Hawaii’s Climate-Energy Nexus

Governor Green’s push for LNG gas imports conflicts with state climate priorities, ignores clean energy options, lacks common sense

Governor Josh Green has recently advocated liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a potential “bridge fuel” to help Hawaii transition to 100% renewable energy by 2045.

This policy change marks a significant shift from governor Ige’s administration’s position and objection to introducing one fossil fuel only to replace another in the production of electricity.

Gov. Green, former Lt. Governor under Ige administration, acknowledged his proposal would be an about-face in state clean energy policy, which has been strongly opposed to LNG imports since  2015.

• Green has asked the state’s chief energy officer to conduct a comprehensive analysis of all possible energy sources, except nuclear, to accelerate Hawaii’s transition away from fossil fuel dependence.

Green acknowledges LGN adoption would be an about-face in state’s renewable energy policy for nearly 10 years, but his rationale supporting LNG fails the facts surrounding this fossil fuel, and  concerns about high energy costs will not be addressed by adding LNG in the state’s energy mix.

If Green is truly concerned by the slow pace of building out solar and wind power in Hawaii, adding LNG in the state’s energy mix fails to recognize the missing infrastructure factors supporting LNG; from statewide port delivery-to-storage-to-distribution, LNG is a contradiction to Hawaii’s transition into clean and sustainable energy economy.

Gov. Green further argues the pace for solar, wind, and battery storage adoption is too slow and therefore justifies LNG introduction. Green should instead be focused on reforming the state’s antiquated regulatory and permitting processes as his first priority to an expedited clean energy transition.

A closer examination of Hawaiian Electric’s slow adoption (foot-dragging) is also called for by the Governor, but unlikely. A grid transformation to lower cost services, more efficient operations, and greater grid operating resiliency should be our highest priority in any energy transformation to zero emissions solar-wind-storage energy opportunities. These proven clean energy systems are exemplified by higher efficiency and lower consumer costs.  There are plenty of examples of successful transitions enabling clean energy’s proven climate and consumer benefits, and more recently a business case for addressing utility shareholder interests.

LNG as the fuel of choice

Governor Green’s misinformed arguments supporting his LNG proposal assumptions clearly ignore the facts and reality of this fuel.

Fossil Fuel Firms ‘Building Bridge to Climate Chaos (LNG marine terminal)

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) has significant climate impacts linked to its emissions throughout its lifecycle:

1. Lifecycle emissions: The full lifecycle of LNG, from upstream processes to combustion, contributes to greenhouse gas emissions:
   • Upstream processes (extraction, processing): 52.1%
   • Liquefaction: 5.4%
   • Shipment: 1.7%
   • Regasification: 0.9%
   • Combustion for use: 40.4%

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is further promoted by the fossil fuel industry as a cleaner alternative to coal and a transitional fuel towards renewable energy. However, it comes with significant climate and business drawbacks:

1. High Greenhouse Gas Emissions: LNG is a fossil fuel with a substantial carbon footprint. The process of extracting, liquefying, transporting, and regasifying natural gas is energy-intensive and results in significant greenhouse gas emissions. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is released during these processes, making LNG potentially as harmful as coal in terms of global warming potential over a century.
2. Methane Leaks: Methane leaks during the production and transportation of LNG are a major concern. Methane has a much higher warming potential than CO2, and these leaks are often underreported, exacerbating the climate impact of LNG. It is also primarily composed of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that is over 80 times more powerful than CO2 in trapping heat over a 20-year period. Methane leaks can occur during extraction, processing, transportation, and use of LNG.
3. Lifecycle Emissions: Studies indicate that when considering the entire lifecycle of LNG—from extraction to end-use—the emissions can be comparable to or even exceed those of coal, challenging the notion that LNG is a cleaner alternative.

The United States is currently considered the leading producer of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), but that alone is not a plus in Hawaii’s adoption and importation of LNG. The gas carries with it a number risks and costs Governor Green is unaware of or has failed to fully consider;

1. Energy Insecurity: The reliance on LNG can lead to energy insecurity, particularly for countries that depend on imports. Price surges can make LNG unaffordable, leading to power outages and economic instability, and US suppliers and their customers are not exempt from global supply & demand market instabilities and factors.
2. Market Volatility: LNG prices are highly volatile, influenced by geopolitical events and market dynamics. For instance, the war in Ukraine has caused significant fluctuations in LNG prices, impacting energy security and affordability, especially in developing countries.
3. High Costs and Infrastructure Investments: Building and maintaining LNG infrastructure is capital-intensive. The cost of LNG infrastructure, including liquefaction plants, shipping terminals, and regasification facilities, can be prohibitive. This makes LNG less competitive compared to rapidly decreasing costs of solar, wind, and battery storage which are abundant technologies, and proven to be not only sustainable, but cost competitive.
4. Long-term Commitments: Investing in LNG infrastructure locks in fossil fuel dependency for decades. This long-term commitment can hinder the transition to renewable energy sources, as the infrastructure built today will continue to operate and emit greenhouse gases for decades to come.
5. Indigenous Rights and Environmental Justice: The expansion of LNG projects often violates Indigenous rights and leads to environmental degradation. For example, the LNG Canada project has faced significant opposition from Indigenous communities due to the environmental and social impacts of the associated pipelines.

While LNG is often marketed as a cleaner and transitional energy source, its climate and social negatives make it a far less attractive option compared to clean and naturally-renewable energy alternatives which in the case Hawaii abundant, as with sun and wind energy, operationally enhanced by the addition of advanced battery technology with energy management systems.

One this is certain, Hawaii’s LNG adoption would be a gateway to higher statewide greenhouse gas emissions, methane leaks, significant infrastructure costs, LNG market volatility, and the long-term environmental and social impacts which underscore the need for a shift to sustainable energy solutions, and which LNG fails the clean energy test.

Civil.Beat summed up the governors’ new love affair for natural gas this way …“The governor wants all options on the table for lowering the state’s electricity costs while ridding itself of fossil fuels.”    LNG also fails on both counts to lower Hawaii’s energy cost in the addition of another imported dirty energy fuel source added into the state’s utility’s energy mix.

Young activists behind a landmark Hawaii lawsuit

Last month Hawaii state and local young climate activists have reached a first-of-its kind legal settlement, giving youth a role in curbing planet-warming emissions while avoiding a major trial.

The agreement requires the Hawaii Department of Transportation to develop a plan to fully decarbonize ground, sea and interisland air travel by 2045. It also creates a youth council to provide feedback to the state agency.  Under the settlement, Hawaii agreed to make immediate investments in clean transportation infrastructure, including completing a pedestrian, bicycle and transit network in five years and dedicating a minimum of $40 million to expand the public electric vehicle charging network by 2030.

Hawaii Gov. Josh Green takes credit for the landmark legal settlement that aims to curb climate-warming emissions from cars, trucks and planes across the sprawling island state.