Natural Gas: Bridge or Anchor?

June 16, 2020

June 16, 2020


This week's NERC guest blog is courtesy of As You Sow, a leading shareowner advocacy organization and a proponent of sustainable investing. The original post can be found here.

By Lila Holzman and Daniel Stewart


“We have been talking about, for the last few years, gas as the bridge… There is an inevitability about bridges, which is that sooner or later you get to the end of the bridge."⁠ — Adnan Amin, International Renewable Energy Agency.


The window of opportunity to prevent catastrophic climate change is narrowing. The world is already experiencing harmful impacts surpassing earlier projections, and such harms will only increase as “business as usual” emissions continue. The scale of decarbonization must ramp up quickly to prevent the climate crisis from destroying value across the global economy and putting investor portfolios, and life as we know it, at extreme risk. 


Recognizing the critical role the energy sector plays in mitigating climate risks, investors have productively engaged with utilities for years, moving them to better address the risks associated with their operations. First, shareholders filed resolutions raising concerns about the risk of stranded coal plant assets. Such concerns proved more than justified. We are now witnessing a wave of early coal plant retirements — a trend with no sign of slowing or reversing


Shareholders next sought broad analysis of low-carbon scenarios and began to push utilities to set ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets. Xcel Energy, a company As You Sow has engaged for years, became the first U.S. utility to set a net-zero by 2050 emissions target in the fall of 2018. Since then, several utilities have joined the “net-zero” bandwagon, showing remarkable progress. Utilities that previously said they would never consider absolute or net-zero targets, have come around — driven by investor pressure, market forces, and technological advancement, among other factors.


Yet, despite strong targets, when assessing whether utility plans seem fit for the task of actually achieving such targets, investors are uncovering an alarming disconnect: most utilities are continuing to invest heavily in natural gas. Undeniably, natural gas has played an important role in moving energy systems off coal-fired generation. However, natural gas is a fossil fuel that generates considerable climate impacts in its own right, through methane leakage across the supply chain and through direct combustion emissions. 

According to Rocky Mountain Institute, billions of dollars of investment in natural gas infrastructure is ramping up across the U.S. This investment drive, which includes power plants and pipelines with multi-decadal lifespans, is prompting strong concern. How can utilities reach net zero goals and avoid stranded assets, while building out long-lived, fossil fuel-based natural gas infrastructure? 


As You Sow and Energy Innovation released a report in March to inform investors about the evolving risks associated with natural gas within the power sector: Natural Gas: A Bridge to Climate Breakdown. The report sheds light on how the proliferation of natural gas infrastructure threatens shareholder value — from investor portfolio risk, to company-level physical risk, regulatory and technological transition risk (including stranded assets), and reputational risk. To achieve climate stabilization, and protect investor portfolios from global climate risk, the bridge of natural gas and its associated emissions must have a clear end. 


Powerful forces are mounting in favor of clean alternatives over continued natural gas build. Increased levels of awareness, activism, and grassroots mobilization are bringing climate change to the forefront of public attention and increasing pressure on policymakers and companies to address greenhouse gas emissions. In terms of economics, clean energy alternatives are increasingly cost-competitive with gas. In almost all jurisdictions, utility scale wind and solar, without subsidies, now offer the cheapest source of new electricity. Local and state legislative commitments to ambitious clean energy goals are also on the rise, as is legislation specifically focused on curbing the use of natural gas. The electrification of buildings and vehicles further present opportunities to grow new electricity demand that can be met by clean resources. 


In the face of these drivers and concerns, investors have a unique role to play in the clean energy transition. Investors are well positioned to encourage power utilities to reduce the investment risks associated with an overreliance on natural gas and have begun engaging on these issues with some of the largest natural gas-reliant utilities in the U.S. 


Shareholders must continue to work with such utilities to push for greater transparency and ambition on ending the trend of continued natural gas reliance and to avoid a repeat of the early retirements being experienced by coal plants.


Disclaimer: Guest blogs represent the opinion of the writers and may not reflect the policy or position of the Northeast Recycling Council, Inc.

Share Post

By Megan Fontes May 29, 2025
The Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) published its Chemical Recycling Policy Position on May 30, 2025. The purpose of the policy statement is to articulate guiding principles for environmentally responsible chemical recycling of plastics. NERC supports the conservation of natural resources, waste minimization, and recognizes the role of recycling in reaching these goals. Plastic is a prevalent material for packaging and other products due to its material properties. Producing virgin plastic from fossil fuels is an extractive process with negative environmental and social impacts. Therefore, NERC supports reduction, reuse, and recycling processes that displace virgin production in plastics where environmentally preferable. You can view the policy statement here: https://www.nerc.org/chemical-recycling . The Policy Position was developed by the Subcommittee of the NERC Chemical Recycling Committee. Participants on the Subcommittee included Committee Chair Tom Metzner, Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP); Claudine Ellyin, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP); John Fay, Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association (NEWMOA); Anthony Fontana, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), Retired ; Michael Fowler, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP); Timothy Kerr, Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), Left MDE ; Shannon McDonald, Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE); Chaz Miller, Ex-Officio, NERC Board; Elizabeth Moore, Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP); Marc Moran, Pennsylvania Department Of Environmental Protection; Michael Nork, New Hampshire Department Of Environmental Services; Megan Schulz-Fontes, Northeast Recycling Council (NERC); and Richard Watson, Delaware Solid Waste Authority (DSWA). NERC created the Chemical Recycling Committee in 2022 with the goal of sharing information on new technologies called “chemical recycling.” The Committee shares information on the efficacy, cost, and impacts of these new technologies. Our Policy is the result of those efforts. The Committee is open to NERC state members and several advisory member organizations whose participation has been approved by the state members serving on the committee. NERC has published several other policy positions including the Post-Consumer Recycled Content Policy (2019) and Product Stewardship and Producer Responsibility Policy (2018), which can be found among others on NERC’s website: https://www.nerc.org/policy-positions-and-statements . For more information, contact Megan Schulz-Fontes, Executive Director, at megan@nerc.org .
May 28, 2025
Waste Advantage NERC’s Material Recovery Facilities (MRF) Commodity Values Survey Report for the period January – March 2025 showed a slight jump in the average commodity prices for Q1. The average value of all commodities increased by 9% without residuals to $102.34 and 8% with residuals to $89.62, as compared to last quarter. Single stream increased by 12% without residuals and 11% with residuals, while dual stream/source separated increased by 10% without residuals and 9% with residuals compared to last quarter. The average percentage for outbound tons marketed per commodity in calendar year 2024 showed decreases for all commodities as compared to 2022, except for polypropylene and bulky rigids, which increased by 40% and 29%, respectively. We also see an increase in mixed glass and residue, as compared to 2022, by 31% and 8%, respectively, further offsetting the decreases in marketed commodity percentages across the board. Notably, green, brown, and clear glass had the largest fall with clear glass decreasing by 77%. Changes in calculation methodology may affect these trends. Percentages are derived from tonnages reported for calendar year 2024 as opposed to percentage breakdowns in previous years. This is the 24th quarterly report in NERC’s series of reports on the market value of commodities from MRFs in the Northeast. This report includes information from 19 MRFs representing twelve (12) states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia. These survey results reflect the differing laws and collection options in the participating states. Five of the states included in this report have beverage container deposit laws. As a result, fewer glass bottles, PET bottles and aluminum cans are processed in MRFs in those states. Those MRFs are also likely to have less revenue from those recyclables. In addition, the report reflects a mix of single stream, dual stream, and source separation to collect recyclables with single stream being the most common approach. The type of collection used will have an impact on MRF design and operation. Thus, the data from this report reflects the unique blend of facilities and statewide laws in the reporting states. Residual refers to the incoming material that cannot be marketed and goes to disposal. The value without residuals reflects the value of a perfect ton of marketed material, while the value with residuals reflects the value of each ton processed with the costs associated of disposing unmarketable material. Note: In many cases, recovered glass goes to market but at a negative value. This data is not intended to be used as a price guide for MRF contracts. NERC’s database represents single and dual stream MRFs, states with and without beverage container deposits, a wide variety in markets and geographic access to markets, and variety of materials collected for processing at the participating facilities. As a result, it represents the diversity of operating conditions in these locations and should not be used as a price guideline for a specific program. For more information, contact Megan Schulz-Fontes, Executive Director, at megan@nerc.org or visit www.nerc.org .
By Megan Fontes May 22, 2025
2024 Average Percentage of Outbound Tons Marketed per Commodity Published; New Format: Report Includes Q1 2025 Individual Commodity Average Prices
More Posts