PennEnvironment Testimony on PGW’s Sustainability and Diversification Plan

February 9, 2022

Public Testimony for Philadelphia City Council’s Committee on Transportation and Public Utilities

Resolution Number 210653

“PGW’s Sustainability and Diversification” 

Hello. My name is Flora Cardoni and I am the Field Director with PennEnvironment, the statewide, citizen-based, environmental advocacy nonprofit. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of thousands of our members, across the state and here in Philly, who are clamoring for real action to tackle the climate crisis.

The science is very clear that to stop the worst impacts of climate change, we must reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 at the latest. 

As such, I am here today to testify in support of a full transition of PGW away from gas to 100% clean energy and to oppose efforts that will make that transition more difficult. Ending our reliance on dirty, dangerous fossil fuels will help lower global warming emissions, clean up our air, and protect our health.

PennEnvironment applauds PGW for including a path forward promoting geothermal energy in Philadelphia’s energy mix. Studying the opportunities for geothermal energy is a positive first step. We are also in support of a plan centered around full electrification, with PGW transitioning completely off of gas and to 100% clean energy.

That being said, some of the other options put forth by PGW in their business diversification study will not address the city’s energy needs, nor reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and therefore our carbon emissions. For example: there is really no such thing as “Decarbonized gas.” Proponents of this option are usually referring to methane captured from landfills, manure bogs and other sources, claiming lower climate emissions compared to the impact of letting the methane just escape. This may be true, but the same thing can be accomplished with flaring, which actually gets better results, especially when putting the gas into Philly’s distribution system, which will inevitably result in a lot of leakage.  Moreover, in a decarbonized economy, it’s likely that we’ll need to save this fuel source specifically for hard-to-electrify applications. Given that it’s relatively scarce and expensive, it is unrealistic to replace methane gas for home heating with these sources.  

The study also states that transitioning to this type of gas does not contribute to air quality improvements. Philadelphians suffer from high levels of indoor and outdoor air pollution and disproportionate rates of asthma and other respiratory ailments. We should transition PGW in a way that cleans up our air and protects our health and the way to do that is to focus efforts on electrification and 100% clean energy.

The same holds true for fuel from hydrogen: While there is green hydrogen made from renewable energy, more often than not industry leaders are pushing blue hydrogen, which is made from burning methane gas. In either case, you still have to mix hydrogen with methane to run it through pipes. There is a reason why many of the most vocal businesses in support of the transition to hydrogen energy are corporations like Shell, fracking companies like EQT, and others and this option should be a nonstarter. If PGW is considering green hydrogen made from renewable energy sources, it would be faster and cheaper to electrify instead. 

At PennEnvironment we are therefore in support of a plan centered around full electrification or, pending studies, electrification with expanded geothermal, with PGW fully transitioning off of gas and to 100% clean energy. The electrification pathway would be cleaner, more sustainable, and more cost effective than any pathway that relies on expanding so-called “decarbonized gas.”

Of course, the big question is: how serious is PGW about diversification in the first place? I pose this question because there has been news coverage about PGW’s involvement in drafting legislation that would explicitly strip Philadelphia’s authority to implement these–or other policies–that would promote the diversification of the city’s energy mix and move more swiftly to reduce climate pollution. 

This legislation, SB275 and HB1947 goes much further than hindering building electrification at the local level–it would also have a chilling effect on municipalities’ ability to promote solar energy, weatherization, energy conservation, or any policies that would have the “effect of” limiting gas use, which we have to do to tackle the climate crisis. 

PGW has responded that they would be neutral on the bill. While this claim is dubious at best, given their involvement in strengthening it, doesn’t PGW have an obligation to aggressively oppose this attack on energy diversification if they truly plan to diversify and help the city meet its climate reduction goals? 

I am here to directly call on PGW to put their money where their mouth is and come out against HB1947 and SB275–and ask the Philadelphia delegation to oppose these or similar proposals.

Ultimately, we owe it to our children, our grandchildren, and the planet to address climate change with urgent, focused priority. Promoting bills that tie our hands and peddling gas-reliant energy sources masquerading as “renewable” energy  will only exacerbate the problem. So, I urge PGW and the city to focus their efforts into electrification and 100% clean, renewable energy to ensure that future generations of Philadelphians have a safe and livable climate in the place we all call home.