Build the Bridge between Natural Gas and Renewables

Jared L. Cohon, president of Carnegie Mellon University, wrote a thoughtful op-ed on his big-picture perspective of shale gas development in Pennsylvania. Among other things, Cohon explains why he joined the Board of Directors of the Center for Sustainable Shale Gas Development.

Towards the end of his piece, Dr. Cohon addresses the argument that we should not be fracking for natural gas because it will delay the development of renewable energy. His response is straightforward - the country will be dependent on fossil fuels for a long time, so we should minimize the environmental and social impacts of burning dirtier fuel in the interim while we "aggressively develop" non-carbon alternatives.

Ahhhh! And therein lies the rub - those that doubt that shale gas will be a bridge to a clean energy future fear that this cheap and plentiful fuel will take the pressure off of a nation only capable of making significant policy shifts in the face of imminent crisis. Eliminate the crisis and you eliminate the impetus for investment in renewables.

Dr. Cohon describes this argument as "strange" - but it is not clear what he considers odd - the basic concern about cheap gas delaying the development of renewables, or the conclusion that because of this concern we should ban fracking.

As to the first, the underlying concern is legitimate. To achieve the goal of "aggressively promoting" renewables, the nation will need a significant shift in energy policy - and that will not be easy. Moving from coal, oil and gas to renewables will affect many vested and well-funded interests. The champions of solar, wind and geothermal cannot compete with multi-nationals that have poured millions into campaign coffers over the years, and now can do so anonymously.  Additionally, this Congress has demonstrated a unique ability to disagree on just about anything - not to mention a bold policy shift that would financially disadvantage deep-rooted and well-funded interests on Capitol Hill.

The "ban fracking" portion of the argument could be viewed as cutting off our nose to spite our face - depending on methane leakage rates - but it could also be mooted by policies that directly link carbon fuels to renewables. This could be done on a national scale through a carbon tax, or through individual state policies that would generate "health revenue" from the development of coal, oil and gas in order to promote energy sources that do not inflict increased heart and asthma attacks on Pennsylvanians, and put mercury in our food chain.

Pennsylvania's energy policy fosters cynicism amongst the "ban fracking" advocates because it does not do what Dr. Cohon promotes - it does not build a bridge between natural gas and the aggressive promotion of renewable energy. Pennsylvania's Act 13 directs state revenue from natural gas development to road repair and other "local impacts." It does not promote strategic statewide policies such as renewable energy and early childhood education. That is but one of the failures of a state policy that does not impose a reasonable tax on the development of Pennsylvania's shale gas.

A primer on the Center for Sustainable Shale Development (CSSD)

PennFuture and four other environmental groups - the  Group against Smog and Pollution, Pennsylvania Environmental Council, Clean Air Task Force and Environmental Defense Fund - have endorsed a set of fifteen environmental protection standards developed with several large shale gas producers in the Marcellus region: Chevron, Shell, EQT and CONSOL. At the core of the nascent Center for Sustainable Shale Development (CSSD), these standards were the result of two years of collaboration that included research assistance from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and ICF International, both world experts on oil and gas environmental risk management. The initial effort was funded by two foundations, the Heinz Endowments and William Penn Foundation, as well as participating gas companies.

The initial fifteen standards - eight concerning water and seven air  - are intended to be more stringent than current federal and state standards in the Appalachian Basin. Examples include:

• zero discharge of wastewater to surface and ground waters until a safe treatment standard has been developed;
• a 90 percent wastewater recycling requirement within two years;
• eliminating the use of open pits at well pads within two years;
• operators must characterize area geology, perform a risk assessment to protect against fluid migration, and ensure surface and ground water quality is not impacted;
• use well casings and cement to prevent migration of fluids and contamination of ground water;
• use of green completions to substantially eliminate flaring of well head gas by January 2014; and
• compliance with tight air emission standards for all diesel engines used in drilling and any trucks servicing a well pad.

CSSD's members have committed to regularly review existing standards, and will develop additional standards to protect air, land and water.

PennFuture joined in developing and endorsing these standards because it is our mission to protect the environment, and we believe these standards will advance that mission. It is important that four of the major gas producers in Pennsylvania have agreed to meet these standards because it shows that tougher environmental standards for gas drilling in Pennsylvania are economically feasible.

These standards are not a substitute for improved federal and state laws, or for rigorous enforcement of existing laws. That is why PennFuture will continue to advocate for tough, common sense standards to protect our land, air and water - including no drilling in Pennsylvania's State Parks - and take action to enforce existing laws when the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) does not.

PennFuture understands that some environmental organizations categorically oppose the extraction of unconventional gas, in part on the theory that more gas leads to greater air pollution and climate change. Certainly, natural gas should not be the only way we produce power in the United States. However, while the data is still unclear on the benefits of natural gas over coal as far as climate change is concerned, there can be no doubt that gas offers a better alternative when it comes to acid mine drainage, mercury and sulfur emissions.

Coal, oil and gas still comprise about 82 percent of U.S. energy demand. PennFuture works hard to reduce that percentage by advocating for energy conservation and use of renewables. But so long as the nation relies on fossil fuels for electric power, it is our obligation to protect the environment while those non-renewable resources are being extracted.

These new standards could play an important role in minimizing the harm caused by continued reliance on fossil fuels.  That is why PennFuture participated in the process.