A Texas city had a bold new climate plan – until a gas company got involved | US news

When the city of Austin drafted a plan to shift away from fossil fuels, the native gas company was quick on the scene to attempt to reduce the ambition of the hassle.

Like many cities throughout the US, the quickly increasing and gentrifying Texas city is trying to shrink its climate footprint. So its preliminary plan was to nearly remove gas use in new buildings by 2030 and present ones by 2040. Houses and companies must run on electrical energy and cease utilizing gas for warmth, scorching water and stoves.


The proposal, an existential risk to the gas {industry}, rapidly caught the eye of Texas Gas Service. The company drafted line-by-line revisions to weaken the plan, requested clients to oppose it and escalated its issues to high city officers.

In its advised edits, the company struck references to “electrification”, and changed them with “decarbonization”– a coverage that wouldn’t rule out gas. It changed “electrical autos” with “various gasoline autos”, which might run on compressed pure gas. It provided to assist the city to plant extra bushes to soak up climate air pollution and to discover applied sciences to tug carbon dioxide out of the air – each of which could assist it to maintain burning gas.


These proposed revisions have been obtained by Floodlight, the Texas Observer and San Antonio Report via public data of communications between city officers and the company.

The strikes have up to now confirmed a success for Texas Gas. Essentially the most not too long ago printed draft of the climate plan provides the company far more time to promote gas to present clients, and it permits it to offset climate emissions as an alternative of eliminating them. The city, nonetheless, is revisiting the plan after a backlash to the industry-secured modifications.

The lobbying in Austin just isn’t distinctive. It echoes how an electrical energy and gas company spent a whole bunch of 1000’s of {dollars} scaling again San Antonio’s climate ambitions by funding the city’s plan-writing course of, changing teachers with its most well-liked consultants and writing its personal “Versatile Path” that might let it hold polluting.

The American Gas Affiliation in a assertion for this story mentioned it “will completely oppose any effort to ban pure gas or sideline our infrastructure anyplace the hassle materializes, state home or city steps”. However it argued that place is “not counter to environmental objectives all of us share”, and mentioned “pure gas is vital to attaining the cleaner power future all of us need”.

Texas’s reliance on gas was on show in mid-February when greater than 4m households misplaced energy for days after a freak winter storm battered the state. Gas energy vegetation dominate the Texas grid, offering 47% of the state’s electrical energy. Lots of these vegetation and the pure gas pipelines resulting in them failed within the chilly situations.

Greater than a third of Texas households additionally depend on gas for warmth. Competitors for gas-fueled energy and warmth pressured costs to surge as excessive as 16,000%, one energy company mentioned. Utilities now face large payments from their gas suppliers – and lots of are passing the prices on to clients within the type of sky-high payments.

The CEO of Comstock Assets, a gas company owned by the billionaire Dallas Cowboys proprietor, Jerry Jones, described the gas {industry} windfall as “hitting the jackpot” in an earnings name.

A nationwide battle goes native

The gas {industry} is battling climate change reforms in cities across the US – with help from Republican politicians.

In Texas, lawmakers have launched two bills that might prohibit native governments from banning gas connections. “There hasn’t been a city essentially that has banned pure gas but, however we’ve whispers from the Austin city council, the city of Houston, even smaller cities,” mentioned Jeff Carlson, the chief of workers for Consultant Cody Harris, who launched one of the bills.

climate pollution

Four different state legislatures handed comparable legal guidelines final yr, and 12 extra have seen proposals for them in 2021. The gas foyer, the American Gas Affiliation, has said it isn’t actively coordinating help or lobbying for state legal guidelines to ban gas bans, however its inside data point out a totally different story.

“We’re more and more lively within the States,” the affiliation’s president, Karen Harbert, mentioned in a November letter to members explaining how the group spent membership dues in 2020. She mentioned the affiliation is collaborating in a number of “Professional Pure Gas Coalitions” to convey allies collectively.

“Over the course of the yr, laws preserving power selection for patrons handed in Arizona, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Tennessee,” Harbert mentioned.


One other inside affiliation e mail in February 2020 reveals the senior director of state affairs, Daniel Lapato, asking a publicly-owned gas utility to again the Tennessee invoice that finally handed.


The gas burned in buildings causes about 12% of US climate air pollution, in line with the Environmental Safety Company. Cities are attempting to shrink these heat-trapping emissions with constructing codes and mandates to modify from gas to electrical home equipment.

In Texas, they might have a important influence. Texas burns way more gas than another state, 14.9% of the US complete.

Gas is affordable, and affordability is a main concern in Austin, the place households and other people of coloration proceed to get priced out of the fast-growing city.

Besides, Austinites don’t essentially need gas, mentioned Chelsea Gomez, a group ambassador who consulted on the city plan. “Whenever you discuss to folks, they don’t need pure gas as a center man to a sustainable future – they need photo voltaic panels to be inexpensive for them,” mentioned Gomez. “Folks need higher [options].”

Burning gas indoors exposes folks to harmful pollution which can be linked with heart attacks, respiratory disease and asthma. One research discovered that youngsters in properties with gas stoves have been 42% more likely to have bronchial asthma than youngsters in properties with electrical stoves.

The fossil gasoline additionally has clear climate impacts. In Texas, the variety of days which can be 100F or hotter has greater than doubled over the previous 40 years and will double once more by 2036, in line with a study from the Texas state climatologist. Excessive rainfall and concrete flooding are growing, hurricanes are getting extra intense and the Gulf of Mexico is rising. Droughts and wildfires have gotten extra extreme.

These results have been what Austin was making an attempt to assist to restrict when Texas Gas Service got involved.

Instead of reducing its sales to customers, Texas Gas wanted to counterbalance its climate emissions with energy efficiency efforts and offsets. The company suggested the text in blue. Source: Emails obtained under public records laws.

As an alternative of lowering its gross sales to clients, Texas Gas wished to counterbalance its climate emissions with power effectivity efforts and offsets. The company advised the textual content in blue. Supply: Emails obtained below public data legal guidelines.

‘Crashing the celebration’

After one early assembly in June with the city’s climate program supervisor, Texas Gas’ regulatory affairs supervisor, Larry Graham, mentioned in an e mail to Austin’s climate program supervisor, Zach Baumer, that the proposal for all-electric new development had “gotten the eye of individuals on the highest stage of our company”. The city launched the inner emails, together with the draft variations of the plan, in response to a request for public data.

By July, staff of the company’s guardian company, One Gas, have been weighing in on the proposals from their headquarters in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

It was a stage of involvement that raised crimson flags amongst city staff.

Baumer later emailed Graham that his company was “form of crashing a celebration” when it attended assembly after assembly.

Nonetheless, the city officers listened to Texas Gas’ suggestions. The climate plan initially known as for fully eliminating pure gas use in all buildings by 2040. A few months after the gas company’s lobbying efforts, the city moved the goalposts: Solely 25 % of present buildings would wish to transition off gas by 2030, though all new buildings must be off gas by then too.

Texas Gas can be allowed to offset its air pollution, by buying credit for climate work elsewhere within the nation, upgrading leaky pipes and utilizing “renewable” gas from a wastewater therapy plant – efforts which environmental advocates mentioned weren’t sufficient.

An aerial view of homes, buildings and electrical lines running through an Austin neighborhood on 19 February.

An aerial view of properties, buildings and electrical traces operating via an Austin neighborhood on 19 February. {Photograph}: Joe Raedle/Getty Photos

The steering committee was incensed, in line with a handful of contributors interviewed. The members have been chosen from the group to deal with fairness and write an formidable plan, however the {industry} was already thwarting them.

Baumer mentioned he rapidly realized his mistake.

“All people was pissed at me. I had to name and apologize to folks as a result of we kind of gave into what Texas Gas wished,” Baumer mentioned. “I assumed I used to be making a compromise place. The individuals who have been a part of the plan didn’t assume that.”

Shane Johnson, the co-chair of the steering committee who works for the Sierra Membership, known as Texas Gas’ affect “unnerving”.

After environmental advocates balked on the revisions, the city agreed to revert again to the unique, extra aggressive objectives.

Texas Gas, when requested for remark, mentioned it was “invited to take part within the revisions to the Austin Climate Fairness Plan and [has] remained an engaged associate ever since”. The company mentioned it has participated in Austin climate initiatives since 2014 and shares the aspiration of lowering carbon emissions.

“We imagine that by working collectively we will enhance our group and create efficient, long-term methods that attain the city’s sustainability objectives in an equitable and inexpensive method for all residents,” Texas Gas mentioned.

In September, when the company gave the impression to be dropping the battle over the proposal, it despatched an e mail to clients claiming it might “severely” drive up prices and “threatens to remove the rights of individuals to decide on their supply of power”.

San Antonio

In San Antonio, native enterprise pursuits – from the city’s utility company to automotive dealerships – have been much more profitable in scrubbing language that known as for a full transition away from fossil fuels.

CPS Vitality, the city-owned utility that provides energy and gas to San Antonio, spent $650,000 to fund the climate planning course of and helped put its preferred consulting firm in charge as an alternative of school on the College of Texas at San Antonio.

As committees have been assembly in 2018, CPS Vitality leaders introduced they had already developed their very own plan for the approaching a long time, known as the “Flexible Path”. It known as for CPS Vitality to get half its power from wind and photo voltaic sources by 2040, whereas additionally persevering with to function its coal plant into the 2060s.

A draft plan in 2019 refused that method, however the utility saved pushing again. In April 2019, CPS CEO Paula Gold-Williams known as for an “in-depth value evaluation”. In a letter to San Antonio’s chief sustainability officer Doug Melnick, she suggested the draft can be too expensive for patrons and would possibly jeopardize grid reliability. She gained. The next draft in August 2019 adopted CPS’s “Versatile Path”. It didn’t try to deal with one severe flaw: the “Versatile Path” wouldn’t get San Antonio to its aim of being carbon impartial by 2050.

CPS didn’t reply to a request for remark by deadline.

In response to the lobbying, the city’s remaining plan watered down key emission objectives, changing particular methods to chop emissions with obscure and generally deceptive platitudes.

The climate activists did have some successes. They got the city to incorporate interim objectives – to chop climate air pollution 41% by 2030 and 71% by 2040 as checkpoints on the trail to carbon neutrality by 2050.

Greg Harman, a clear power advocate with the Sierra Membership who served on one of many climate plan committees, mentioned Texas’s popularity as hostile to climate motion is each earned and imposed on the state by the power {industry}. Like the remainder of the US, surveys present a majority of Texans imagine that climate change is actual and a trigger for concern.

“We’re a complicated and attention-grabbing state, we simply occur to have a lot of power assets,” Harman mentioned. “However the cynics are proper to be cynical.”

Show More

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Back to top button