A recent “study” by Rewiring America makes repeated flawed claims about the potential benefits of transitioning away from natural gas, stating that if every household in America replaced fuel oil, methane gas, or propane with energy-efficient heat pumps, greenhouse gas emissions would drop by 400 million metric tons annually. The study also claims that this switch could result in $60 billion in energy bill savings, $40 billion in health benefits, and 3,500 fewer premature deaths. However, a closer examination reveals significant gaps in its methodology, findings, and authors.
The cost savings the study’s authors have manufactured to advance their anti-industry narrative rely on energy market modeling that doesn’t align with the scenario they’re projecting. The researchers blatantly ignore the increased costs on the electric grid from the massive new electric load that would come from getting rid of natural gas.
When reporting on a resource so critical to the U.S. energy landscape, it is crucial that publications prioritize facts over bias. Amplifying claims that “Electric heat pumps, the most affordable and energy-efficient way to heat and cool homes, continue to outsell gas furnaces nationwide” is simply not true or proven and is a disservice to consumers looking to make an educated decision regarding their energy devices.
Federal data shows that electricity for residential energy sources costs approximately 3.5 times more than natural gas, and this difference is reflected in household energy spending – a clear contrast to claims made in the study by Rewiring America.
Furthermore, families using natural gas for heating consistently save more than those relying on all-electric systems. While the study repeatedly cites electric systems’ alleged cost-saving benefits and the widespread adoption of Inflation Reduction Act tax credits, according to federal data, more people are using these credits to purchase efficient natural gas appliances rather than transitioning to electric options.
Source: American Gas Association
The listed authors of the study raise additional questions that undermine its credibility. One of the authors, Talor Gruenwald, previously co-authored a faulty report linking gas stoves to childhood asthma. Notably, this report initially generated numerous headlines, however, a co-author later clarified that the study “does not assume or estimate a causal relationship.” The New York Times also decided to highlight that study, which the Rocky Mountain Institute itself admitted that it “found no significant increased asthma risk from home gas use compared with electricity.”
The organization behind the study, Rewiring America, has a proven track record of ill-willed motivations to discount natural gas’s impact on consumers that began long before this most recent study.
Multiple aspects of the study are contingent on deceiving consumers to further anti-industry agendas, even down to the particular terminology used. For example, the study refers to natural gas as “methane gas,” which deviates from standard industry and regulatory language. This shift in terminology is a popular tactic used by activists to confuse readers and diminish support for natural gas.
These continued efforts to discredit natural gas rely on flawed assumptions and exaggerated claims to manufacture health risks. This has included unrealistic study controls, such as sealing kitchens in plastic and introducing high concentrations of gas, to create alarmist “results” that do not reflect real-world conditions. These dubious methods undermine the credibility of the conclusions they produce, which several researchers have recognized.
Ultimately, public sentiment continues to favor natural gas as a reliable and affordable energy option, in Republican and Democratic districts alike. Last month, Washington state voted to block a proposed ban on gas stoves. In Berkeley, California, voters rejected a ballot measure that would have increased taxes on property owners of large buildings that rely on natural gas for heating, cooking and other uses.
Natural gas remains a cornerstone of America’s energy portfolio, delivering the affordability, reliability, and efficiency that families and businesses use every day. While bold claims about emissions reductions and cost savings may capture headlines, they must be evaluated against real-world data and consumer behavior.
