This story was originally published on Slate, and is now part of the Climate Desk Collaboration. The winter of 1917-1918 was a difficult one for the gas companies. Gas companies claimed that in 1917, more than 300 New Yorkers had died from household gas leaks. They attributed this to their own negligence. But not everyone was convinced.
This article, which is a part of the Climate Desk collaboration, was first published by Slate.
The gas industry experienced a difficult winter between 1917 and 1918. The gas companies claimed that more than 300 New Yorkers had died from household gas leaks that year as a result of their personal negligence. But not all of them were persuaded. Customers reported more than a thousand complaints about gas quality and pressure, as well as rate increases, unfair access, and contradictory delivery.
The American Gas Association was established in June 1918, during these conflicts. The industry-wide trade group, which was founded by producers of appliances and gas utilities, immediately suggested an advertising division. Better information, according to the case, would help dispel “unjustified criticism.”
The majority of investor-owned gas utilities in the United States, as well as many officially owned ones, are now Friend members, and the trade group has worked to reduce the frequency of gas poisonings. The group notes that coordinating safety initiatives across American utilities is one of its top priorities. However, over the past 100 years, the AGA has also devoted a lot of money to marketing concepts like “gas is better for cooking, gas stoves do n’t have much of an impact on health,” and “natural gas is an important tool for climate change” in collaboration with its members and other industry trade groups.
Over the past year, that marketing has become more pertinent as the discussion surrounding gas stoves has gained momentum. In case you need a refresher, consider this: A study conducted in December by the National Cancer Institute and the Rocky Mountain Institute found that gas stoves are approximately as risky for childhood asthma as secondhand smoke exposure. Soon after, a US Consumer Product Safety Commission commissioner stated in an interview that “products that cannot be made safe can be banned.” The commission chair later clarified that while the commission was not calling for a ban on gas stoves, the mere mention of one was enough to incite widespread “do n’t touch my kitchen” outrage, and the situation quickly spiraled out of control. ( Including, among other things, the passage of the” Gas Stove Protection and Freedom Act” by the House. )
AGA member utilities supply gas to 96 % of British gas customers.
A very obvious truth—that gas is certainly the best option for our health, and it’s especially bad for the planet—has been distorted very well by the entire culture-war mess. Delegates at the UN’s COP28 conference only last week agreed to move away from fossil fuels like gas by 2050. They did n’t agree on every detail, but the International Energy Agency estimates that by 2050, demand for natural gas must decrease by more than half in order to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius. The IEA’s strategy for getting that presupposes a shift away from household gas, which is essential to the business model of gas utilities—the really model that gas trade organizations like the AGA are charged with safeguarding.
On the surface, there is nothing amazing about the AGA’s efforts because trade groups, of course, have an impact on public opinion and legislation in almost every industry. Consumers can choose not to support brands they disagree with, but it is more difficult to stop paying your gas bills. Some Americans may not be aware that a portion of ratepayer fees are frequently used to support energy trade organizations, so if you use gas to heat your home or cook, your bills may be supporting initiatives to maintain higher gas demand.
To comprehend how, let’s go back a step. 95 percent of American gas customers purchase their fuel from AGA-affiliated utilities, according to the organization. These utilities have ratepayers, captive customers who find it difficult to find gas elsewhere, as well as shareholders—either exclusive investors or the general public. US utilities are intended to serve the public interest as regulated monopolies ( possibly… a livable planet? ). As a result, they are unable to legally use ratepayer funds for particular lobbying strategies and must rather use shareholder funds. However, they can and do use utility bill revenue for another strategies intended to keep their market share in the natural gas sector.
They accomplish this in part by making payments to the AGA. The AGA has recently boasted about 200 members and annual budgets ranging from$ 30 to$ 60 million. Among its another strategies, it has funded research to cast doubt on the health and economic effects of its product, hired influencers to wax poetic about #cookingwithgas, and opposed local legislation that would restrict gas hookups in new developments.
Rulemaking is one of the AGA’s most significant areas of influence because it is a complex but high-stakes process used by government agencies to control everything from Energy Star labels to clean air. For instance, the AGA claimed in May that new energy efficiency standards were stacked against gas stoves, cutting hairs over the amount of water and pan diameters. These seemingly insignificant details have an impact on consumer behavior and the AGA’s comments on numerous other regulations that are very similar. The group expressed concern over how the national pipeline regulator was “prioritizing climate concerns to be on par with pipeline safety” in an argument against “advanced leak detection” for pipeline leaks in August.
Similar efforts have been made by the AGA to sway legislation. Nearby gas company PR campaigns were noted to be experiencing a “leadership gap” at the time in AGA meeting minutes from 2020, which were obtained by the Climate Investigations Center and recently reported by Vox and NPR. The trade association pledged to strengthen its coordination function. It even credited Arizona’s legislation, which forbade local governments from outlawing gas hookups in new construction. Anti-gas ban legislation has since been approved in 20 states. The AGA jumped into action earlier this year when gas stoves appeared in the news. Among another responses, the group hired a scientist to comment on an American Medical Association resolution that urged doctors to inform their patients about the health risks associated with gas heaters.
By emphasizing the negative effects of different fuels on human health and the environment while ignoring those of gas, the gas lobby uses one of its strategies to “greenwash” natural gas. Natural gas is referred to by the AGA as” the earth’s cleanest standard fuel” and is therefore superior to coal and oil. In a recent lawsuit, the state of California claimed that related” clear or cleaner” framing constituted misleading advertising. However, natural gas, which is primarily methane, is “natural” in the same sense that coal is. Natural gas releases more planet-warming methane than coal, but it releases less carbon dioxide. Climate comparisons vary depending on the situation, such as the size and frequency of gas leaks. )
The AGA is hedging its bets as climate concerns threaten to push momentum aside from natural gas. In order to ensure that American gas will also have somewhere to go if local demand for gas declines, the organization has been busy promoting liquefied natural gas, or LNG, for export. On the domestic front, it encourages possible lower-carbon alternatives that might still be able to pass through the pipes owned by AGA members. Among them are hydrogen and “renewable natural gas” ( biomethane from manure and landfill waste ). Both provide the justification for continuing to invest in gas infrastructure, as well as a sociable license. Both, however, have limitations: RNG can just replace a small amount of natural gas, and hydrogen is nonetheless impractical at scale. Both can emit a variety of greenhouse gases, depending on how they are made.
Utilities have been using captive ratepayers ‘ money to finance trade associations ‘ political activities for far too long.
Collectively, the AGA’s efforts have contributed to the preservation of gas stoves in homes, and the demand for gas has slowed a crucial path to climate change. To be honest, many climate experts do think that natural gas is also required, but not in the primary residential and commercial communities that AGA members serve. Natural gas should preferably be saved for things like jet fuel and cargo ship fuel, which are more difficult to power with renewable energy sources, according to Tina Swanson, a visiting scholar with the climate policy group Project Drawdown. ( Admittedly, #cookingwithgas is clunkier than #cargoshippingwithg ).
Utilities have, for the most part, supported their trade group throughout all of this. However, Eversource Energy dropped its membership in August to prioritize decarbonization, or to become less dependent on gas, according to WBUR Boston, marking the first time a common utility had left the American Gas Association. Tricia Taskey Modifica, a spokesman for Eversource, informed me that the utility would otherwise divert its payments to other alliances that prioritized” a thoughtful transition to the future of clean energy.”
Economic organizations—as also as a few fresh energy companies—petitioned different utilities to leave after Eversource left, including Pacific Gas &, Electric, Oregon’s Avista energy corporation, and Puget Sound Energy Corporation in Washington. Although none of those utilities have listened to the cries of activists, Eversource continues to serve as an illustration of how things might be different.
The only way to keep ratepayer money out of gas PR budgets is to ask utilities to leave gas trade groups. There are laws in New York, Maine, Connecticut, and Colorado that forbid the funding of trade associations at all from utility bill revenue. Six senators requested that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission adopt their policies next year. They claimed that for too long, utilities have used money from captive ratepayers to finance the social activities of trade associations. Therefore, these trade associations push for legislation that often serves the interests of ratepayers. In the meantime, economic organizations have also requested that the FERC forbid ratepayer funding for PR that does not advance their interests. Additionally, nine states proposed requiring utilities to disclose how ratepayer money is spent by their trade associations. The FERC has pledged to take further action in 2024.
As a ratepayer, you can put pressure on your personal utility to leave the AGA or persuade your city to avoid including natural gas in its energy planning if you do not want your gas bills to fund gas PR. You may be eligible for a rebate if you choose to replace gas appliances with energy ones. If a stove or furnace cannot be replaced, you can at least cut down on your gas consumption. For example, electrical blankets, air fryers, toaster bakeries, and kettles make lovely holiday gifts. Electric trade associations can, of course, even act against the interests of their ratepayers.
A much more than a century ago, when the AGA first suggested its public relations division, it was astounded to learn that gas was so scarce that it required an admission fee to see it burn and was housed in an artifact museum. Gas wo n’t be sent back to museums anytime soon, even in optimistic energy transition scenarios. But there is a need to rapidly cut back on demand. We need one trade group fighting for a very different future more than one fighting to keep gas in homes.
Slate, New America, and Arizona State University have joined forces to create Potential Tense, a program that looks at society, emerging technologies. This article, which is a part of the Climate Desk collaboration, was first published by Slate. For the gas industry, the winter between 1917 and 1918 was a trying one. According to the gas companies, household gas leaks that year killed more than 300 New Yorkers as a result of their personal negligence. But not all of them were persuaded.
This story was originally published on Slate, and is now part of the Climate Desk Collaboration. The winter of 1917-1918 was a difficult one for the gas companies. Gas companies claimed that in 1917, more than 300 New Yorkers had died from household gas leaks. They attributed this to their own negligence. But not everyone was convinced.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/01/your-utility-bills-may-be-funding-the-gas-lobby/
