Extreme weather events have beenburning,flooding, andfreezingthe country for years. And now, as the U.S. cranks its air conditioners to get throughhistoric high temperatures, the need for energy that slows, not hastens, climate change is more apparent than ever.
Yet, in 2022, almost40% of electricityin the US was generated by power plants fueled by natural gas. (Note: “Natural gas” is an industry misnomer; UCS considers methane, fossil gas, and gas to be much more appropriate terms. I’ll be using the term “gas” from here on out.) These gas plants produce significant heat trapping emissions despite aplethora of datathat we need toreduceour heat trapping emissions while also meeting increased power demands. In a maddening loop, those emissions are contributing to more extreme weather events, which are straining ourpower grid．
We need more electricity to transition our homes and cars off fossil fuels, but we can’t afford to let that electricity come from more gas power plants.
Gas plants are still too numerous
Let’s look at some numbers to get an idea of the state of gas in the US.
As of 2022, there were approximately2,000 gas power plantswith a combined capacity of500 gigawattson the grid. Gas power plants account for about43% of utility-scaleelectricity capacity, slightly higher than the 40% of electricity generated from gas in 2022. Over the year, those plants emitted661 million metric tonsof carbon dioxide, more than 13% of the US’s energy-related carbon dioxide emissions.
Between 2000 and 2022, gas capacity has grown more than four-fold with a big uptick coming online in the early 2000s. This was due in part to advancements in hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) that allowed for easier gas extraction from shale gas deposits; it resulted indevastating impacts for communitiesnear these sites. The rapid growth of gas plants was also driven by gas-friendly policies and generous financial investments in the industry, despitehigh costs to consumers．
More recently, the annual capacity from gas plants coming online has plateaued while retirements are slowly increasing. Aging plants and state clean energy goals are certainly helping that trend. But we’ve also reached the point where the economics of renewables are just much better. On a levelized cost basis (a fancy term for the average cost of electricity over the generator’s lifetime), utility-scale renewablesare cheaperand those costs keep going down.
Source:Energy Information Agency
Despite the economics increasingly favoring renewables, an additional21.8 gigawattsof capacity from gas plants are planned to go online from 2023 to 2026. Many of these gas plants are concentrated around the Midwest and Texas, which have pipeline access to notable shale deposits.
Regions remain uneven in their transition away from gas
While markets andclimate sciencesuggest we should be moving away from gas, the transition isn’t happening uniformly across the country. States remainwidely variedon their reliance on gas for electricity. This is a combination of state policies, existing gas infrastructure, geography, weather, and demographics.
Unsurprisingly, states and regions located near shale gas deposits and pipeline infrastructure remain reliant on gas—this is the case for Texas and the Appalachia region. Also unsurprisingly, states with large populations are using the most gas to keep their grid running.
Source:Energy Information Agency
It might be surprising to see a state like California pumping out so much gas-generated electricity since it’s generally considered aleaderin the clean energy transition. But with a population of 40 million andincreasingly hot summersthat are maxing out the grid, state officials continue toprop up gas plantsas a misguided solution to keep the lights on.
But increasingly we’re seeing gas plants fall short on their promise to keep those lights on. Many regions (e.g.California,mid-Atlantic,Texas) have already experienced extreme weather events where gas plants have failed to perform. With more extreme weather events being driven by continued fossil fuel use likely in the future, gas isn’t the key to grid reliability and states should more proactively plan for alternatives.
Gas disproportionately harms vulnerable communities
At a more localized level, the distribution of our gas infrastructure reveals a glaring equity issue. That’s because adisproportionate number的植物和extraction sites are concentrated in communities of color and low-income communities, highlighting alegacyof racism and socioeconomic discrimination in our electricity system.
Why is this inequitable and disproportionate siting a problem? Because unlike moving sources of air pollution like cars, gas plants are completely stationary. It’s an obvious, but important characteristic because it means the impacts of gas plants accumulate to the local community.
Gas plants release heat trapping emissions that go into the atmosphere and contribute to the climate crisis, andthis affects us all．但天然气发电厂也释放nitroge排放n oxides, more commonly referred to as NOx emissions, that contribute to smog and other pollutants.NOx emissionsstick around locally, with major health consequences to nearby residents. The cumulativeimpacts of NOx emissionson local communities can be devastating, including respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, and premature death.
We know that gas plants have beensited inequitably, and the associated harms have hadcumulative impactson neighboring communities. As we look to phase out gas, we should prioritize plant retirements in communities of color and low-income communities.
We’re not turning down the gas yet
The climate crisis is getting worse, and it’s being partially powered by the country’s overreliance on gas. Unfortunately, we’re not easing off the (methane) gas pedal fast enough, despite modeling byUCSandothersshowing that we needlittle to no new gas plantsfor grid reliability.
如果我们要让新工厂上线,we need to address the two major problems that will come with them: pollution and grid (un)reliability.
The Environmental Protection Agency is currentlyupdating multiple pollution standardsfor new and existing fossil fuel-fired power plants. Some of these standards–including limits to carbon pollution and smog-forming pollution–could help mitigate the immense harm that gas plants impose on the environment and surrounding communities. Strong standards that reflect these high costs will also emphasize how much more economical clean alternatives are for the grid, setting up a faster transition away from gas.
As for reliability, we’re increasingly seeing that gas isnot as reliableas advertised. Grid planners are calling on gas resources when times get tough, and those gas plants aren’t alwaysshowing up．Those planners need toupdatehow gas contributes to grid reliability because the current accounting methods aren’t adding up.
But ultimately, it’s time to acknowledge that continued long-term investment in gas power plants isn’t the path forward. Renewables, storage, transmission, energy efficiency, and demand response are all fantastic options to piece together a clean, affordable, reliable, and equitable grid.
We need a just transition
It won’t be an easy transition to turn down the gas. A history of gas-friendly policies and regulations has pushed the United States to overinvest in gas infrastructure and systems. Industry powers with financial and political clout aren’t willing to give up their profits for a cleaner and healthier planet despite havingknown for decadesthe harm that fossil fuels inflict. I hope these companies will beheld accountable．
But as we transition away from gas, we also need to be accountable to the communities of color and low-income communities that have been and continue to be disproportionately harmed by fossil fuel interests, as well as thepeople and communitieswho rely on the gas industry fortheir livelihoods．
Our overreliance on gas has contributed to grid reliability crises while disproportionately harming vulnerable communities. By focusing on a just transition to clean electricity, we can accelerate our phase out of gas and build a better, more equitable grid for all.