To push back against the draft Ordinance (3254) developed by staff in response to the efforts of the youth of the Rogue Climate Action Team, a gas industry Astroturf front group (NW Coalition for Energy Choices) funded by the gas industry developed a page of misinformation and disinformation designed to encourage residents of Ashland to resist their council from passing the Ordinance. The following represents an analysis of that narrative – Alan Journet.
Alan R.P. Journet Ph.D.
Cofacilitator
Southern Oregon Climate Action Now
February 17th 2025
Testimony supporting Ordinance 3254 in response to the NW Coalition for Energy Choice critique
Mayor Graham and members of the Ashland City Council:
Southern Oregon Climate Action Now is a grassroots climate organization of some 2,000 Southern Oregonians. We are concerned about the climate crisis and seek federal, state and local action to address it. We are rural and coastal Southern Oregonians who live on the frontlines of the warming, reducing snowpack, heatwaves, drought, rising sea level and the increasing wildfire risk that these trends conspire to impose on us. Because of our concern, we pay close attention to efforts nationally, statewide, and locally that impact our collective efforts to address the climate crisis. As our logo above indicates, the focus of SOCAN is to promote action through science.
I write today regarding the Carbon Pollution Impact Fee to address the campaign of misinformation and disinformation that the NW Coalition for Energy Choice is waging against the proposal (NW Coalition for Energy Choice 2025). We should understand exactly who this organization is and who/what they represent. The comment by Hill-Hart (2023) from the Citizens Utility Board helps: “According to the Oregon Secretary of State, NW Coalition for Energy Choice is a nonprofit registered to the Executive Director of the Northwest Gas Association, a gas industry trade association.” Indeed, according to Instrumentl (undated), the President NW Coalition for Energy Choice is Kurt Swanson, who is identified (PDC undated) as a Tacoma Washington resident, and lobbyist and former natural gas worker. Meanwhile, the major donors to the NW Coalition for Energy Choice are started as the NW Gas Coalition, and the United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices Of The Plumbing & Pipe. Clearly this is not a broad public interest coalition but a gas utility front group.
Let’s evaluate what their campaign (NW Coalition for Energy Choice (2025) claims:
The argument starts by claiming the proposal would “severely restrict one of the most reliable, inexpensive sources of energy available and increase home prices.”
Since the effort on the part of the youth is, indeed, to address the climate crisis, it is hardly surprising that the proposal would target a fossil fuel. In this case, the target is a fossil fuel that rivals coal in the full lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions it generates (Gordon et al. 2023, Howarth 2024) and, equally notably, for many years has been known as toxic to occupants of buildings that employ it (Gottlieb & Dyrszka 2017; Seals & Krasner 2020; O’Rourke et al. 2022).
Then we ask: will it raise home prices? The reality here is clear: Homes provided with both electricity and gas are more expensive to build than all-electric homes. As Tan et al. 2022, in an RMI report, concluded: “Our analysis shows that all-electric, single-family new construction is more economical to build and operate than a home with gas appliances and has lower lifetime emissions in all nine cities studied.” This echoes the conclusion of Energy Monitor (2022) that: “all-electric homes achieve $7,500–$8,200 of construction savings and mixed-fuel building households are nominally more expensive.” This assessment added that all electric homes: “reduce energy consumption by 34% compared with business-as-usual…”
In the second paragraph the diatribe claims: “Natural gas is essential in helping us transition to carbon neutrality.” Since the combustion of natural gas results in the emissions of carbon dioxide, even though possibly less per million British thermal units (Btu) of energy generated than coal, diesel, gasoline or propane (EIA 2024), this assessment only tells half the story. NREL (2022) reports that the full lifecycle emissions of greenhouse gases in grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per KWH (i.e., including all gases measured in terms of their equivalence to carbon dioxide, indexed at 1) indicate that natural gas may be superior to coal and oil, but is definitely far inferior to hydropower, geothermal, wind and solar energy. Meanwhile, as reported above, other lifecycle studies (e.g., Gordon et al. 2023) reveal natural gas is in the same range as coal if not worse.
Presumably, in stating: “Natural gas is essential in helping us transition to carbon neutrality” the authors are promoting the misinformation / disinformation claim that they can reduce emissions from their product by incorporating into their product Renewable Natural Gas, or Hydrogen. I discussed the fallacies associated with these approaches in my previous submission, so will not repeat that here. Suffice to state that these claims are just inaccurate.
And, once again, the authors make the false claim that residents with gas “can continue to cook and heat their homes when the power goes out.” As Shuff (2022) clearly pointed out, this claim is just untrue because many gas appliances require electricity to light the flame and also because the fans that drive the warm air around the house are driven by electricity as are the fans that expel the toxic chemicals from the building.
Given that Avista is currently seeking a huge rate hike, it is somewhat perplexing and seemingly hypocritical that they should seek to assume the role of defenders of affordable housing.
Then again, later, the authors return to the false claim about gas when the electricity is unavailable by stating: “During power outages from extreme weather, appliances powered by natural gas – like stoves and furnaces – are unaffected.” It seems the proponents of natural gas don’t understand how the modern gas appliance works. It is disappointing that promoters of natural gas continue to make totally false claims about their product, the cost of using it, its contribution to the climate crisis, and the value of its availability during power outages.
Once again, on behalf of Southern Oregon Climate Action Now, I urge the city council to take a valuable step forward toward actualizing the Climate and Energy Action Plan, passed in 2017, by adopting Ordinance 3254. If we are to triumph over the threat that ongoing greenhouse gas emissions pose, each of us individually and collectively must take some responsibility for moving in a positive direction whenever we have the choice. This may be one baby step in a bucket of steps we have to take, but let’s take this step.
Respectfully Submitted
Alan Journet Ph.D.
7113 Griffin Lane
Jacksonville
OR 97530-4182
[email protected]
541-500-2331
541-301-4107
Sources Cited
EIA 2024 Carbon Dioxide Emissions Coefficients. U.S. Energy Information Agency. https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.php
Energy Monitor 2022 Cheaper to electrify US homes during construction than after. Energy Monitor https://www.energymonitor.ai/built-environment/cheaper-to-electrify-us-homes-during-construction/?cf-view
Gordon D, Reuland F, Jacob D, Worden J, Shindell D, Dyson M. 2023 Evaluating net life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions intensities from gas and coal at varying methane leakage rates. Environmental Research Letters 18 084008 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ace3db
Gottlieb B, Dyrszka L. 2017 Too Dirty, Too Dangerous: Why Health Professionals Reject Natural Gas. Physicians for Social Responsibility https://psr.org/resources/too-dirty-too-dangerous/
Hill-Hart J 2023 NW Natural Spread Misinformation in the Oregon Legislature Citizens Utility Board https://oregoncub.org/news/blog/nw-natural-spread-misinformation-in-the-oregon-legislature/2813/
Howarth R 2024 The greenhouse gas footprint of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exported from the United States. Energy Science & Engineering; 12 (11): 4843-4859 https://scijournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ese3.1934
Instrumentl undated. Nw Coalition For Energy Choice | 990 Report Instrumentl https://www.instrumentl.com/990-report/nw-coalition-for-energy-choice
NREL 2022 Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electricity Generation: Update. National Renewable Energy Laboratory https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80580.pdf
NW Coalition for Energy Choice 2025 A Natural Gas Tax Will Be Harmful to Ashland Residents. NW Coalition for Energy Choice https://nwenergychoice.org/a-natural-gas-tax-will-be-harmful-to-ashland-residents
O’Rourke D, Caleb N, Muller K, Pernick A, Plaut M, Plummer D, Serres D, Stewart B, Studer-Spevack N, Tsongas T, Turner A. 2022 METHANE GAS: HEALTH, SAFETY, ECONOMIC, AND CLIMATE IMPACTS: A case for equitable electrification. Families for Climate. https://www.familiesforclimate.org/blog/methane-gas-health-safety-economic-and-climate-impacts.
PDC undated Kurt Swanson. Washington State Public Disclosure Commission https://accesshub.pdc.wa.gov/node/93392
Seals B and Krasner A. 2020 Health Effects from Gas Stove Pollution. Physicians for Social Responsibility. https://psr.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/health-effects-from-gas-stove-pollution.pdf.
Shuff C 2022 Gas Myth: All Gas Appliances Work in Power Outages. Citizens’ Utility Board. https://oregoncub.org/news/blog/gas-myth-all-gas-appliances-work-in-power-outages/2489/
Tan L, Fathollahzadeh M, Taylor E. 2022 The Economics of Electrifying Buildings: Residential New Construction RMI https://rmi.org/insight/the-economics-of-electrifying-buildings-residential-new-construction/
