass the bill, legislation that would hit his home state harder than most, “or don’t ever call me again.”
The pressure on Democratic campaigns: Ideals versus practical needs
Ever since Citizens United allowed corporations and rich donors to write blank checks to support their chosen political activities and candidates, Democrats have sworn that they will do whatever they can to put a check on money buying access in politics. The pledges the 2020 candidates made demonstrate commitment to that goal.
But Democrats often find these promises hard to keep. In prior elections, presidential and otherwise, Democrats accepted Super PAC support while decrying its influence. They defended that compromise by arguing Republicans had no such qualms about allowing big donors to boost their campaigns. Indeed, defeating President Donald Trump remains at the top of Democrats’ agendas — and they may care a lot less about how such a campaign is funded. They don’t want to fall behind in an arms race; Trump has already raised more than $150 million for his 2020 reelection campaign.
The expansive nature of the 2020 Democratic primary field has put new pressure on these pledges. The Washington Post reported that Beto O’Rourke, who once swore off any private fundraisers, had held an exclusive event with maxed-out donors. Buttigieg, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, and Michael Bennet might have disavowed corporate PAC money but they still attended closed-door events with donors in Manhattan or the San Francisco Bay Area for their campaigns, according to the Post. Warren and Biden have softened their opposition to Super PACs when the going got tough.
Some of these candidates found there simply isn’t enough grassroots support to fuel their presidential campaigns. As the Post’s Michelle Ye Hee Lee summarized her findings:
Many of the candidates previously had held a handful of high-dollar fundraisers or avoided them altogether, seeking to tap into the populist sentiment that has animated the Democratic base. They tried to capitalize on the deluge of online donations that helped fuel the midterm elections, rather than making the traditional overtures to wealthy donors, once a staple of early presidential campaigns. But after a disappointing fundraising haul in the first quarter of the year, and as the primary drags on with no clear front-runner, many of the candidates are turning their focus to wealthy donors — a strategy that could help keep their campaigns viable but may hamper their ability to connect with base voters.
It’s easy to promise you’ll turn off the spigot of big money — until you find yourself choosing between an underfunded campaign and compromising on your ideals. This is the same dilemma Democrats always find themselves in on large campaign donors: They don’t want them, but they think they need them.
Money has a way of grinding down even the best intentions. While 2020 has been an improvement on past election cycles, it still might end up another chapter in that age-old tale for many of its campaigns.


vox--2020-02-20--The false promise of “renewable natural gas”

This piece was originally published on February 14 and has been updated to include a comment from SoCalGas .
To stay in line with the targets laid out in the Paris climate agreement , the US needs to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 , known as “ deep decarbonization.
” Virtually every credible study on deep decarbonization agrees on the basics of a strategy to get there .
The heart of the strategy is cleaning up the power grid , which is currently responsible for 28 percent of US greenhouse gas ( GHG ) emissions .
It must be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , hydro , and nuclear .
Concurrently , two of the biggest sources of GHGs , transportation and buildings , must switch over to run on that zero-carbon power .
The transportation system ( 29 percent of US emissions ) is almost entirely powered by gasoline and diesel ; it must transition to electric vehicles to the extent possible .
And buildings ( also 29 percent of US emissions ) are now frequently heated and cooled by oil or , more commonly , by natural gas ; they must transition to electric heating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This strategy — for which I use the shorthand “ electrify everything !
” — is beginning to catch on , especially in California , which is always something of a preview of broader trends to come .
In a relatively short span of time , a robust “ all-electric movement ” has emerged , as dozens of towns and cities take steps to encourage all-electric construction in new buildings .
Natural gas utilities do not like this movement one bit .
The more all-electric buildings there are , the fewer natural gas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inevitably involves the obsolescence , or at least the substantial diminution , of natural gas utilities .
Naturally , they are fighting back furiously , with astroturf groups , PR campaigns , and lobbying at the local level .
Their main argument — playing out with particular intensity in California — has to do with “ renewable natural gas ” ( RNG ) , an industry term for methane captured from biogenic ( organic ) waste at landfills , livestock operations , farms , and sewage treatment facilities .
( It is sometimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ) RNG can , depending on feedstock and circumstances , be low or even zero-carbon .
Utilities like SoCalGas argue that ramping up the production of RNG and blending it with normal natural gas in pipelines can reduce GHGs faster and cheaper than electrifying buildings .
According to Southern California Gas Company spokeswoman Christine Detz , “ A growing number of experts and industrialized nations recognize the need to include renewable gases as part of a sustainable energy mix.
” By pursuing electrification , they say , regulators are pushing unnecessary cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nice for the utilities if this were true .
But it ’ s not .
RNG is not as low-carbon as the industry claims and its local air and water impacts are concentrated in vulnerable communities .
Even if it were low-carbon and equitable , there simply isn ’ t enough of it to substitute for more than a small fraction of natural gas .
And even if it were low-carbon , equitable , and abundant , it still wouldn ’ t be an excuse to expand natural gas infrastructure or slow electrification @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call .
The research is clear : Especially in a temperate climate like California , RNG is not a viable alternative for decarbonizing buildings .
It is a desperate bid by natural gas utilities to delay their inevitable decline .
Policymakers would be foolish to fall for it .
That ’ s the short version .
Now let ’ s look at how the battle is playing out , with an emphasis on California , which is one of the country ’ s top natural gas-consuming states — and a state with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Electrification is gaining serious momentum in California The expert chorus supporting electrification has been getting louder .
Energy efficiency and electrification are recommended for the building sector in the United States Mid-Century Strategy for Deep Decarbonization , developed under the Obama administration .
They are recommended throughout the work of the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project ( DDPP ) on various countries , including the US .
( DDPP also did a pathways analysis for my home state of Washington , at Gov .
Jay Inslee ’ s behest ; it contains the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( CEC ) has done a report on deep decarbonization and a ( recently updated ) extensive report on the future of the state ’ s natural gas network .
In both reports , it finds that electrification is the cheapest option for decarbonizing buildings .
In response to this chorus , 26 California cities have now either passed an ordinance phasing out natural gas in new building construction or updated building codes to encourage all-electric construction .
Dozens more cities are expected to follow suit this year .
Across the state , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pressured by their investors about “ carbon risk , ” the possibility of building fossil fuel-reliant assets that will be unable to find buyers .
Perhaps most significantly , in January , the California Public Utilities Commission ( CPUC ) announced a new proceeding to begin the process of weaning the state off of natural gas , including consideration of a just transition to avoid safety issues and stranded costs .
Natural gas utilities are freaking out and getting shady All this momentum has thoroughly freaked out the Southern California Gas Company , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , serving 5.7 million customers in Southern and Central California .
SoCalGas makes more yearly revenue than any other utility in the nation , and of its $ 2.9 billion in revenue in 2018 , $ 2.25 billion , almost 80 percent , came from residential customers .
All-electric residential construction would crush it .
Monopoly natural gas utilities run the same way monopoly electricity utilities do .
They don ’ t make money on the sale of gas .
Rather , they charge a rate for gas that is meant to cover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investments in natural gas infrastructure , and a healthy fixed rate of return on those investments .
In other words , they make profits by building stuff .
Naturally , they want to build more stuff .
But what they are facing is a steady loss of demand , as more and more customers opt out of the natural gas system in favor of the grid .
That will leave fewer and fewer customers paying higher and higher rates just to maintain the existing pipeline infrastructure , with little room left for new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the offing for SoCalGas and its owner , Sempra Energy .
A few years ago , a new nonprofit was born : Californians for Balanced Energy Solutions ( C4Bes ) .
It began running ads opposing a natural gas phaseout and lobbying local lawmakers across the state , using apocalyptic messaging about the cost to consumers , recruiting local signatories for petitions against electrification .
In March 2017 , it had the unbridled chutzpah to ask the CPUC to make it an official party in the proceeding regarding the future of natural gas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sierra Club to point out , in a filing to the CPUC ( replete with backing documents and leaked emails ) , that C4Bes is an astroturf group , a lobbying effort masquerading as a nonprofit .
It ’ s a creation of SoCalGas , using talking points written by SoCalGas to organize opposition to municipal efforts that would negatively impact SoCalGas .
It should not be posing as an independent party in a regulatory proceeding .
Finally , after months of parrying and delaying regulators , rather than face discovery , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elected in January 2019 to withdraw from the proceeding .
In May 2019 , the Public Advocates Office , a consumer watchdog within the CPUC , determined that SoCalGas had been using sleazy tactics , including , reports KQED , “ lying to regulators , undermining efficiency codes and standards , and ‘ astroturfing ’ : funding a seemingly independent advocacy group with ratepayer money.
” It recommended that CPUC sanction the utility .
Michael Boccadoro , head of Dairy Cares , an advocacy group for animal agriculture in California , was originally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saw their tactics up close — telling homeowners that government agents would be ripping out their gas stoves soon , crematoria that would no longer be able to cremate bodies , and Asian restaurants that have to give up their woks .
“ It ’ s pretty misleading what they ’ re trying to do , ” he says , “ and the story they ’ re out there telling .
It seems like a desperate action.
” He resigned from the board last year .
C4Bes withdrew from the proceeding , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ telling municipal officials horror stories about electrification .
And it is not alone .
In the Pacific Northwest , a coalition of gas utilities has launched a $ 1 million PR effort to push back against electrification in the region .
“ Partners for Energy Progress ” will use much of the same messaging that C4Bes is using .
That means two things : raising fears about the costs of a transition ( despite a broad consensus that electrification will save consumers money , as we will see later ) and stressing consumer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ research that they can ’ t get away with simply opposing decarbonization .
They need an “ all of the above ” message , one that offers consumers a choice of different decarbonization pathways .
That ’ s the role RNG is playing in this debate : The natural gas industry is proposing it as a choice , an alternate route to decarbonization .
There isn ’ t enough RNG to go around The main question facing RNG is simple : Is there enough of it to decarbonize existing uses of natural gas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looked into this closely .
The answer , in a word , is no .
In its deep decarbonization pathways study , the CEC concluded that , if California had access to its population-weighted share of total US bioenergy output , “ there appears to be insufficient biomethane to displace the necessary amount of building and industry fossil natural gas consumption to meet the state ’ s long-term climate goals.
” UC Davis also did a study on the potential of RNG in California .
It found that , all told , about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bcf/y ) of biomethane sources are “ attractive for investment , ” taking into account state and federal incentives .
By way of comparison , in 2017 , California consumed about 2,110 bcf/y of natural gas .
So under the most optimistic assumptions , RNG could replace 4.1 percent of California ’ s gas demand ( 1.6 percent on the low end of estimates ) .
What about RNG for transportation , another idea that the natural gas industry has long supported ?
A 2017 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists showed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country ’ s RNG potential to replace diesel fuel alone in California .
In 2013 , the National Renewable Energy Laboratory ( NREL ) concluded that the total potential for biogas in the US ( excluding energy crops ) is about 431 trillion BTUs .
In 2015 , California used about 1.6 quadrillion BTUs in its buildings .
So if the entire country ’ s biogas potential were devoted to California buildings and nothing else , it would replace about a quarter of the gas used .
Long story short : There literally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US to decarbonize California buildings .
A Washington State University study done for the Washington Department of Commerce found something similar for that state : “ adequate opportunities exist for RNG production equivalent to 3 percent to 5 percent of current natural gas consumption in Washington.
” A study by the Oregon Department of Energy found that if the state maximized its domestic resources , it could replace between 10 and 20 percent of its natural gas use with RNG .
Finally , a more optimistic study by the gas industry itself found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ synthetic natural gas ( SNG ) made from electrolyzed hydrogen and captured carbon , it could replace 6 to 13 percent of the US demand for pipeline gas by 2040 .
There is no credible study anywhere claiming that RNG can fully decarbonize the natural gas system , by California ’ s 2045 deadline or ever .
Gas utilities are proposing to increase RNG in their pipelines and to charge their customers for the extra expense through rate hikes .
SoCalGas has pledged 20 percent RNG by 2030 ( it proposes to raise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
“ As California charts its path toward carbon neutrality some have suggested that electrification is the silver bullet to get us there , ” SoCalGas ’ s Detz told Vox .
“ But the science is clear , electrification alone is not a pathway for getting to carbon neutral .
“ SoCalGas is committed to becoming the cleanest gas utility in North America , ” she added .
In the Pacific Northwest , NW Natural , a large gas utility in Oregon , has pledged 30 percent emissions reductions from 2015 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hike rates by $ 2.50 to $ 3 a month per customer ) .
While RNG is a promising development and may be useful in some sectors ( see below ) , there is no justification for blending it in pipelines as a way to decarbonize the building sector .
For buildings , electric alternatives are available and cheaper .
Before demonstrating that , it ’ s worth addressing a particular study that gas utilities and their allies like to cite .
It was done by research consultancy Navigant at the behest of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estimates of electrification costs and the lowest possible estimates of RNG costs , ignores pipeline leaks , ignores local health and equity impacts , and ignores the sustainability of RNG feedstocks .
But more importantly , it compares the total GHG reductions of RNG blended in the natural gas supply ( which would marginally reduce the emissions of all natural gas uses in all sectors ) with reductions through electrification in the building sector alone .
That ’ s not an apples-to-apples comparison .
The question is not the best way to get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 2030 , as the study does ; it ’ s the best way to get all the way to zero .
As we ’ ve seen , while natural gas supply might be partially decarbonized with RNG ( say , 15 percent , being maximally generous ) , there is not enough RNG to get it to net zero , which is the ultimate destination .
There ’ s no point going down a pathway that ends in a cul de sac in a few years ; there ’ s no time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worse for RNG .
A deep decarbonization study for California done by Energy & Environmental Economics ( E3 ) found that electrification was the most predictable and cost-effective way to decarbonize buildings , given limits on RNG supply .
In a 2017 report examining California ’ s program of supportive tariffs for bioenergy ( from landfills , ag operations , and forest wastes ) , the CPUC observed that the cost of the tariffs is “ disproportionately high compared with other renewable procurement options ” and that there is “ no indication of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ down in the future .
“ Digesters are steel and cement , and some plastic , ” says Boccadoro .
“ Those are not going to come down [ in price ] ; they ’ re going to continue to increase.
” What ’ s more , the easiest and most suitable sites for biomethane capture are developed first , which means projects become more difficult and expensive as time progresses — the opposite of economies of scale .
Another E3 study on the future of natural gas distribution in California found that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” the RNG needed to decarbonize the state ’ s natural gas system would be both wildly expensive and insufficient .
It would have to be supplemented by heroic amounts of hydrogen and synthetic natural gas from out of state .
If RNG ( or SNG ) comes from out of state , then it is out of state where the emission reduction occurs .
“ We keep claiming [ RNG ] is going to ‘ decarbonize ’ the gas system , ” Boccadoro says , “ but it doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being burned .
There ’ s some offset occurring somewhere else , and when that offset occurs outside of California , it doesn ’ t help reduce our emissions here in California.
” What ’ s more , shifting to RNG ( and SNG ) would radically drive up gas costs .
No policymaker or regulator in their right mind is going to ask a shrinking group of natural gas ratepayers to pay these exorbitant costs .
“ I represent some of the largest gas users in the state , ” Boccadoro says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to pay seven times what our competition is paying for natural gas.
” Notably , the study also found that in all scenarios , high and low electrification , total gas “ throughput ” declined .
There is no decarbonization scenario where natural gas use increases .
Another more recent E3 study looked at the economics of residential building electrification in California and found that it would represent a savings , not a cost , relative to the status quo .
For new construction , an all-electric home saves between $ 130 and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that burns gas .
Single-family homes that retrofit from natural gas to all-electric save between $ 10 and $ 60 a month on energy bills .
And those savings increase over time as electricity gets cheaper and cleaner and natural gas rates continue rising .
A Synapse Energy study found that even though electric heat pumps still cost more than natural gas furnaces , for new construction , opting for a heat pump saves $ 1,500 up front , thanks to the avoided costs of plumbing the property for gas .
The Rocky @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economics of all-electric , zero-net-energy homes , which are already far more favorable than widely understood .
In San Francisco , such homes pay their extra upfront costs back within eight years .
To summarize : decarbonizing buildings with electrification saves homeowners and developers money , with savings rising over time ; decarbonizing buildings with RNG costs ratepayers money , with costs rising over time .
And that ’ s just costs .
There are other impacts of RNG to consider .
Once it is captured from organic sources and injected into pipelines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas .
Methane is methane .
It has all the same effects when leaked or combusted .
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas — 28 to 36 times more potent than CO2 over 100 years — and represents 9 percent of California ’ s total GHG emissions .
It is also a local air pollutant .
Among other things , it pollutes indoor air when used for cooking .
A 2017 CARB study found that “ cooking emissions , especially from gas stoves , have been associated with increased respiratory disease.
” A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and here ) shows that cooking with gas elevates risk for those in the home , especially for vulnerable populations like children .
As many as 12 million Californians are exposed .
The natural gas industry has pushed for RNG to be used in heavy trucks in place of diesel , but a 2012 study found that , if the leakage rate in natural gas pipelines is any greater than 1.4 percent , the climate benefits of switching from diesel to RNG are negated .
A recent literature review found that the leakage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 4.3 percent .
Even if there were no leakage , the combustion of methane in a vehicle emits carbon dioxide , carbon monoxide , and nitrogen oxides .
RNG is also produced by sources that are themselves big polluters .
Despite what the rosy term “ renewable ” might suggest , the CEC found that the state ’ s two biggest sources of biogas are landfills and manure from factory farms .
It ’ s better to capture some of the gas from landfills and factory farms than to let it escape @ @ @ @ @ @ @ manure methane emissions in California have declined by 25 percent in the last four years . )
But it ’ s odd to think of those polluting sources as “ renewable.
” Many people hope they will decline over time , as Americans generate less food waste and eat a healthier diet with less red meat and dairy .
Small farms , with pasture-grazed cows , generate no appreciable methane .
It ’ s the big , industrial dairy farms that are responsible for 55 percent of the state ’ s methane emissions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Agriculture ( CDFA ) has handed out subsidies for biodigesters , the average herd size of a recipient is 7,430 head .
By way of comparison , average herd size in Wisconsin , the second-largest dairy state , is 134 head .
These are huge operations .
And they must be , to justify capturing methane ; a 2018 study found that 3,000 head is the minimum herd size needed to make anaerobic digestion economic .
Anaerobic digesters also leak methane , at a rate of between 2 and 3 percent , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way that is rarely captured in models .
For now at least , to the extent that decarbonization is linked to RNG , it is reliant on a steady supply of landfills and factory farms , which produce the very sort of pollution that electrification eliminates .
A study last year in Environmental Science & Technology summed up the difference for California : The sun and wind are healthier sources of energy than trash and shit .
The industrial dairy farms that produce RNG are mostly located in the San Joaquin Valley , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state , where African Americans , Latinos , and Native Americans make up the majority of the population .
It is home to the nation ’ s worst air pollution , the highest rate of asthma in children , and nitrate-laced drinking water .
Livestock operations are the top source of ozone-causing pollutants in the area , a major source of nitrate pollution , and a major source of ammonia emissions , which cause eutrophication of surface water and fine particulate pollution .
They also release persistent odors that cause headaches .
Residents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state government to stop subsidizing harmful agriculture and livestock management and start subsidizing regenerative and other climate-friendly agricultural practices .
But the state still devotes a far smaller amount to those practices than to dairy digesters — $ 21.6 million versus $ 72.4 million .
California ’ s pioneering law SB 1383 requires that the state reduce methane pollution from organic waste 40 percent by 2030 ; it does not require that it capture 40 percent of methane .
It can just as easily , often less expensively , reduce the waste streams @ @ @ @ @ @ @ RNG is made into a valuable commodity , it will bias the industry ( and the lawmakers it lobbies ) to seek expanded dairy operations .
Residents of the San Joaquin Valley reasonably worry that a major new source of revenue for industrial dairy farms will help support an otherwise economically marginal industry , perhaps even encourage its growth , and that their children will pay the hidden costs .
RNG is worth pursuing , but not as an alternative to electrification None of the above should be taken as arguing against RNG @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are built in .
As long as there are landfills , giant manure ponds , agriculture and forestry waste , and sewage treatment plants off-gassing methane into the atmosphere , it makes sense to capture as much of that methane as possible and use it .
It ’ s better than fracking it out of the ground .
And there are plenty of good ways to put RNG to use .
I ’ ve mostly focused on California in this post , but it ’ s worth pointing out that in other , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faces higher seasonal peaks , as everyone turns on heaters or air conditioners at once .
Adding both cars and all remaining buildings to already congested grids could threaten their reliability .
Many states , like the densely populated states of the Northeast US , will need much longer than California to prepare , to build their grids out and learn how to manage all that new electricity demand .
Until then , RNG could work in the background to lower the carbon intensity of natural gas .
And it may be that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that resist electrification and still need combustible liquid fuels even through 2050 — so-called “ harder-to-abate ” sectors like shipping , aviation , or heavy industry .
It ’ s better for those sectors to burn RNG ( and SNG ) than to burn fracked gas .
There are also lots of vehicles already in circulation that could benefit from RNG .
Recently , UPS bought a bunch of RNG to reduce the climate impact of its existing fleet of natural-gas trucks .
But even UPS is realistic : Liquid fuels will probably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applications for a long while , so it ’ s worth pursuing every promising carbon-neutral or carbon-negative fuel .
But there are two key points to emphasize here .
First , there is no scenario in which RNG is an alternative to electrification .
At best , it is a complement .
Electrification should move full speed ahead no matter what happens with RNG .
Second , California buildings are not one of those harder-to-abate sectors that need liquid fuels .
A study last year in the journal Atmosphere specifically compared various pathways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California buildings , including “ solar thermal , biogas , synthetic natural gas , and electrification.
” It found that electrification is the only alternative that can serve all heating loads in the state ( others cover between 2 and 70 percent ) .
What ’ s more , it is the least cost pathway , coming in at 25 to 90+ percent cheaper than the alternatives .
The study concludes : “ [ E ] nergy efficiency with electrification of heating is the most likely path to achieve the large carbon emission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not delay the inevitable decline of natural gas Make no mistake , the natural gas industry opposes electrification because it wants to expand pipeline infrastructure .
At an American Gas Association meeting in 2018 , one industry leader , discussing RNG , tasked the audience to “ consider how technologies to decarbonize the pipeline can serve as a conduit to environmental organizations , thereby seeking to mitigate the opposition ’ s fervor against infrastructure expansion.
” But the development of RNG , while worth pursuing , does not mean what SoCalGas and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mean .
It is no reason to expand gas infrastructure ; the fervor is as warranted as ever .
A recent report from E3G examined the role of natural gas in the EU ’ s decarbonized future .
It found that in all its scenarios , even the most generous to decarbonized gas , the total amount of natural gas “ throughput ” in the system declined .
It concluded that RNG should be pursued , but because it is so expensive , it should be targeted at harder-to-abate sectors where it has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ the future prospect of renewable and decarbonised gases is no reason to slow down electrification or efficiency at this stage.
” The same is true in the US , as virtually every study agrees .
Deep decarbonization means the decline of the natural gas industry , no matter what happens with RNG or SNG .
As the CEC has concluded , allowing the decline of natural gas to unfold organically threatens to be an unnecessarily long and messy process , leaving the growing costs of maintaining natural gas infrastructure piled on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ratepayers , largely those who can ’ t afford to escape the system .
The only responsible course of action at this point is the one the CPUC appears to be taking : planning for a deliberate phaseout of natural gas , with costs shared equitably .
RNG is an interesting development at the margins , for some energy applications .
But it is no bigger than a blip in the larger story of natural gas , which is one of inexorable and inevitable fading away to the margins .

This piece was originally published on February 14 and has been updated to include a comment from SoCalGas.
To stay in line with the targets laid out in the Paris climate agreement, the US needs to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, known as “deep decarbonization.” Virtually every credible study on deep decarbonization agrees on the basics of a strategy to get there.
The heart of the strategy is cleaning up the power grid, which is currently responsible for 28 percent of US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It must be rapidly transitioned to zero-carbon sources like renewables, hydro, and nuclear.
Concurrently, two of the biggest sources of GHGs, transportation and buildings, must switch over to run on that zero-carbon power. The transportation system (29 percent of US emissions) is almost entirely powered by gasoline and diesel; it must transition to electric vehicles to the extent possible. And buildings (also 29 percent of US emissions) are now frequently heated and cooled by oil or, more commonly, by natural gas; they must transition to electric heating and cooling to the extent possible.
This strategy — for which I use the shorthand “electrify everything!” — is beginning to catch on, especially in California, which is always something of a preview of broader trends to come. In a relatively short span of time, a robust “all-electric movement” has emerged, as dozens of towns and cities take steps to encourage all-electric construction in new buildings.
Natural gas utilities do not like this movement one bit. The more all-electric buildings there are, the fewer natural gas ratepayers there are. An all-electric future inevitably involves the obsolescence, or at least the substantial diminution, of natural gas utilities. Naturally, they are fighting back furiously, with astroturf groups, PR campaigns, and lobbying at the local level.
Their main argument — playing out with particular intensity in California — has to do with “renewable natural gas” (RNG), an industry term for methane captured from biogenic (organic) waste at landfills, livestock operations, farms, and sewage treatment facilities. (It is sometimes called “biogas” or “biomethane.”)
RNG can, depending on feedstock and circumstances, be low or even zero-carbon.
Utilities like SoCalGas argue that ramping up the production of RNG and blending it with normal natural gas in pipelines can reduce GHGs faster and cheaper than electrifying buildings. According to Southern California Gas Company spokeswoman Christine Detz, “A growing number of experts and industrialized nations recognize the need to include renewable gases as part of a sustainable energy mix.”
By pursuing electrification, they say, regulators are pushing unnecessary cost hikes onto consumers.
It would be nice for the utilities if this were true. But it’s not. RNG is not as low-carbon as the industry claims and its local air and water impacts are concentrated in vulnerable communities. Even if it were low-carbon and equitable, there simply isn’t enough of it to substitute for more than a small fraction of natural gas. And even if it were low-carbon, equitable, and abundant, it still wouldn’t be an excuse to expand natural gas infrastructure or slow electrification.
It isn’t a close call. The research is clear: Especially in a temperate climate like California, RNG is not a viable alternative for decarbonizing buildings. It is a desperate bid by natural gas utilities to delay their inevitable decline. Policymakers would be foolish to fall for it.
That’s the short version. Now let’s look at how the battle is playing out, with an emphasis on California, which is one of the country’s top natural gas-consuming states — and a state with a goal of going net-carbon-zero by 2050.
Electrification is gaining serious momentum in California
The expert chorus supporting electrification has been getting louder.
Energy efficiency and electrification are recommended for the building sector in the United States Mid-Century Strategy for Deep Decarbonization, developed under the Obama administration. They are recommended throughout the work of the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) on various countries, including the US. (DDPP also did a pathways analysis for my home state of Washington, at Gov. Jay Inslee’s behest; it contains the same recommendations.)
The California Energy Commission (CEC) has done a report on deep decarbonization and a (recently updated) extensive report on the future of the state’s natural gas network. In both reports, it finds that electrification is the cheapest option for decarbonizing buildings.
In response to this chorus, 26 California cities have now either passed an ordinance phasing out natural gas in new building construction or updated building codes to encourage all-electric construction. Dozens more cities are expected to follow suit this year. Across the state, builders and real estate developers are being pressured by their investors about “carbon risk,” the possibility of building fossil fuel-reliant assets that will be unable to find buyers.
Perhaps most significantly, in January, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) announced a new proceeding to begin the process of weaning the state off of natural gas, including consideration of a just transition to avoid safety issues and stranded costs.
Natural gas utilities are freaking out and getting shady
All this momentum has thoroughly freaked out the Southern California Gas Company, the nation’s largest gas utility, serving 5.7 million customers in Southern and Central California. SoCalGas makes more yearly revenue than any other utility in the nation, and of its $2.9 billion in revenue in 2018, $2.25 billion, almost 80 percent, came from residential customers. All-electric residential construction would crush it.
Monopoly natural gas utilities run the same way monopoly electricity utilities do. They don’t make money on the sale of gas. Rather, they charge a rate for gas that is meant to cover their costs, the costs of new investments in natural gas infrastructure, and a healthy fixed rate of return on those investments. In other words, they make profits by building stuff. Naturally, they want to build more stuff.
But what they are facing is a steady loss of demand, as more and more customers opt out of the natural gas system in favor of the grid. That will leave fewer and fewer customers paying higher and higher rates just to maintain the existing pipeline infrastructure, with little room left for new investments.
This is a disaster in the offing for SoCalGas and its owner, Sempra Energy. A few years ago, a new nonprofit was born: Californians for Balanced Energy Solutions (C4Bes). It began running ads opposing a natural gas phaseout and lobbying local lawmakers across the state, using apocalyptic messaging about the cost to consumers, recruiting local signatories for petitions against electrification. In March 2017, it had the unbridled chutzpah to ask the CPUC to make it an official party in the proceeding regarding the future of natural gas in the state.
That prompted the Sierra Club to point out, in a filing to the CPUC (replete with backing documents and leaked emails), that C4Bes is an astroturf group, a lobbying effort masquerading as a nonprofit. It’s a creation of SoCalGas, using talking points written by SoCalGas to organize opposition to municipal efforts that would negatively impact SoCalGas. It should not be posing as an independent party in a regulatory proceeding.
Finally, after months of parrying and delaying regulators, rather than face discovery, which would open up its books, C4Bes elected in January 2019 to withdraw from the proceeding. In May 2019, the Public Advocates Office, a consumer watchdog within the CPUC, determined that SoCalGas had been using sleazy tactics, including, reports KQED, “lying to regulators, undermining efficiency codes and standards, and ‘astroturfing’: funding a seemingly independent advocacy group with ratepayer money.” It recommended that CPUC sanction the utility.
Michael Boccadoro, head of Dairy Cares, an advocacy group for animal agriculture in California, was originally on the board of C4Bes until he saw their tactics up close — telling homeowners that government agents would be ripping out their gas stoves soon, crematoria that would no longer be able to cremate bodies, and Asian restaurants that have to give up their woks. “It’s pretty misleading what they’re trying to do,” he says, “and the story they’re out there telling. It seems like a desperate action.” He resigned from the board last year.
(For more on this, see scathing stories from Susie Cagle at the Guardian and Michael Hiltzik at the LA Times, along with an LA Times editorial.)
C4Bes withdrew from the proceeding, but it is still active, still out telling municipal officials horror stories about electrification. And it is not alone. In the Pacific Northwest, a coalition of gas utilities has launched a $1 million PR effort to push back against electrification in the region. “Partners for Energy Progress” will use much of the same messaging that C4Bes is using.
That means two things: raising fears about the costs of a transition (despite a broad consensus that electrification will save consumers money, as we will see later) and stressing consumer “choice.” They know from their research that they can’t get away with simply opposing decarbonization. They need an “all of the above” message, one that offers consumers a choice of different decarbonization pathways.
That’s the role RNG is playing in this debate: The natural gas industry is proposing it as a choice, an alternate route to decarbonization.
Is it?
There isn’t enough RNG to go around
The main question facing RNG is simple: Is there enough of it to decarbonize existing uses of natural gas, like buildings? Several states have looked into this closely. The answer, in a word, is no.
In its deep decarbonization pathways study, the CEC concluded that, if California had access to its population-weighted share of total US bioenergy output, “there appears to be insufficient biomethane to displace the necessary amount of building and industry fossil natural gas consumption to meet the state’s long-term climate goals.”
UC Davis also did a study on the potential of RNG in California. It found that, all told, about 82 billion cubic feet a year (bcf/y) of biomethane sources are “attractive for investment,” taking into account state and federal incentives. By way of comparison, in 2017, California consumed about 2,110 bcf/y of natural gas. So under the most optimistic assumptions, RNG could replace 4.1 percent of California’s gas demand (1.6 percent on the low end of estimates).
What about RNG for transportation, another idea that the natural gas industry has long supported? A 2017 report from the Union of Concerned Scientists showed that it would require almost the entire country’s RNG potential to replace diesel fuel alone in California.
In 2013, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) concluded that the total potential for biogas in the US (excluding energy crops) is about 431 trillion BTUs. In 2015, California used about 1.6 quadrillion BTUs in its buildings. So if the entire country’s biogas potential were devoted to California buildings and nothing else, it would replace about a quarter of the gas used.
Long story short: There literally isn’t enough RNG in the US to decarbonize California buildings.
A Washington State University study done for the Washington Department of Commerce found something similar for that state: “adequate opportunities exist for RNG production equivalent to 3 percent to 5 percent of current natural gas consumption in Washington.”
A study by the Oregon Department of Energy found that if the state maximized its domestic resources, it could replace between 10 and 20 percent of its natural gas use with RNG.
Finally, a more optimistic study by the gas industry itself found that, if RNG is combined with synthetic natural gas (SNG) made from electrolyzed hydrogen and captured carbon, it could replace 6 to 13 percent of the US demand for pipeline gas by 2040.
There is no credible study anywhere claiming that RNG can fully decarbonize the natural gas system, by California’s 2045 deadline or ever.
RNG is extremely costly compared to alternatives
Gas utilities are proposing to increase RNG in their pipelines and to charge their customers for the extra expense through rate hikes. SoCalGas has pledged 20 percent RNG by 2030 (it proposes to raise rates 30 percent between 2018 and 2022).
“As California charts its path toward carbon neutrality some have suggested that electrification is the silver bullet to get us there,” SoCalGas’s Detz told Vox. “But the science is clear, electrification alone is not a pathway for getting to carbon neutral.
“SoCalGas is committed to becoming the cleanest gas utility in North America,” she added.
In the Pacific Northwest, NW Natural, a large gas utility in Oregon, has pledged 30 percent emissions reductions from 2015 levels by 2035 (it proposes to hike rates by $2.50 to $3 a month per customer).
While RNG is a promising development and may be useful in some sectors (see below), there is no justification for blending it in pipelines as a way to decarbonize the building sector. For buildings, electric alternatives are available and cheaper.
Before demonstrating that, it’s worth addressing a particular study that gas utilities and their allies like to cite. It was done by research consultancy Navigant at the behest of SoCalGas. It selects the highest possible estimates of electrification costs and the lowest possible estimates of RNG costs, ignores pipeline leaks, ignores local health and equity impacts, and ignores the sustainability of RNG feedstocks.
But more importantly, it compares the total GHG reductions of RNG blended in the natural gas supply (which would marginally reduce the emissions of all natural gas uses in all sectors) with reductions through electrification in the building sector alone. That’s not an apples-to-apples comparison. The question is not the best way to get a third of the way to zero by 2030, as the study does; it’s the best way to get all the way to zero.
As we’ve seen, while natural gas supply might be partially decarbonized with RNG (say, 15 percent, being maximally generous), there is not enough RNG to get it to net zero, which is the ultimate destination. There’s no point going down a pathway that ends in a cul de sac in a few years; there’s no time.
Other, less biased studies look worse for RNG.
A deep decarbonization study for California done by Energy & Environmental Economics (E3) found that electrification was the most predictable and cost-effective way to decarbonize buildings, given limits on RNG supply.
In a 2017 report examining California’s program of supportive tariffs for bioenergy (from landfills, ag operations, and forest wastes), the CPUC observed that the cost of the tariffs is “disproportionately high compared with other renewable procurement options” and that there is “no indication of market transformation” that might bring costs down in the future.
“Digesters are steel and cement, and some plastic,” says Boccadoro. “Those are not going to come down [in price]; they’re going to continue to increase.” What’s more, the easiest and most suitable sites for biomethane capture are developed first, which means projects become more difficult and expensive as time progresses — the opposite of economies of scale.
Another E3 study on the future of natural gas distribution in California found that, even with “aggressive technology learning,” the RNG needed to decarbonize the state’s natural gas system would be both wildly expensive and insufficient. It would have to be supplemented by heroic amounts of hydrogen and synthetic natural gas from out of state.
If RNG (or SNG) comes from out of state, then it is out of state where the emission reduction occurs. “We keep claiming [RNG] is going to ‘decarbonize’ the gas system,” Boccadoro says, “but it doesn’t really decarbonize the gas that’s being burned. There’s some offset occurring somewhere else, and when that offset occurs outside of California, it doesn’t help reduce our emissions here in California.”
What’s more, shifting to RNG (and SNG) would radically drive up gas costs. No policymaker or regulator in their right mind is going to ask a shrinking group of natural gas ratepayers to pay these exorbitant costs. “I represent some of the largest gas users in the state,” Boccadoro says. “We can’t afford to pay seven times what our competition is paying for natural gas.”
Notably, the study also found that in all scenarios, high and low electrification, total gas “throughput” declined. There is no decarbonization scenario where natural gas use increases.
Another more recent E3 study looked at the economics of residential building electrification in California and found that it would represent a savings, not a cost, relative to the status quo. For new construction, an all-electric home saves between $130 and $540 a year relative to one that burns gas. Single-family homes that retrofit from natural gas to all-electric save between $10 and $60 a month on energy bills. And those savings increase over time as electricity gets cheaper and cleaner and natural gas rates continue rising.
A Synapse Energy study found that even though electric heat pumps still cost more than natural gas furnaces, for new construction, opting for a heat pump saves $1,500 up front, thanks to the avoided costs of plumbing the property for gas.
The Rocky Mountain Institute did a report on the economics of all-electric, zero-net-energy homes, which are already far more favorable than widely understood. In San Francisco, such homes pay their extra upfront costs back within eight years.
To summarize: decarbonizing buildings with electrification saves homeowners and developers money, with savings rising over time; decarbonizing buildings with RNG costs ratepayers money, with costs rising over time.
And that’s just costs. There are other impacts of RNG to consider.
RNG exacerbates air pollution problems
Once it is captured from organic sources and injected into pipelines, RNG is chemically identical to natural gas. Methane is methane. It has all the same effects when leaked or combusted.
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas — 28 to 36 times more potent than CO2 over 100 years — and represents 9 percent of California’s total GHG emissions. It is also a local air pollutant.
Among other things, it pollutes indoor air when used for cooking. A 2017 CARB study found that “cooking emissions, especially from gas stoves, have been associated with increased respiratory disease.” A raft of peer-reviewed research (see here and here) shows that cooking with gas elevates risk for those in the home, especially for vulnerable populations like children. As many as 12 million Californians are exposed.
Respiratory symptoms were more common in children exposed to a gas stove. "Respiratory Symptoms in Children and Indoor Exposure to Nitrogen Dioxide and Gas Stoves" | American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine https://t.co/ny5QzQtNeX — Shelly L Miller (@ShellyMBoulder) August 8, 2018
The natural gas industry has pushed for RNG to be used in heavy trucks in place of diesel, but a 2012 study found that, if the leakage rate in natural gas pipelines is any greater than 1.4 percent, the climate benefits of switching from diesel to RNG are negated. A recent literature review found that the leakage rate in California is somewhere between 2.4 and 4.3 percent.
Even if there were no leakage, the combustion of methane in a vehicle emits carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides.
RNG is also produced by sources that are themselves big polluters. Despite what the rosy term “renewable” might suggest, the CEC found that the state’s two biggest sources of biogas are landfills and manure from factory farms.
It’s better to capture some of the gas from landfills and factory farms than to let it escape into the atmosphere. (Boccadoro says manure methane emissions in California have declined by 25 percent in the last four years.) But it’s odd to think of those polluting sources as “renewable.” Many people hope they will decline over time, as Americans generate less food waste and eat a healthier diet with less red meat and dairy.
Small farms, with pasture-grazed cows, generate no appreciable methane. It’s the big, industrial dairy farms that are responsible for 55 percent of the state’s methane emissions. As the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) has handed out subsidies for biodigesters, the average herd size of a recipient is 7,430 head. By way of comparison, average herd size in Wisconsin, the second-largest dairy state, is 134 head. These are huge operations. And they must be, to justify capturing methane; a 2018 study found that 3,000 head is the minimum herd size needed to make anaerobic digestion economic.
Anaerobic digesters also leak methane, at a rate of between 2 and 3 percent, adding to their lifecycle GHGs in a way that is rarely captured in models.
For now at least, to the extent that decarbonization is linked to RNG, it is reliant on a steady supply of landfills and factory farms, which produce the very sort of pollution that electrification eliminates. A study last year in Environmental Science & Technology summed up the difference for California:
Compared with business-as-usual levels, a decarbonization pathway that focuses on electrification and clean renewable energy is estimated to reduce concentrations of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) by 18–37% in major metropolitan areas of California and subsequently avoid about 12,100 (9,600–14,600) premature deaths. In contrast, only a quarter of such health cobenefits, i.e., 2,800 (2,300–3,400) avoided deaths, can be achieved through a pathway focusing more on combustible renewable fuels.
The sun and wind are healthier sources of energy than trash and shit.
RNG impacts are concentrated in vulnerable communities
The industrial dairy farms that produce RNG are mostly located in the San Joaquin Valley, one of the poorest areas of the state, where African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans make up the majority of the population. It is home to the nation’s worst air pollution, the highest rate of asthma in children, and nitrate-laced drinking water.
Livestock operations are the top source of ozone-causing pollutants in the area, a major source of nitrate pollution, and a major source of ammonia emissions, which cause eutrophication of surface water and fine particulate pollution. They also release persistent odors that cause headaches.
Residents of the area have been pushing the state government to stop subsidizing harmful agriculture and livestock management and start subsidizing regenerative and other climate-friendly agricultural practices. But the state still devotes a far smaller amount to those practices than to dairy digesters — $21.6 million versus $72.4 million.
California’s pioneering law SB 1383 requires that the state reduce methane pollution from organic waste 40 percent by 2030; it does not require that it capture 40 percent of methane. It can just as easily, often less expensively, reduce the waste streams that produce the methane. But if RNG is made into a valuable commodity, it will bias the industry (and the lawmakers it lobbies) to seek expanded dairy operations.
Residents of the San Joaquin Valley reasonably worry that a major new source of revenue for industrial dairy farms will help support an otherwise economically marginal industry, perhaps even encourage its growth, and that their children will pay the hidden costs.
RNG is worth pursuing, but not as an alternative to electrification
None of the above should be taken as arguing against RNG, provided that protections for vulnerable communities are built in. As long as there are landfills, giant manure ponds, agriculture and forestry waste, and sewage treatment plants off-gassing methane into the atmosphere, it makes sense to capture as much of that methane as possible and use it. It’s better than fracking it out of the ground.
And there are plenty of good ways to put RNG to use.
I’ve mostly focused on California in this post, but it’s worth pointing out that in other, less temperate states, the electricity system faces higher seasonal peaks, as everyone turns on heaters or air conditioners at once. Adding both cars and all remaining buildings to already congested grids could threaten their reliability. Many states, like the densely populated states of the Northeast US, will need much longer than California to prepare, to build their grids out and learn how to manage all that new electricity demand. Until then, RNG could work in the background to lower the carbon intensity of natural gas.
And it may be that there are some sectors of the economy that resist electrification and still need combustible liquid fuels even through 2050 — so-called “harder-to-abate” sectors like shipping, aviation, or heavy industry. It’s better for those sectors to burn RNG (and SNG) than to burn fracked gas.
There are also lots of vehicles already in circulation that could benefit from RNG. Recently, UPS bought a bunch of RNG to reduce the climate impact of its existing fleet of natural-gas trucks. But even UPS is realistic:
TIL: UPS has 6800 natural gas-powered vehicles, and SVP Jim Bruce says soon they'll all be renewable nat gas.
"But there’s only so much renewable natural gas out there," he says. "We know how to deploy at scale, when the [electric] trucks are ready.” — Gavin Bade (@GavinBade) September 24, 2019
Liquid fuels will probably be needed for various subsectors and niche applications for a long while, so it’s worth pursuing every promising carbon-neutral or carbon-negative fuel.
But there are two key points to emphasize here. First, there is no scenario in which RNG is an alternative to electrification. At best, it is a complement. Electrification should move full speed ahead no matter what happens with RNG.
Second, California buildings are not one of those harder-to-abate sectors that need liquid fuels. A study last year in the journal Atmosphere specifically compared various pathways to decarbonizing space and water heating in California buildings, including “solar thermal, biogas, synthetic natural gas, and electrification.” It found that electrification is the only alternative that can serve all heating loads in the state (others cover between 2 and 70 percent). What’s more, it is the least cost pathway, coming in at 25 to 90+ percent cheaper than the alternatives.
The study concludes: “[E]nergy efficiency with electrification of heating is the most likely path to achieve the large carbon emission reduction needed from this sector.”
RNG cannot delay the inevitable decline of natural gas
Make no mistake, the natural gas industry opposes electrification because it wants to expand pipeline infrastructure. At an American Gas Association meeting in 2018, one industry leader, discussing RNG, tasked the audience to “consider how technologies to decarbonize the pipeline can serve as a conduit to environmental organizations, thereby seeking to mitigate the opposition’s fervor against infrastructure expansion.”
But the development of RNG, while worth pursuing, does not mean what SoCalGas and other natural gas utilities want it to mean. It is no reason to expand gas infrastructure; the fervor is as warranted as ever.
A recent report from E3G examined the role of natural gas in the EU’s decarbonized future. It found that in all its scenarios, even the most generous to decarbonized gas, the total amount of natural gas “throughput” in the system declined. It concluded that RNG should be pursued, but because it is so expensive, it should be targeted at harder-to-abate sectors where it has the highest social value. Above all, “the future prospect of renewable and decarbonised gases is no reason to slow down electrification or efficiency at this stage.”
The same is true in the US, as virtually every study agrees. Deep decarbonization means the decline of the natural gas industry, no matter what happens with RNG or SNG.
As the CEC has concluded, allowing the decline of natural gas to unfold organically threatens to be an unnecessarily long and messy process, leaving the growing costs of maintaining natural gas infrastructure piled on the shoulders of a shrinking group of ratepayers, largely those who can’t afford to escape the system. The only responsible course of action at this point is the one the CPUC appears to be taking: planning for a deliberate phaseout of natural gas, with costs shared equitably.
RNG is an interesting development at the margins, for some energy applications. But it is no bigger than a blip in the larger story of natural gas, which is one of inexorable and inevitable fading away to the margins.