Washington Gas Light Company argued its case for raising customers’ gas prices by 20% at a public hearing Sept. 13 before the District’s three-person Public Service Commission.
If approved in full, the rate hike would raise residential customer’s monthly bills by $16.48 on average, according to the Office of the People’s Counsel, which opposed the rate change at the hearing. It’s the largest rate increase request Washington Gas has ever asked for in the District, and would bring in about $53 million for the company.
“It’s an unconscionable burden to place on D.C. consumers at this time,” People’s
Counsel Sandra Mattavous-Frye said in an interview following the hearing.
The process for getting the rate change request approved has already gone on for more than a year, and it’s unclear when the Public Service Commission might make a final decision.
For many commercial buildings, including some small businesses, gas rates could go up by 30%. In addition to the Office of the People’s Counsel, attorneys representing the Apartment & Office Building Association, the Sierra Club and the District government opposed the rate hike at last week’s hearing.
“Despite significant capital expenditures over the past five years, WGL’s (the family company of Washington Gas) operational performance in terms of leak rates and pipe replacements has been substandard,” argued Bhaveeta Mody, the lawyer representing the Office of the People’s Counsel. “WGL also failed to meet customer service quality standards for most of 2020 and 2021.”
Washington Gas said that it needs the additional revenue to keep up with “increased costs” to run the gas system and make continued investments in upkeep.
“Washington Gas’s existing rates are insufficient to meet its cost of providing service to its District of Columbia customers and do not provide the Company with an opportunity to earn a reasonable rate of return on its investments,” the company said in a statement.
But opponents say that Washington Gas has gone too far when it comes to capital investments, pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into pipe replacements that not all stakeholders agree are necessary. Questions about the cost of replacing pipe infrastructure take on particular significance in light of the District’s plans to swap fossil fuels for renewable energy in the coming decades.
What’s Climate Got to Do With It?
In a hearing that lasted just under 150 minutes, the Public Service Commissioners and stakeholders’ representatives said the word “climate” more than 140 times.
Burning gas for heating and cooking creates potent greenhouse gasses, which trap heat in the atmosphere. That increases the frequency and severity of climate-related disasters that have dominated local, national and global news in recent months—including heat waves, floods and hurricanes.
Washington Gas’s proposals include a “Climate Progress Adjustment” and “Climate Action Recovery Tariff.” Both are revenue-generating mechanisms that the company says it needs in order to implement emissions-cutting strategies. But when asked—both by Commissioner Richard Beverly during the hearing and by the Washington Informer in an emailed request afterward—Washington Gas representatives did not provide concrete numbers demonstrating progress on curbing emissions or plans for future reductions.
Opposing stakeholders pointed out that the city can’t use the same amount of gas indefinitely if it’s going to meet its climate commitments, which include net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The District passed legislation last year that prohibits the use of gas for most purposes in buildings constructed after 2026.
“WGL has consistently failed to align itself with the District’s goals,” argued the Office of the Attorney General’s Lauren Cullum, representing the D.C. government. “The company is not appropriately planning for the District’s decarbonized future, which will see a reduction in demand for fossil gas and the gas pipelines.”
Gas use in buildings made up about 22% of D.C.’s total emissions in 2020, according to data from the Department of Energy and Environment. Unlike using electricity—which can potentially come from renewable sources that don’t require releasing planet-warming carbon or methane—burning gas will always produce emissions.
Washington Gas has prevented some methane emissions, which are more potent than carbon emissions, by repairing leaking pipes. But the company isn’t solely targeting pipes that are leaking, Sierra Club advocate Mark Rodeffer said. Spending millions of ratepayer dollars—and possibly up to $4.5 billion over the next 30 years—on gas infrastructure will make it harder for the city to move away from fossil fuels.
Washington Gas does have a Climate Business Plan, which includes, among other things, investing in hydrogen gas and certain forms of methane that have somewhat lower emissions footprints; cutting down on pipe leaks; and working to improve energy efficiency. In January of last year, the company submitted an updated Climate Change Action Roadmap to the Public Service Commission.
However, opponents note that many of Washington Gas’s proposed technological solutions do not yet have proven emissions-cutting results. Comments on the company’s Climate Business Plan from DOEE in 2020 said that it was “riddled with significant technical deficiencies,” and “fails to include an actual business plan.” Washington Gas’s plans also “ignores” the District’s policy goals around switching away from fossil fuels, the DOEE commentary said.
“Ratepayers overall should not be on the hook for the risks a utility creates for itself by failing to respond to policy changes,” Cullum, the lawyer from the D.C. Attorney General’s Office, said.
Climate Advocates Faced Delays Trying to Enter the Public Hearing
A group of about a dozen activists with the Beyond Gas DC Coalition gathered outside the Public Service Commission building to attend the public hearing and protest the proposed rate hike. But when they headed inside, an employee from Admiral Security Services, which operates security in the building the Commission shares with many other businesses, told them they could not bring any signs inside. The group then put all signs and posters away.
A Public Service Commission staff member manning a sign-in table did not at first give the protesters visitors’ badges or allow them to go upstairs to the hearing room. Rodeffer, of the Sierra Club, said they were kept in the lobby for about 20 minutes.
Then, when the group got up to the eighth floor where the hearing had already begun, Rodeffer said they were kept outside the doors for another 15 minutes by a different Commission staff member. A few people were allowed to enter separately, and shortly after, the majority of the group was allowed to walk in through a back door and find seats. At that point, more than 30 other people were already seated in the audience; Rodeffer said several of them were lobbyists associated with Washington Gas.
A spokesperson for the Public Service Commission, Kellie Didigu, said that the activists were only delayed in order to wait for a break between speakers and minimize disruption as they were seated. Didigu said the Commission usually allows signs and other forms of non-disruptive protest at public hearings.
In an emailed statement later in the week, the Commission’s chairman, Emile Thompson, said that the agency was looking into what happened.
“Ensuring equitable access and a transparent process for all attendees at public hearings is of paramount importance,” Thompson said. “Over the next few days, we are meeting with the PSC team to understand better what occurred. We encourage the public to continue providing feedback, as it helps us better serve the public interest.”
Still, Rodeffer said the situation, which left him and other advocates standing outside the door during much of the argument presented by Washington Gas attorney Cathy Thurston-Seignious, was filled with favoritism. He recalled seeing someone from Washington Gas get up and walk out the door, then walk back in, while the Sierra Club’s representative was speaking.
“When the climate advocates wanted to get in, we were told ‘no, no, you’re not allowed to enter, because Washington Gas’s lawyer is speaking.’ [But] when a Washington Gas lobbyist wanted to go through the door twice while the Sierra Club attorney was speaking—that wasn’t a problem,” Rodeffer said. “So there definitely was a different standard.”
Spearheaded by the Washington Interfaith Network, the Sierra Club and the regional chapter of Interfaith Power and Light, the Beyond Gas DC coalition advocates for the D.C. region to switch from gas to electricity on the grounds that burning methane indoors poses serious risks for households’ health and the planet.
“Investment in pipe replacement, especially where it is not needed, across the city is a huge misdirection of ratepayer money,” said Naomi Cohen-Shields, the D.C. campaign coordinator at Chesapeake Climate Action Network. “It’s irresponsible, and it has extremely detrimental health and climate impacts.”
