Testimony
of
Mark Rodeffer
Sierra Club DC Chapter
DC Council Committee on Business and Economic Development Public Roundtable
Emile Thompson Nomination to the Public Service Commission
Monday, March 8, 2021
Thank you, Councilmember McDuffie for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing on Mayor Bowser’s nomination of Emile Thompson to serve on the Public Service Commission. My name is Mark Rodeffer and I’m testifying on behalf of the Sierra Club, the nation’s oldest, largest, and most influential environmental advocacy group. We have 3,000 dues-paying members in DC, including many in Ward 5.
We thank you also, Councilmember McDuffie, for scheduling today’s hearing with almost three weeks' notice, providing stakeholders ample time to prepare.
DC’s Climate Commitments
The Clean Energy DC Omnibus Act of 2018, which you, Councilmember McDuffie, shepherded through this committee, requires the Commission to take on the mantle of climate leadership and ensure that DC’s climate commitments of 50 percent greenhouse gas reduction by 2032 and carbon neutrality by 2050 are met. DC’s climate commitments are outlined in the Clean Energy DC plan, which states: “Achieving its 2050 GHG carbon neutral target will require the District to eliminate fossil fuel use.”[1]
The District has made other significant climate commitments. DC has joined the C40 Cities Net Zero Carbon Building Commitment, which commits that new buildings in DC will operate at net-zero carbon by 2030 and that all buildings will operate at net-zero carbon by 2050.[2] This climate commitment is particularly important in the District of Columbia, because 73 percent of our greenhouse emissions come from buildings.[3] The Department of Energy and Environment has determined that to meet DC’s 2050 climate commitment, by 2040, 70 percent of DC’s homes must be fully electrified, with no fossil fuel combustion.[4]
The Current Commission
At last week’s oversight hearing on the Public Service Commission, Chairman Willie Phillips said: “There’s been a lot of talk about how a gas distribution company, by its very nature, is antithetical to [DC’s climate commitments]. The Commission does not have the authority to dis-enfranchise the gas company.”
We do not take issue with Chairman Phillips’ statement that the Commission lacks the legal authority to deprive a utility company of the right to operate a business. The Sierra Club has never made such a request of the Commission, and we are not aware of anyone else doing so. Our request is that the Commission require AltaGas to do what it said it would do when the Commission allowed AltaGas to buy DC’s gas utility: to “evolve its business model to support and serve the District’s 2050 climate goals.”[5]
The gas company that AltaGas bought in 2018 is named WGL, which stands for Washington Gas Light. When the company was founded in 1848, its business was providing street lighting with gas. But WGL evolved its business from providing lighting to providing heat for buildings. And it can evolve its business model again, continuing to provide building heating through sustainable means, such as clean energy micro-district heating systems using geothermal energy, industrial-scale heat pumps, and sewage waste heat extraction.
But the Commission has not required AltaGas to ensure that its business model is consistent with DC’s climate commitments. In fact, when AltaGas filed a business plan that claimed it would meet DC’s commitment to end fossil fuel combustion with continued sale of fossil fuels, the Commission declined to “approve or reject” the failed plan.[6] Additionally, despite DC’s climate commitment to phase out fossil fuels, the Commission has granted AltaGas the right to charge DC ratepayers $150 million over the next three years to replace a few miles of fossil fuel pipelines.[7] This just a downpayment on the AltaGas plan for a multi-decade, multi-billion dollar raid on DC ratepayers.
The Future Commission?
The question before this Committee today is whether the Public Service Commission should continue business as usual, with its limited view of its ability to reduce the emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause climate change and threaten the District, or whether this Committee wants proactive leadership from the Commission that will ensure DC meets its climate commitments.
We ask that each member of this committee make a determination of whether the nominee has a climate vision to ensure that that DC transitions to 100 percent clean energy or whether he would continue business as usual. And we ask you to vote on his nomination accordingly.
We look forward to the nominee’s answers to your questions.
[1] DOEE, Clean Energy DC, page 156, August 2018.
[2] C40 Cities, 19 Global Cities Commit to Make New Buildings “Net-Zero Carbon” by 2030, August 23 2018.
[3] DOEE, Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 2018.
[4] DOEE, Carbon Free DC 2050, September 21, 2020.
[5] DCPSC, Formal Case No. 1142, In The Matter of the Merger Of AltaGas and WGL, Order No. 19396, June 29, 2018.
[6] DCPSC, Formal Case No. 1142, In the Matter of the Merger of AltaGas and WGL, Order 20662, November 18, 2020.
[7] DCPSC, Formal Case No. 1154, In The Matter Of Washington Gas Light Company’s Application For Approval Of Project Pipes 2 Plan, Order No. 20671, December 11, 2020.