Advocates are applauding the Washington, D.C., Public Service Commission's decision to pause a Washington Gas infrastructure rebuild known as Project Pipes.

The project began in 2014 as a 40-year plan to replace all the District's aging natural gas infrastructure, at a projected cost to ratepayers of $4.5 billion. The project is nearing the end of Phase 2 but last Tuesday the commission voted to put a Washington Gas request for a $57 million extension of the phase on hold. The commission cited concerns about the cost and the company's inability to reduce the number of leaks.

Tim Oberleiton, senior attorney for the nonprofit Earthjustice, said the approach of replacing all the gas infrastructure distracts from what he believes is the main problem.

"Washington Gas has incurred millions of dollars in penalties for failing to meet agreed-upon leak-reduction targets," Oberleiton pointed out. "Despite spending hundreds of millions of ratepayer dollars on this program, leaks are not moving down in a meaningful way. In fact, last year in D.C., the Beyond Gas campaign measured leaks across the city [and] found hundreds of active leaks across all eight wards."

In a statement to Public News Service, Canadian-owned AltaGas, parent company of Washington Gas, said Project Pipes targets the riskiest leak-prone pipes in the system.

The commission requested additional information from Washington Gas including data on the number of miles of pipe replaced in years past and associated repair costs, as well as the number of leak repairs conducted in past years. The request seeks performance metrics on each phase of the project, as well as data going back to 2005, 9 years prior to the start of Project Pipes.

The commission did not weigh in on the prospects for Phase 3 of the project, but advocates say Project Pipes runs counter to the city's climate goals, including a pledge to be carbon-neutral by 2045, which anticipated continual movement away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy sources for homes.

Oberleiton argued committing billions to new gas infrastructure will create an incentive to keep using a technology known to contribute to climate change. He noted a number of other cities have cut spending for similar projects or delayed them.

"In Illinois, the Illinois Commerce Commission, which is the PSC out there, put a halt on any and all activities in this regard, citing the cost overruns and climate risks," Oberleiton pointed out.

Community groups are joining the opposition. In November, the D.C. Advisory Neighborhood Commission representing Glover Park and Cathedral Heights passed a resolution opposing funding for Phase 3 and calling on the Public Service Commission to revise the project to focus on existing leaks and scaling new investment to match the city's energy and climate goals.

Advocates often refer to natural gas as methane, which is its primary component. As a greenhouse gas, methane is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere. In homes, research shows the use of methane gas for cooking contributes to poor air quality and releases toxic compounds into the air including known carcinogens such as benzene.

Naomi Cohen-Shields, D.C. campaign manager for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said use of the term "natural gas" amounts to greenwashing by the gas industry.

"It's putting this idea into our heads that this is a clean form of energy that we can trust, that it's something that is safe to have in our homes, that it's better for the environment," Cohen-Shield explained. "We're beginning to dismantle that as the science is pointing more and more clearly to the fact that fracked gas, methane gas, is not a clean source of energy, that it's extremely harmful for the planet and also for people's health when it's burned in their homes."

Illinois plans to spend $1.5 billion through 2027 in significant grid investments to help meet the state's ambitious clean-energy goals, with nearly half of funds going toward addressing environmental disparities.

The Climate and Equity Jobs Act requires at least 40% of state grid investments to benefit underserved and low-income communities.

Brad Klein, managing attorney with the Environmental Law and Policy Center, said fulfilling it means first learning more about existing issues.

"That requires new tools to sort of analyze disparities in service. So, do some neighborhoods enjoy better reliability than others? There's new modeling in the plans to try to discover that," he said.

As well as plans to upgrade substations, which include poles and wires, to close any existing gaps - and what Klein calls "full and fair access" for people in all communities to invest in things like rooftop solar, electrification and heat pumps.

The Illinois Commerce Commission rejected initial plans by Ameren and ComEd because they didn't demonstrate how the utility companies would benefit disadvantaged communities or keep monthly costs down for customers. Both companies revised their proposals which now outline both and describe plans for increased reliability, including key upgrades to increase the grid's power demand and make it more resilient to outages. Klein said overall, it means easier access to local clean energy.

"We'll have better options for connecting rooftop solar and community solar to the grid, and if done well, over time that also can help lead to opportunities for energy cost savings for customers and certainly address climate change," Klein continued.

Although officials say increases in monthly bills to customers will vary based on service class and energy usage, the ComEd plan shows an average increase of about $22 per year until 2027, while Ameren estimates an increase of less than $1 per month.


get more stories like this via email

President-elect Donald Trump retakes office in less than a week and promises to roll back efforts to combat climate change. But state-level efforts will continue in North Carolina. Trump has promised to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act passed under President Joe Biden. Brittany Griffin with the nonprofit CleanAIRE NC says that would hurt the state, including its ability to prepare for more severe weather as climate change worsens. But she says there are glimmers of hope on the state level.

"We still have a lot of state-led policies, and then our makeup now of the General Assembly looks different. We have a governor who also is pretty well-informed and, I believe, dedicated to addressing environmental issues in our state," he said.

Griffin added that her organization will be working with community and legal partners to resist potentially harmful changes under the Trump administration. CleanAIRE NC's community science manager Daisha Wall is on the Environmental Justice Advisory Council for the Governor's Office.

Griffin noted that there are a number of ways CleanAIRE NC is helping people feel more empowered, such as through its air monitoring networks in communities across the state and clean energy transportation efforts in rural areas, and said community member involvement is important to the state's response to climate change.

"When they amplify their voice, it allows them to feel like they are participating in the process of shaping environmental policies as it relates to their communities," she explained.

North Carolina lawmakers have passed climate goals under the state's Carbon Plan that aim to reduce Duke Energy's carbon emissions by 70% by 2030 and reach carbon neutrality by 2050. But Griffin said the current plan falls short for the state's underserved and impacted communities. However, it is renewed every two years and she hopes they have a larger say in the next iteration.

"We at CleanAIRE NC would like to make sure there's more inclusion for communities in the planning process so they can actually more directly benefit from it," she continued.

For workers or pension systems trying to keep support for the fossil-fuel industry to a minimum, one expert has some suggestions.

Just last month, Maryland State Retirement and Pension System officials voted to create a climate advisory panel. The panel will be tasked with advising the pension system on how to consider climate risks in investments.

For those who are just starting to invest for retirement, Jessye Waxman - campaign advisor on Sierra Club's fossil-free finance team - said fossil-fuel stocks aren't the most profitable or stable option.

"The fossil-fuel industry has been pretty volatile in terms of the kinds of returns it's looking at," said Waxman. "Holding fossil fuels is actually a more risky proposition. They're creating a lot of instability and not optimizing for portfolio returns."

A study of Maryland's pension portfolio agreed. It found the stocks in oil and gas companies in Maryland's pension system were falling behind.

The study found the portfolio would have grown an additional 10% if the pension system had divested in 2010.

For those current shareholders, Waxman said to hold investments and use voting power to keep companies accountable on climate issues.

That includes denying debt, which involves not buying new bonds for fossil-fuel companies. That, she said, makes it more difficult for fossil-fuel companies to operate - or expand operations.

"If you are a shareholder," said Waxman, "hold the stocks that you have, and use that to leverage your power as a shareholder to hold companies and their boards accountable for their greenhouse-gas emissions, for decarbonization efforts."

A Sierra Club report found that bonds are a growing share of financing for fossil-fuel company projects, such as new pipelines and coal power plants.

In 2000, bonds accounted for 14% of fossil-fuel financing, compared with 52% in 2020.