The New Politics of Energy: Natural Gas Stakes Its Claim

Wrangling a complicated energy and climate bill through Congress is going to require creativity, persuasion and enticements. The latest lure, unveiled this week in a new bill from Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer and John Kerry, is incentives to promote natural gas.

Yes, it sounds dry. But natural gas has suddenly emerged as both a factor in this year's energy debate and a potential game-changer on the political landscape for the long term. A few facts, dramatic new supply projections, and a geological map help explain why.

First, natural gas is up to twice as clean as coal and 30 percent cleaner than oil when it comes to carbon emissions that contribute to global warming. Second, because of new drilling technology and shale gas discoveries in the last few years, America now is estimated to have a 100-year supply of natural gas at current consumption levels (see page 7 of the linked document). And third, check out where that gas is located. It's in Rustbelt states where senators are worried about how the energy bills would affect polluting industries, and in conservative states where they are concerned about how the measures would affect the cost of electricity.
A lot of people are excited about what America's Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) calls "the paradigm shift in the natural gas supply situation" in the United States. Among them are environmentalists, who see natural gas as a "bridge fuel" to help the nation reduce pollution and slow climate change while renewable energy sources like solar and wind power are ramping up.

Others include oil magnate T. Boone Pickens (America has "an unbelievable opportunity"); Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid ("I'm an absolute convert"); New Jersey Democrat Bob Menendez and Utah Republican Orrin Hatch (sponsors of a Pickens-inspired Senate bill to switch trucks, buses and fleets from diesel to natural gas); two congressmen who are starting a natural gas caucus, and 10 senators who asked Boxer to put natural gas incentives in her bill.

Any energy bill, they wrote in a Sept. 23 letter, should "take optimal advantage of America's abundance of clean burning natural gas to dramatically lower CO2 emissions." They said the nation's vast reserves "are becoming important economic drivers in areas that are in need of economic revitalization." The letter was signed by Democrats Michael Bennet of Colorado, Mark Udall of Colorado, Mark Begich of Alaska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Tom Udall of New Mexico, and Republicans Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, David Vitter of Louisiana and Sam Brownback of Kansas. Democrat Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas sent Boxer a separate, similar letter.

To some lawmakers, the cap-and-trade aspect of the bill – an overall cap on carbon emissions, with companies allowed to buy and sell pollution permits – will be a deal-breaker. But environmentalists say it could influence a few fence-sitting senators who need one more reason to vote for the bill. (For the basics about natural gas, the government has a kids energy site that explains it better than I've seen anywhere.)

There is already a stack of arguments appealing to various regions and constituencies. Among them are curbing global warming, creating jobs in the conservation and renewable sectors, strengthening national security and protecting manufacturing industries during the transition to cleaner energy production. Because it is plentiful and relatively clean, natural gas stands to benefit from any new laws or regulations designed to reduce carbon emissions. Some coal plants, for instance, can be converted to use natural gas, or modified so natural gas can be added to the mix.

But until now, explicit natural gas incentives have not been part of the energy bill pitch. Former Colorado senator Tim Wirth, currently president of the United Nations Foundation, drove that point home bluntly in a speech last July at a "national gas strategy conference." He called the House's American Clean Energy and Security Act "the most far-reaching and important energy legislation ever passed" and added: "Every industry was deeply engaged – except one. Yours. The natural gas industry – the industry with the most to gain and the most to offer – was largely not at the bargaining table." He said it was late, but there was time to recoup in the Senate.

The industry stepped it up and the engagement paid off. The House bill has no industry-specific incentives, but the Senate bill has a section called "Clean Energy and Natural Gas." Like other sections, it's a placeholder that doesn't yet have dollar numbers attached to it. But it does authorize programs meant to benefit natural gas, including incentives for reducing emissions at power plants and research grants for technologies that reduce emissions at plants fueled by natural gas.

ANGA was deeply involved in the process. The group of 28 independent gas exploration and production companies was created this year expressly to "compete in Washington and nationally with all the other organizations that represent various fuels, whether it's coal or nuclear or wind or solar," said ANGA chairman David Trice. With Boxer-Kerry, he told me, "we've made progress."

The Menendez-Hatch New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act – aka the NAT GAS Act – would offer incentives to shift the nation to transportation that runs on natural gas. For now it is bipartisan and separate from the larger energy bills, which are embroiled in partisan splits over cap-and-trade. Reid says he'd like NATGAS to stay separate, but that may not last.

"You know Congress," said Daniel Weiss, director of climate strategy at the liberal Center for American Progress think tank. "Whatever train's leaving the station, you jump on board. And this (the Boxer-Kerry bill) will be the best, most likely train for the NATGAS Act."

At this point it's safe to say that if the Senate passes an energy bill in some form, natural gas will not be overlooked in House-Senate negotiations on a final bill. Reps. Tim Murphy and Dan Boren are recruiting members for a House Natural Gas Caucus and plan an official launch this month. Murphy is a Republican from western Pennsylvania and Boren is a Democrat from Oklahoma. They embody the diversity of the natural gas constituency, and their caucus could be pretty big. The natural gas industry employs nearly 3 million people, and 32 states have natural gas reserves.