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

August 29, 2025
Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) Publishes 25 th Report Marking Six Years of Quarterly Data
By Recycled Materials Association July 29, 2025
The Northeast Recycling Council (NERC) has opened the 2025 Emerging Professionals (EP) Program . Now, in its third year, the program provides professionals who are new to the field of recycling, sustainability, and environmental stewardship with discounted access to NERC’s Conference and Foundations Course, sponsored by their employer organization. EPs gain valuable connections with seasoned industry professionals and peers while engaging in discussions on current trends, challenges, and innovations shaping the industry. This program is designed for those with three or fewer years of experience. “This year, EPs also receive a discount to our Foundations of Sustainable Materials Management course (a live, instructor-led training) developed to provide the key building blocks for understanding the industry,” said Mariane Medeiros, Senior Project Manager at NERC. “It’s a great way to close the loop: gaining both a strong technical foundation and real-world connections in one experience.” Read and Learn More.
By Chaz Miller June 30, 2025
Recycling coordinators know that some people and locations are stubbornly indifferent to recycling. COVID has ruptured civic values and behavior. Creating a recycling culture is harder than ever. Producers know how to sell their products. Now they need to learn how to sell recycling. On July 1, Oregon’s packaging and paper extended producer responsibility (EPR) program begins operating. This will be a first in our country. “Producers”, instead of local governments or private citizens, will be paying to recycle packages and paper products. Colorado’s program begins operating early in 2026. For years we have heard the theory of how packaging EPR will work. At last, we will get results. Five other states also have laws. Their programs should all be operating by 2030. None of the state laws have identical requirements. The Circular Action Alliance, the “producer responsibility organization” responsible for managing the program in most of those states, knows it has a lot on its plate. EPR laws are not new to the U.S. Thirty-two states already have laws that cover a wide variety of products such as electronics, paint, mattresses, batteries, etc. Those laws are relatively simple. Most cover one product. The producer group is a small number of companies. Goals and programs are focused and narrow. They are a mixed bag of success and failure. Packaging EPR is far more complex. The number of covered products is way higher. Thousands of companies are paying for these programs. Goals are challenging. Some are impossible to meet. In addition, local governments treat recycling as a normal service. Their residents will still call them if their recyclables aren’t picked up. It probably hasn’t helped that advocates tout EPR as the solution for recycling’s problems. We are told we will have more collection and better processing with higher recycling rates. Markets will improve and even stabilize. Some of this will happen, but not all. Collection and processing should go smoothly in Oregon. The state has high expectations for recycling. I have no doubt recycling will increase. Collection programs will blanket the state, giving more households the opportunity to recycle. I’m not sure, though, how much of an increase we will see. Recycling coordinators know that some people and locations are stubbornly indifferent to recycling. COVID has ruptured civic values and behavior. Creating a recycling culture is harder than ever. Producers know how to sell their products. Now they need to learn how to sell recycling. Another challenge is the “responsible end market” requirements. You’ve probably seen pictures of overseas dumps created by unscrupulous or just naïve plastics “recyclers”. In response, Oregon and the other states are requiring sellers and end markets to prove they are “responsible”. They must provide information about who and where they are, how they operate, how much was actually recycled, and more. Recycling end markets pushed back. Paper and metals recyclers argue they shouldn’t be covered. They don’t cause those problems. As for plastics, the general manager of one of America’s largest plastics recycling companies said his company now spends time and money gathering data and filling out forms to prove they’re “responsible”. His virgin resin competitors don’t have to. Ironically, we now import more plastics for recycling than we export. Maybe those countries should impose similar requirements on their plastics recyclers. Colorado faces unique problems. The mountain state is large. Its population is concentrated on the I-25 corridor running north and south through Denver with low population density elsewhere. Recycling collection and processing is limited as are end markets. To make matters worse, slightly more than half of its households use “subscription” services for waste and recycling collection. Those services are funded by the households, not by taxpayers. EPR doesn’t have this experience in other countries. Colorado gets to blaze this trail. The second state to go live poses substantive challenges for producers. The good news for both states? Local governments that pay for recycling collection and processing will see most of those costs go away. Consumers are unlikely to see prices rise, for now. National companies will simply spread their costs among all 50 states. Local and regional producers, unfortunately, don’t have that advantage. As for improved markets, remember that recyclables are and always will be commodities subject to the ups and downs of the economy. I don’t see substantive changes in recycling markets unless the producer group’s members try to manipulate markets to their own advantage. 2025 saw new laws and changes to existing laws. Maryland and Washington became the sixth and seventh packaging EPR states. At the same time, California is rewriting its regulations and Maine significantly revised its law. Some of these changes narrowed EPR’s scope to the dismay of advocates. I’m a member of Maryland’s EPR Advisory Council. We’ve been meeting for a year, discussing the Needs Assessment and now our new law. We have our own unique set of challenges. We also have a big advantage. We can learn from Oregon’s and Colorado’s experiences. Tune in next year to learn how we are progressing. Read on Waste360.