DC’s Public Service Commission (PSC) has aligned with the corporate overseers of the city’s energy grid, Washington Gas!

After being hit twice in a month with distinct demands for action in addressing the disastrous infrastructure revitalization effort, PROJECTpipes, the Commission approved a one-year extension for the project’s Phase 2 (“Pipes 2”). Save for the good sense of Commissioner Beverly in his dissent, the PSC has shown their true, corporatist, environmentally irresponsible colors, even in the face of opposition from the vast majority of Council members and the Office of the People’s Counsel (OPC).

The region’s natural gas monopoly is undertaking PROJECTpipes with aim to replace DC’s gas pipelines. Through this effort, proponents of the project dare to ask, “What if we invested $4.5 billion in the dilapidated energy system that is burdening DC’s poorest residents, exacerbating climate chaos, and causing explosions?” 

Just about 10 years into its 40-year projected timeline, PROJECTpipes has drawn ire for its exorbitant cost and direct obstruction of DC climate goals. Like so many infrastructure and development projects led by corporations before it, PROJECTpipes reinforced the city’s prioritization of profit over people, industry access and free rein over community wellbeing. After at least half a decade of opposition from an alliance including the Sierra Club DC’s BeyondGas subcommittee, Extinction Rebellion DC, Washington Interfaith Network, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network and various community members, the city’s bureaucratic institutions are joining the offensive. 

---

In 2014, Washington Gas Light Company, the natural gas public utility “serving” over one million residents in the metro DC area, launched a 40-year pipeline replacement program consisting of three phases. The utility’s purported aim is to modernize (replace) the city’s roughly 1,200 miles of antiquated natural gas piping with an added bonus of locking DC into additional decades of fossil fuel energy reliance. The project is rubberstamped by the PSC with a projected cost of  $3 to $4.5 billion to be footed by ratepayers. 

Investing multiple billions into a fossil fuel infrastructure revitalization project is a curious decision while so-called climate champions in the city government proffer lofty promises of reaching DC’s 2045 carbon neutrality goal. By continuing with Pipes 2, the PSC succumbs to the sunken cost fallacy: Rather than cutting the city’s losses, acknowledging that we cannot go on burning fossil fuels for energy, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and misallocating funding necessary for DC’s renewable energy transition, the Commission throws its hands up in the air and responds "but the project has already come so far!"

On top of the financial and climatic burden posed by PROJECTpipes, it is unnecessarily costly. Addressing leaking pipelines, part of the infrastructure facelift Washington Gas claims is so critical, can be done by repairing damaged pipelines as needed. Case-by-case repairs cost a fraction – one-twenty-fifth, on average – of the cost of a total pipeline replacement.

The financial burden of this vanity project will not be distributed evenly. Ratepayers are expected to front the majority of the bill through surcharges on their monthly gas bills, though the demographic of gas consumers is changing. The impending third phase would impose $672 million in surcharges onto customers. As public awareness about the dangers of indoor gas ranges spreads, the remaining gas-burning DC populace will comprise of those who cannot afford electrification, even amid federal incentives for home electrification.

At the very least, we can breathe easily knowing that at the expense of our climate progress and low-income ratepayers’ financial stability, the high risk of gas leaks will finally be mitigated by the execution of PROJECTpipes. We wouldn’t have thought that the sacrifice needed for our protection from gas poisoning would have to be so great, but hey, we’ll take it. 

Except that there have been more leaks since the project began! Gas leaks are categorized into Grades 1-3 based on potential hazard to humans and property, with 1 being the most severe. The number of Grade 1 leaks in DC in 2014 was fewer than 700; it was over 1,000 in 2019 and over 900 in 2022! 

You may be asking: What do we have to show for this costly, irresponsible project? Continued concentration of influence and capital in the hands of fossil fuel executives and capital investment firms – that’s what. Washington Gas is currently owned by WGL Holdings, a publicly traded subsidiary of AltaGas, a Canadian gas and petroleum conglomerate.

---

On February 8, a letter led by Councilmember Charles Allen and signed by 10 of the 13 sitting councilmembers, was delivered to the PSC, the independent agency tasked with regulating the electric, natural gas, and telephone companies in the District. The letter reminds the PSC of their responsibility to consider the “effects on global climate change and the District's public climate commitments” as per the Clean Energy DC Omnibus Amendment Act of 2018. The Climate Commitment Amendment Act of 2022 mandates a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions on par with carbon neutrality by 2045 and onward, the letter also notes. While the PSC still moved to approve Pipes 2, community climate advocates and Councilmember Allen held a press conference at the beginning of March to condemn the move, a strong show of force from the groups most attuned to Washington Gas’ manipulation of the city bureaucracy.

Additionally, on February 13, the OPC, an independent agency that advocates for telecom and energy consumers, filed a petition to the PSC calling for an investigation into PROJECTpipes on the grounds of increased leak events and budget and expenditure misalignment.

Despite the PSC’s recent siding with Washington Gas, the Council has begun a promising confrontation with the utility giant and has the OPC and community activists behind it. Continued pressure from a united Council could move the needle, creating other avenues for opposition to the project. But environmental justice initiatives have often taken a backseat on the campaign trail — but positioning on the issue may act as a signal to voters on the deeper allegiances of their candidates. Will newcomers take the initiative to break up the corporate plot that is stealing from residents and poisoning our city? And will confronting powerful polluters and standing for environmental justice become a litmus test carried out by working class voters in the District?