Big Gas Users Protect Selves, Abandon Home Users

Pending Termination

by Steve Haner

Divide and conquer is an ancient tactic. Virginia’s residential natural gas customers were just divided from industrial and commercial users, and those big users then threw homeowners under the bus. Without blinking an eye.

House Bill 1257 had passed the House of Delegates on an almost party line vote, with two Democrats joining the 52 Republicans in support. As it passed it applied to all users of natural gas, whether supplied by municipal utilities or public service corporations, and also extended to certain propane customers.

It created a right to use gas, restricted local government authority to prevent it, and spelled out the steps any local government that owned a gas utility would have to take to get out of the business. But almost all of that disappeared in a puff of methane as a substitute to the bill appeared Tuesday afternoon in the Senate Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources Committee.

All the provisions dealing with the rights to use gas were stripped out. References to propane were stripped out. All that remained were the provisions protecting customers of a municipal provider, and those protections only apply to industrial or commercial users. A reference to “any class of customers” was stripped out.

The substitute is not posted yet but look at the House version and simply delete everything above line 48, and on line 49 replace “any class of customers” with industrial and commercial. From that point on the language is the same, it appears.

As I read it, as long as a city such as Richmond, which has made its plans to eliminate natural gas plain, maintains service to its industrial and commercial customers, its tens of thousands of residential customers are just one city council vote away from losing their gas service. And many reside outside the city in Hanover, Chesterfield and Henrico Counties.

Richmond is one of three local Virginia governments running a gas works, the others being Danville and Charlottesville.

The substitute was endorsed from the podium by the Virginia Manufacturers Association, the Virginia Chamber of Commerce and other large users. The representative of the propane dealers was left at the podium asking for confirmation that residential propane users were not protected any more, and Chairman Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax) replied: “You’re out of the bill.”

The patron of the bill, Delegate Terry Kilgore, R-Scott County, welcomed the substitute, apparently the work of one of the Richmond senators, Joe Morrissey (D). Kilgore assured Petersen he could get the gutted version approved by a majority in the full house and move the bill on to Governor Glenn Youngkin (R) for signature. Petersen, at least recognizing there might be an explosion out in the public, indicated he’d rather see the bill end up in a conference committee.

“Natural gas might be just a bit more important now than it was seven days ago,” he added.

Environmental lobbyists probably had not seen the substitute until the last minute, based on their reactions, but they warmed to it rapidly. You had the big users and those who consider natural gas a dangerous poison side by side in support. The Sierra Club called it “a much improved version of the bill,” adding that the bill is still a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

The problem that exists is a nationwide effort to stop anybody from using natural gas for anything, based on the mythical climate crisis. Earlier in the same meeting Tuesday, the Democrats on the committee killed House Bill 1267, an effort to reverse the 2021 bill that tied Virginia’s automotive industry to the emission standards of California. That is a move to eliminate all gasoline and diesel powered general use cars and trucks because of that same mythical climate crisis.

The death of House Bill 1257 was expected, although obviously some Democrats were at least a little concerned that major industries might abandon their Virginia facilities and take away tens of thousands of jobs. This tactic of splitting the issue, and abandoning of the millions of Virginians using gas and propane in their homes, or in businesses so small they don’t get commercial rates, was an unexpected twist.

The substitute bill could die now on the Senate floor. It could be rewritten yet again. If it makes it back over to the House of Delegates, that possible conference committee is a possible path back to a reasonable bill. But the division has been created and exploited.

The message to average consumers of energy in any form – electricity, natural gas, propane, gasoline – is that many major players roaming the halls of the General Assembly looking out for number one will simply leave you high and dry once their needs are taken care off. You are on your own.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

66 responses to “Big Gas Users Protect Selves, Abandon Home Users”

  1. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    Wow… and painful, you could not blame it solely on the enviro wackadoodles and worse, it was GOPpers and business folk!

    I presume, perhaps wrongly, that if Richmond or the other two want to get out of the gas business that it surely can be sold to some private-sector entity that wants to buy it, no?

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Can you spell pipelines?

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      The bill outlines that possibility, in fact still requires it, but as I read it, what Richmond could now do is maintain service to those two classes and cut it off for everyone else. Practical issues, but in theory it could do that.

  2. So, what’s next? Any chance of blocking the bill in the full Senate?

    Might Youngkin veto the bill?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      I say this in all honesty. I have no freaking idea what he or anybody around him thinks on this. I am totally in the dark. They don’t talk to me and I’ve stopped asking. But I didn’t see Dominion lifting a finger to stop an effort to force all homes to all electric.

      The bill probably dies now that I’ve put a tail on it. They could at least restore residential consumers to the portion they left largely intact. The broad, statewide parts of the bill are probably gone for good with the Green Wall in the Senate.

      1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        The “Green Wall” failed to stop the decommissioning of the “citizens” panels that changed DEQ decisions.

  3. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    The concept of ” a right to” for consumers, perhaps along the lines of “a right to internet’ or a ‘right to water/sewer” or a “right to natural gas”(where it’s currently not provided) , etc. Seems a bit antithetical to a market with providers who decide where they will offer service. Providers can pull out of markets also and sometimes do but no law will force them to provide services and even if they did, what would be the enforcement mechanism?

  4. David Wojick Avatar
    David Wojick

    Surely it would be political suicide to shut off the gas to thousands of homes that heat with it, all in one district.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      If the service can be provided – at a profit – some investor group will do the deed.

      It’s not so much as a “right to gas” as a “right to affordable gas”. 😉

      1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        Once again, I must ask. Have you ever heard of the Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley pipelines?

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Yes, of course. What does that have to do with Municipal gas works and a ‘right to gas’?

          Do you have ANY idea of how many pipelines there are right now as well as how many have been approved?

          I am NOT with the folks that want to stop using gas but at the same time , it’s like any other for-profit venture. There is no “right” to gas anymore or less than there is a “right” to say, flood insurance.

          If a company does not want to offer flood insurance OR gas , then they are free to exit that market and it will be up to other companies to decide if they want to step in ……. or not.

          Many former municipal providers of town-based electricity – left that market and it was taken over by other providers which is likely what will happen to municipal gas providers.

          1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            This whole discussion is about allocating scarcity. The reason gas is scarce in Virginia is the abandonment of the Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley pipelines under pressure from the limitless court battles and Virginia’s “citizen” panels that reversed DEQ decisions. The GA has just approved a law to take the citizen panels out of the permits loop. But we do not have the pipelines.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Do we have any evidence that we are short of gas in Virginia?

            Also, both pipelines sought to cross property they do not own, including Federal without following the rules and they got caught on it by the opponents.

            but none of this has much to do with Richmond and it’s municipal gas works. One might presume, absent any data to the contrary that they do have gas already coming through existing pipelines.

          3. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            Do you think that investors spend billions to fulfill a need for gas that was not present? Were they that bad a set of business people?

            Answer: No, not really. Large users, including the Navy, in Hampton Roads are cut back on their deliveries of natural gas during times of highest usage and have been for years. And it is impossible to expand the business or residential use of natural gas under the current conditions. It continues to slowly bring the economy to a halt.

            Virginia Natural Gas is so desperate for additional gas that it is exploring capturing methane from hog farms in North Carolina and piping it to Hampton Roads. But there is that word again, piping.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I take your point but again if that is true then why wouldn’t investors take over the Richmond gas works which is already supplied by existing pipelines?

            So why would we need a ‘right to gas’ law?

            the ACP and MWP ran afoul of laws that pertain to pipelines crossing Federal lands that have to meet stringent standards to mitigate impacts. They tried (with Federal agency help) to skirt those laws (in the interests of saving money) and the opponents caught them at it.

            if they had chosen to NOT go across Federal lands , they could not be taken to Federal court. In other words, in order to be vulnerable to Federal lawsuits, they have to affected Federal resources and/or violate Federal laws with regard to pipelines.

            There are thousands of pipelines in the US with new ones being approved and built – all the time, but most of them steer around Federal lands.

          5. James C. Sherlock Avatar
            James C. Sherlock

            “They tried (with Federal agency help) to skirt those laws (in the interests of saving money) and the opponents caught them at it.”

            That was certainly the finding of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. But since they got an Obama-appointed majority, they have never seen a case against a federal approval process that approved a pipeline that they have thought was sufficiently rigorous. And never will. They have defined, for example, their own version of the Endangered Species Act that can never be satisfied by any development. You, like the court, have accused the federal Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of misfeasance.

            You offer that they did that “in the interests of saving money”. It is your privilege to go with that, but you may wish to reexamine whether that meets the test of common sense.

            On your other point, you are not correct. Pipelines can be taken to federal court if the plaintiff pleads that federal laws were broken. It has nothing to do with federal lands.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            the other point: ” In other words, in order to be vulnerable to Federal lawsuits, they have to affected Federal resources and/or violate Federal laws with regard to pipelines.”

            notice the “and/or”.

            how many pipelines make it through the approval process WITHOUT running afoul of these issues?

            Finally, do a GOOGLE search: ” shortage of natural gas in Virginia” and let me know what you see. I can’t find any!

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Well, if Richmond City Council cuts me off out here in Henrico County, what can I do? I cannot vote them out. Likewise Chesterfield and Hanover. By stripping out the other language, this is now about just those three local city gas companies. And the residential customers remain unprotected.

      1. David Wojick Avatar
        David Wojick

        The scandal would be horrendous. National news!

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Hook to NordStream…

        In Russia, culture cancels you!

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Won’t be the first time… MV Lacona(sp). I’ll check my notes, and get back to you.

        Lucona Apprently, my notes are in good shape. Know David.

      2. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
        energyNOW_Fan

        …saw that too…back in 2012 Hurricane Sandy a number of Fiskar Karma EVs and some Plug-in Prius caught on fire on the docks in North Jersey when they got flooded with sea water. Salt water + EVs is not too good

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          Felicity Ace is a lovely example of why they don’t like lithium ion batteries on planes.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            They don’t like lithium batteries on plane because Boeing already had one burst into flame. Some sort of dual battery hookup with an effed up charger. Been fix. Pilots hate fires, especially in the cockpit, more especially between their legs.

            Renogy makes a double walled “smart” lithium battery designed to communicate over the power cables with one another to automatically balance charging and loads in multiple battery hookups.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “They don’t like lithium batteries on plane because Boeing already had one burst into flame”

            You don’t say…

            Charging issues are only one of the common factors that cause Lithium batteries to catch fire.

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            “The Federal Aviation Administration decided on April 19, 2013, to allow U.S. Dreamliners to return to service after changes were made to better contain fires within their battery systems.[57] Japanese authorities announced they were doing the same for their airplanes.”

            Not catching fire would be better than just containing, but even if they never catch fire, knowing they designed to contain it would be more comforting if it was Rev 1.0.

    1. John Harvie Avatar
      John Harvie

      So we go to Europe for a charge? Did you even look at the map??? Guess not.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        You may.

  5. James C. Sherlock Avatar
    James C. Sherlock

    Thanks for the analysis, Steve. Turns out that the killing of the Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley pipelines have a real cost. Who knew? Did the left on here?

  6. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    For your amusement… he carried a 70-pound movie camera aloft on his back….
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9tuTKhqWZso&noapp=1

  7. Lefty665 Avatar
    Lefty665

    So much for my hopes that a divided ledge would keep any of them from doing their worst. I never dreamed that the greens and the repubs would get into bed together to screw the rest of us. Strange bedfellows indeed.

  8. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    Hey Haner! A whopping $4.3 Billion bid for offshore wind lease rights (NY/NJ coast). Investors are lining up!!

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Of course, and eventually all that cost flows to whom? We subsidize with tax bennies and then pay the bill direct. Thanks for underlining my argument about the wave of higher costs building off our coast.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        We will be fully converted to reliable renewable (and independent) energy in 20 years and you will still be there shouting “it will never work!!”. Alas… That $4.3B is a huge vote of confidence!!

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          well depending… it might be on his gravestone! 😉

    2. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      Fools and their money are soon parted. Transmission line loss for offshore wind would render it unreliable. Not to mention without adequate battery storage, service will not be provided round the clock.

      Using the setup you describe to have, the only way you can function during nights and days without sun is through the grid. You’re only offsetting the cost, you’re still using the grid.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        It is true that I use the grid. No argument there. I never wanted to go off the grid. You may be right about a fool and his money – only time will tell. I suspect the likes of Shell though did their due diligence before offering up $750M for their lease,

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          “I suspect the likes of Shell though did their due diligence before offering up $750M for their lease,”

          I would think it was more a ROI, what is the likelihood they would be granted the rights to drill in that area vs selling it for a current windfall. It’s an easy sell when you’re getting a healthy profit now for something you aren’t sure if you’ll ever turn a profit on.

          Wind and Solar unless battery tech greatly advances will never be viable option, especially if we push to EV’s which will burden our grid even more. Not that they shouldn’t be employed, but it’s a fools errand to place all the load on those techs (which was further illustrated following the storm that had power out in parts of VA for a week plus).

          1. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            Maybe Dominion will use all that extra money they’ll make selling power to charge EVs to better maintain and upgrade their infrastructure.

            And maybe politicians will stop lying.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Yeah, the likelihood that they’ll put any money back into their Infrusture is slim to none, leaning heavily towards the none.

          3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            No, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Shell (Shell has a renewables energy division these days) teamed with EDF (as the JV Atlantic Shores) to place a winning bid on one of the NJ-NY offshore wind lease areas offered by BOEM. Their bid was $750 million and it won them the rights to develop an offshore wind generation project in that lease area. Assumably Shell did some due diligence on the topic before putting up that kind of money.

            Hopefully this is a bit clearer as my first attempt was poorly worded.

          4. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            You’re correct I misunderstood what you were saying. Thank you for the clarification.

            Perhaps, perhaps not. The lease did come following their acquisition of Savion. It also has to fulfill its pledge to investor and governments of net-zero by 2050.

            https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Shell-gets-OK-to-proceed-with-offshore-wind-16730911.php#:~:text=A%20joint%20offshore%20wind%20venture,expected%20to%20generate%20400%20megawatts.

          5. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Yes, they are definitely shifting hard to renewables. This is the second lease they have secured off the coast of NY-NJ and the Shell/EDF JV in Massachusetts is Mayflower Wind – I think they have a lease there as well. They are developing biogas projects in the west and midwest and also own Silicon Ranch. I think they will have to develop carbon capture projects though because they still hold a large number of oil resources worldwide. An amazing shift though to be sure.

          6. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            The larger question being, is this at the cost of reliability for the customers.

          7. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            As I understand, Atlantic Shores will only be responsible for generation and will transfer to Edison (maybe other utilities) at the shore facilities. They are then responsible for grid reliability.

          8. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            re: ‘ and will transfer to Edison (maybe other utilities) at the shore facilities. They are then responsible for grid reliability.”

            That’s a pretty salient point in general IMHO with respect to any/all sources of generation (including renewables) versus who is responsible (and often separate) for operations and maintaining the grid and it’s reliability (perhaps per PJM in it’s region).

            If wind/solar is not available, the grid operators will buy power that is available that may well be generated from non-renewable sources.

          9. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Or eventually will be converting wind/solar during off peak times to hydrogen (and/or other storage media) to generate power when renewables are down. Nuclear and hydroelectric will also be there to provide a reliable base load. Will it work…?? We will know in some 25 years…

          10. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            If Edison can’t get a reliable supply and Atlantic Shore have forgone all other reliable methods of generation. They won’t be supplying much.

            Again, I’m not against diversity in Energy Generation, I’m against foisting unreliable means of generation for the sake of virtue signaling. People weren’t forced from candle and kerosene for light when Electricity was developed.

          11. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Atlantic Shores will only be providing offshore wind generated power… I have not looked into Edison’s plans to decarbonize (assuming they have one) nor how they will handle grid reliability in their (again I am assuming here) upcoming transition.

          12. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            As long as the consumer is provided a reliable and cost effective means of electricity I can not.

            Necessity is the mother invention as they say.

    3. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
      energyNOW_Fan

      Sure why not the US utility system is considered zero-risk investment because it is monopoly and rate payers have to pay up

  9. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    Hey Haner! A whopping $4.3 Billion bid for offshore wind lease rights (NY/NJ coast). Investors are lining up!!

  10. David Wojick Avatar
    David Wojick

    If they shut every home’s gas off, it might support a contingent fee class action suit for damages. It is not like Walmart closing a store. This is a regulated monopoly providing an essential service under the law. There should be a legal obligation to do so.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      They should sue the “nonprofits” that tie up pipelines in court until the investors can no longer stand that pain of the increased costs.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      You mean like an insurance company that bails when the losses get too big?

  11. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    Can Fairfax be far behind?

  12. Moderate Avatar
    Moderate

    Does anyone know why Richmond wants out of the gas business? Are the pipes they’re using in such bad shape they need to be replaced and Richmond can’t afford it? Is there a shortage of gas? (I doubt it). The answers will affect who might/might not be willing to take over the business and whether affordable gas is still possible there.

    Industry taking care of itself and abandoning consumers, dumping on us, is nothing new. Happens regularly in Virginia.

    Stephen Haner: Might Henrico – or Chesterfield take over the business if it’s viable but Richmond just doesn’t want to fool with it?

    That committee meeting was a zoo!

  13. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    Haner, check out HB558 and SB565 … biogas and hydrogen, baby!!

    1. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      SN 585 is Virginia retirement System
      HB 558 is Environmental Health regarding sewage.

      Edit: I was incorrect, there was a previous bill 558 that was sewage related.

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Big thumbs and/or autocorrect – not sure which… bill numbers have been corrected.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          Understandable, I was incorrect on the 558. There was a bill passed in 2016 with that same number regarding sewage.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            My poking at Haner aside, this is really central to Washington Gas’ plans to use their infrastructure (in partnership with Dominion) as storage for generation purposes when renewables are off line. They allude (pretty directly actually) to this in their decarbonization plan. It gives Washington Gas a real growth future at a time when electrification is the overriding trend…

  14. Merchantseamen Avatar
    Merchantseamen

    My part of the state GAS supplies NG to industrial users at a discount. With that being said VERY cold weather and a NG shortage their supply is reduced first if not completely shut off. They industrial users have small alternate fuel oil plants to keep things running maybe not at full production but not shut them down.

    “Delegate Terry Kilgore, R-Scott County, welcomed the substitute,
    apparently the work of one of the Richmond senators, Joe Morrissey (D).
    Kilgore assured Petersen he could get the gutted version approved by a
    majority in the full house and move the bill on to Governor Glenn
    Youngkin (R) for signature. Petersen, at least recognizing there might
    be an explosion out in the public, indicated he’d rather see the bill
    end up in a conference committee.”

    Like I always said follow the money. These guys are not doing to make themselves feel good or the environment.

Leave a Reply