IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/report/rp-20-02.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Differentiation of Natural Gas Markets by Climate Performance

Author

Listed:
  • Krupnick, Alan

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Munnings, Clayton

Abstract

Any commodity can be described by its unique set of attributes. These attributes can include intrinsic characteristics, such as what the commodity is (e.g., natural gas), and where, how, and by whom it was produced. These attributes can quantify the externalities associated with production, processing, transport, and consumption. For instance, in the case of coffee, the price partially reflects how, where, and by whom it is grown and processed, as well as how much, and can also reflect a variety of external benefits. For example, “rainforest alliance” coffee signals protection against deforestation, “shade-grown” coffee signals lower biodiversity loss, and “fair trade” coffee signals that a purchase reduces economic inequality. A range of certification bodies transform these signals of value into an expectation of reality and integrity, often via labeling, facilitating consumer choice and price premiums. In this way, coffee, a commodity, has been transformed into a differentiated product based on the underlying attribute profile.Commodity differentiation has also taken place in the energy sector. Electricity is a homogeneous commodity, yet electrons are produced in different ways. Electrons produced by a coal-fired power plant have a much different attribute profile than those generated by a wind turbine or solar panel. In the case of power generation, there are established, robust, well-developed, and expanding markets for electricity with “green” attributes, including for voluntary renewable energy credits. Remarkably, similar attribute differentiation has yet to take place for fossil fuels, [1] despite attempts by companies to distinguish their products through advertising. One way hydrocarbon production can be differentiated is by greenhouse gas emissions. Estimates of the life cycle carbon emissions embedded in different US and Canadian oils range from the highest at Canada Abathasca (736 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent [kg CO2e] per barrel) to the lowest at Texas Eagle Ford (458 kg CO2e per barrel). [2]How natural gas is produced, processed and moved varies greatly, leading to large heterogeneities in methane emissions that vary temporally by company, sector, and operations. For example, a large body of literature indicates that a relatively small portion of production wells account for the majority of methane emissions, which led scholars to coin the term “super-emitters” to characterize poor (or perhaps unlucky) performers (Alvarez et al. 2012; Caulton et al. 2014; Rella et al. 2015; Zavala-Araiza et al. 2015).This paper explores the potential issues in the creation of a market for green natural gas—here meaning natural gas with low methane emissions [3] across the value chain—(oil with associated gas that has low methane emissions could also be considered green, by analogy, but this is beyond the scope of our paper) as a means of obtaining superior climate performance. The underlying heterogeneity, alongside our belief that greater vigilance can allow for quicker detection of major leaks, is the basis for our interest in considering this market. We narrowly define superior climate performance [4] as the achievement of a low methane leakage rate associated with the life cycle of natural gas. We also include as leakage any deliberate emissions of methane during maintenance events, through venting (which is generally not permitted), or as part of other aspects of normal operations.We focus on methane emissions from the natural gas sector because of concern about methane as a strong greenhouse gas (35 to 80 times greater than an equivalent amount of CO2) and because this energy sector has a real and a public relations problem with methane leaks. The extent of these emissions threatens the climatic benefit of transitioning power generation and fleet vehicles to natural gas over other fossil fuels (coal and diesel) and thereby endangers the status of natural gas as a transition fuel (Munnings and Krupnick 2017). However, the factor-based emissions reporting methodologies used by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) significantly underestimate methane emissions (Brandt et al. 2014). Moreover, the Trump administration has pulled back significantly from the Obama administration’s attempts to regulate such emissions (although a few states have regulatory programs). Thus, the creation of a market for green natural gas could be a desirable mechanism for incentivizing superior climate performance to reduce greenhouse gases. In addition, those producers that are already operating with superior climate performance, or are planning to do so, may be monetarily rewarded for their efforts.NotesWith the possible exception of renewable natural gas, which is natural gas derived from organic waste such as cow manure.Oil-Climate Index, https://oci.carnegieendowment.org/#supply-chain.In this paper we sometimes use the term “methane leaks,” while recognizing that some methane escapes in the course of normal operations and so is not technically a leak.We focus narrowly on green natural gas and methane emissions in this paper, rather than the larger set of attributes involved in the creation of responsibly produced natural gas.To read the full paper, please download the PDF (above).

Suggested Citation

  • Krupnick, Alan & Munnings, Clayton, 2020. "Differentiation of Natural Gas Markets by Climate Performance," RFF Reports 20-02, Resources for the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:rff:report:rp-20-02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.rff.org/documents/2438/Green_Gas_Report_Final_4hh3kLx.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Catherine Hausman & Lucija Muehlenbachs, 2019. "Price Regulation and Environmental Externalities: Evidence from Methane Leaks," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 6(1), pages 73-109.
    2. Borchers, Allison M. & Duke, Joshua M. & Parsons, George R., 2007. "Does willingness to pay for green energy differ by source?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 3327-3334, June.
    3. Michaela Balzarova & Pavel Castka, 2012. "Stakeholders’ Influence and Contribution to Social Standards Development: The Case of Multiple Stakeholder Approach to ISO 26000 Development," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 111(2), pages 265-279, December.
    4. Gunne Grankvist & Ulf Dahlstrand & Anders Biel, 2004. "The Impact of Environmental Labelling on Consumer Preference: Negative vs. Positive Labels," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 213-230, June.
    5. Roe, Brian & Teisl, Mario F. & Levy, Alan & Russell, Matthew, 2001. "US consumers' willingness to pay for green electricity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(11), pages 917-925, September.
    6. Allcott, Hunt, 2011. "Social norms and energy conservation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(9-10), pages 1082-1095, October.
    7. Allcott, Hunt, 2011. "Social norms and energy conservation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(9), pages 1082-1095.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kowalska-Pyzalska, Anna, 2018. "What makes consumers adopt to innovative energy services in the energy market? A review of incentives and barriers," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 3570-3581.
    2. Cardella, Eric & Ewing, Brad & Williams, Ryan Blake, "undated". "Green is Good – The Impact of Information Nudges on the Adoption of Voluntary Green Power Plans," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266583, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    3. Pol Campos-Mercade & Claes Ek & Magnus Soderberg & Florian H. Schneider, 2025. "Social Preferences and Environmental Externalities," CESifo Working Paper Series 11895, CESifo.
    4. Muyi Yang & Yuanying Chi & Kristy Mamaril & Adam Berry & Xunpeng Shi & Liming Zhu, 2020. "Communication-Based Approach for Promoting Energy Consumer Switching: Some Evidence from Ofgem’s Database Trials in the United Kingdom," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-16, October.
    5. Dalia Streimikiene & Tomas Balezentis & Irena Alebaite, 2020. "Climate Change Mitigation in Households between Market Failures and Psychological Barriers," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-21, June.
    6. Rockstuhl, Sebastian & Wenninger, Simon & Wiethe, Christian & Häckel, Björn, 2021. "Understanding the risk perception of energy efficiency investments: Investment perspective vs. energy bill perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    7. repec:osf:osfxxx:w8afg_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Anna Kowalska-Pyzalska, 2015. "Social acceptance of green energy and dynamic electricity tariffs - a short review," HSC Research Reports HSC/15/07, Hugo Steinhaus Center, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology.
    9. Vona, Francesco, 2023. "Managing the distributional effects of climate policies: A narrow path to a just transition," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    10. Anna Kowalska-Pyzalska, 2016. "What makes consumers adopt to innovative energy services in the energy market?," HSC Research Reports HSC/16/09, Hugo Steinhaus Center, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology.
    11. Ayoubi, Charles & Thurm, Boris, 2020. "Pro-environmental behavior and morality: An economic model with heterogeneous preferences," OSF Preprints w8afg, Center for Open Science.
    12. Lillemo, Shuling Chen, 2014. "Measuring the effect of procrastination and environmental awareness on households' energy-saving behaviours: An empirical approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 249-256.
    13. Fanghella, Valeria & Ibanez, Lisette & Thøgersen, John, 2025. "What you don't know, can't hurt you: Avoiding donation requests for environmental causes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    14. Carattini, Stefano & Gillingham, Kenneth & Meng, Xiangyu & Yoeli, Erez, 2024. "Peer-to-peer solar and social rewards: Evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 340-370.
    15. Chatzigeorgiou, I.M. & Andreou, G.T., 2021. "A systematic review on feedback research for residential energy behavior change through mobile and web interfaces," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    16. Beatty, Timothy K.M. & Katare, Bhagyashree, 2018. "Low-cost approaches to increasing gym attendance," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 63-76.
    17. Ajla Cosic & Hana Cosic & Sebastian Ille, 2018. "Can nudges affect students' green behaviour? A field experiment," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 2(1), pages 107-111, March.
    18. Bartels, Lara & Kesternich, Martin, 2022. "Motivate the crowd or crowd- them out? The impact of local government spending on the voluntary provision of a green public good," ZEW Discussion Papers 22-040, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    19. Becka Brolinson & William M. Doerner & Arne Johan Pollestad & Michael J. Seiler, 2024. "European Energy Crisis: Did Electricity Prices Shock Real Estate Markets?," FHFA Staff Working Papers 24-10, Federal Housing Finance Agency.
    20. Wu, Libo & Zhou, Yang, 2025. "Social norms and energy conservation in China," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    21. Hinker, Jonas & Hemkendreis, Christian & Drewing, Emily & März, Steven & Hidalgo Rodríguez, Diego I. & Myrzik, Johanna M.A., 2017. "A novel conceptual model facilitating the derivation of agent-based models for analyzing socio-technical optimality gaps in the energy domain," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 1219-1230.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rff:report:rp-20-02. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.