Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

‘PR stunt’: how US utilities use housing non-profit partnerships to promote gas

News Feed
Tuesday, May 21, 2024

US gas utilities are partnering with one of the nation’s most trusted non-profits as part of a “cynical PR stunt” to combat efforts to curb fossil fuel usage, a Guardian investigation has found.Local Habitat for Humanity affiliates have teamed up with at least four utilities across 10 states to build “zero-net energy homes”, which are meant to produce more energy than they use.The houses, which are sold at affordable rates to low-income families, are weatherized and meticulously insulated to boost efficiency and equipped with rooftop solar panels. But they also come with appliances powered by gas, a planet-heating fossil fuel that has been shown to degrade indoor air quality.The utilities say the homes provide lower electricity bills and affordable mortgages for vulnerable families.“It’s part of our culture to really give back to the communities that we serve,” Jennifer Altieri, vice-president of public affairs for Atmos Energy’s Colorado-Kansas division, said in a video announcing the utility’s first Habitat home in Evans, Colorado, in September 2021, which was provided to a single mother and her children.Yet Atmos has privately described the project as something closer to a public relations tactic, intentionally launched in a state that is “on the frontlines” of attempts to quell reliance on gas.Atmos has since expanded the Habitat partnerships to seven communities, with plans to launch similar initiatives in at least two more. National Fuel in the north-east, SoCal Gas in southern California, and Nicor in Illinois have also partnered with Habitat on zero-net energy (ZNE) projects.Volunteers for Habitat for Humanity International work on a house in Nashville, Tennessee, in 2019. Photograph: Jason Asteros/APThe moves by utilities to attach themselves to social justice causes come as the US is embroiled in a broader political culture war over federal, state and local attempts to phase out gas and make new buildings electric.The projects by Atmos and others have won widespread praise from gas interest groups. An autumn 2022 feature in Southeast Gas’s magazine Natural Living says the Atmos-Habitat partnerships promote “healthy living”, and that same year, its Evans, Colorado, home was a finalist for an ESG award from the Southern Gas Association.“These ZNE homes demonstrate that natural gas is a part of the solution to achieve our low-carbon energy future,” the award submission says.Habitat for Humanity International has participated in international climate negotiations and says it prioritizes climate safety. In a statement, the non-profit said: “We know that innovation is required so future construction doesn’t exacerbate the climate crisis.”Habitat for Humanity says it helps millions of people access affordable homes each year who are often “among the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change”. But to do so, it relies on independent, locally run affiliates, which can decide how houses are built and funded.Asked about the perceived conflict between the gas utility partnerships and its climate-related statements, a spokesperson for the organization said the group’s affiliates “engage a wide range of partners”. The world is “facing a growing crisis in affordable, adequate housing” which requires “a multi-faceted challenge that demands non-profit organizations, individuals, corporate partners, elected officials and more to work alongside one another”, he said.A Habitat for Humanity construction site in Oakland, California, on 16 April 2010. Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty ImagesHe said Habitat’s advocacy and partnerships were “designed to confront the housing crisis and ensure more people have a decent place to call home”. But critics say those arrangements appear to have opened the door for gas utilities to attach themselves to the organization and its reputation.“It’s a cynical PR stunt by the gas utilities,” said Itai Vardi, research and communications manager at the utility watchdog group the Energy and Policy Institute, which provided some research about the partnerships to the Guardian. “We know that we need to transition very rapidly and dramatically off of fossil fuels, and there’s really no good reason to build new construction that is not all electric.”Zero-net energy homes“Zero-net energy” is a building standard requiring a home to produce as much energy as it uses. Builders first work to boost a home’s efficiency with insulation and air sealing, then equip the home with energy production capacity, such as solar panels.But efficient homes that still use gas should not be considered climate-friendly, said Mike Henchen, who leads the carbon-free buildings program at the pro-electrification non-profit RMI. “When it comes to climate, gas is part of the problem,” he said. “There’s this effort to hype natural gas as clean energy, but it’s not.”Gas is primarily composed of methane, a greenhouse gas 80 times more planet-warming than carbon dioxide in the short term.In the US, gas accounts for the vast majority of planet-heating pollution from buildings, which makes up more than one-10th of all US greenhouse gas emissions.The utilities say the projects illustrate that gas can be part of decarbonization efforts. Describing its Habitat partnerships to American Gas Magazine, a representative from the gas utility Nicor said: “These homes demonstrate the importance of natural gas as part of a diverse energy mix in a net-zero future.”Jennifer Golz, spokesperson for Nicor, said that “research shows a hybrid energy approach will help drive greater emissions reductions at lower overall costs” while improving reliability during extreme weather. A spokesperson for Atmos said: “We believe a balanced energy approach that includes natural gas and preserves energy choice, rather than supporting specific fuels or technologies, will achieve goals of reducing emissions while maintaining energy reliability.”But climate experts agree that gas must be swiftly curbed to avert climate catastrophe.Spokespeople from Atmos and Nicor did not directly respond to questions about that scientific consensus.In an emailed comment, a representative from Colorado’s Greeley-Weld Habitat affiliate said: “We have long constructed homes with a variety of energy sources, including natural gas and electricity.”Daniel Aldana Cohen, a co-director of the progressive thinktank Climate and Community Project, said the gas-powered ZNE projects made an unnecessary compromise: they tie access to affordable housing to increased planet-heating pollution.“The two great existential crises that most people face are eviction and climate breakdown, and the second one is making the first one worse,” said Aldana Cohen, whose research has informed federal Green New Deal for Public Housing proposals.Health concernsExperts have long warned that gas appliances can emit pollutants, including carcinogens. In recent years, a slew of studies have linked gas stoves to increased risk of childhood asthma, chronic lung disease and other health impacts.Low-income people and people of color may be at higher risk if exposed to these pollutants, as they are more likely to have asthma and other underlying respiratory issues due to disproportionate exposure to environmental contaminants.Gas trade groups note a recent World Health Organization-funded study found gas stoves had a non-significant impact on childhood asthma. The same study noted a connection between gas use and pneumonia and lower respiratory infections.Last year, US regulators suggested a potential eventual nationwide gas stove ban, though Biden later ruled out such a policy.A Nicor gas facility in Skokie, Illnois, in 2003. Photograph: Tim Boyle/Getty ImagesYet the utilities behind the partnerships have repeatedly referred to gas as “clean”. And during a dedication ceremony for a zero-net energy home built by a Habitat affiliate and Atmos in Lafayette, Louisiana, a representative from the utility claimed that the air quality in the home would be of “the best quality breathing air that you can have”.Spokespeople from Atmos and Nicor did not respond to inquiries about whether the ZNE homes included gas stoves. But an Atmos representative in a December 2023 industry webinar said there was “natural gas cooking in these homes, in every single one of them”.Asked about concerns that gas appliances can degrade indoor air quality, a representative for Atmos Energy directed the Guardian to claims made by the American Gas Association, a major trade group for private gas utilities.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionPublic relationsDespite evidence of the dangers of gas, utilities and their interest groups are using the Habitat partnerships as a public relations tool. The Energy Solutions Center, a trade association of gas utilities, cited the partnerships in a gas-promoting marketing document for its members, which was reviewed by the Guardian. (In an emailed statement, the executive director of Energy Solutions Center, Sonia Vahedian, pointed to recent studies that it said showed gas “remains essential for energy security and will significantly contribute to economic security beyond 2050”.)And during a December 2023 industry webinar, a recording of which was also reviewed by the Guardian, a representative from Atmos said that the project began as a response to attempts to ban gas in buildings.“In Colorado, they are a little bit on the frontlines, as far as some of the efforts to maybe dissuade people from utilizing natural gas,” a representative of the utility said. “And as such, that became the chosen site for our very first natural gas-fueled ZNE home build.”Another representative went on to describe the need to produce a “marketable” product. “Like everyone in the natural gas industry … we’ve kept an eye on the growing loud voice for green energy and squeezing out fossil fuels as an energy source,” he said, adding that the partnerships sought to show that “natural gas can be a part of that future solution or transition state”.The choice to “combine with renewables”, the representative says, is “kind of a great talking point that ‘hey, we’re partnering with renewables, we’re not against them.’”It’s a strategy that was highlighted in a congressional report last month, based on a tranche of subpoenaed internal documents. A 2018 draft presentation from BP said one way to “harness excitement” about renewables was to suggest gas could be a backup fuel source for wind and solar.Atmos representatives on the call also said Habitat had a “well-oiled machine in terms of public relations”.“Utilities enter into places where government investment is lacking and use that to promote its product, but also brandish its image through these kinds of PR stunts,” Vardi said.Environmental justiceEach ZNE home in these projects has gone to low-income members of vulnerable communities, including immigrants, people of color and veterans.“The gas companies,” said Aldana Cohen, “are essentially using poor people as human shields to perpetuate a business model that is going to do the most harm to poor people.”It’s not the only instance of fossil fuel interests hitching their wagon to this kind of advocacy. Reports show that utilities have long funded Black civil rights leaders; the NAACP in 2020 urged local chapters to stop accepting this funding.Promotional materials often say the ZNE homes can help lower energy bills.“Natural gas is really important to the homes we build because it’s reliable, predictable and affordable month to month,” a representative of the Habitat affiliate in Austin, Texas, said in a 2021 report on environmental, social and governance investments.In a 2022 call with financial analysts shared with the Guardian by the Energy and Policy Institute, Atmos’s CEO, Kevin Akers, said the ZNE homes demonstrated “the value and vital role natural gas plays in helping customers reduce their carbon footprint in a cost-effective manner”.Recent research, however, shows that newer, efficient electric appliances – such as heat pumps and induction stoves – can cost the same amount or even less to run as their gas-powered counterparts, though they can be more expensive to install.In some cases, utilities are also using customers’ money to pay to build the homes. In Mississippi, public utility commission documents shared by the Energy and Policy Institute show Atmos is recovering costs to build the ZNE homes from ratepayers.Zero-net?Though the projects are billed “zero-net energy” homes, it is not clear that they are always meeting that goal.SoCal Gas in 2017 partnered with Habitat for Humanity of Orange county on a ZNE home, and has touted the benefits of “dual-fuel” ZNE homes over all-electric ones, saying customers prefer them.But a 2021 study funded by SoCalGas and the California Energy Commission comparing two ZNE homes in the city of Stockton – one fully electric model and another home that included both solar panels and gas appliances – seemed to undercut the purported benefits of gas. Researchers found that the all-electric home produced more energy than it used, but the gas-powered model did not achieve ZNE status.In webinars held last year researchers noted that even when ZNE homes do not achieve “absolute zero”, they can still help to promote efficiency.ZNE homes with gas can meet the zero-net benchmark – in a statement, Atmos said its Habitat homes have done so – and not all fully electric ZNE homes necessarily achieve the goal. Still, Vardi said the SoCal Gas-funded study provided yet more evidence that gas is unnecessary. “There is really no reason to build new construction that is not all electric,” he said.Some Habitat partnerships show that this is possible.Habitat’s affiliate in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, built all-electric homes in partnership with a Cape Cod utility, which in 2021 were the “best-rated” Habitat homes in the nation in terms of efficiency. Another affiliate in Massachusetts’s Pioneer Valley built an affordable, all-electric ZNE home that won praise from the federal government.This year, the federal government announced $2bn for a coalition of non-profits including Habitat for Humanity International and Rewiring America to build fully electric low-income housing.The costsThe projects began amid a widespread lack of affordable housing in the US. A poll this year found that most US renters believe they will never be able to afford a home, and that a majority live in areas that are so unaffordable that they are “barely livable”. Meanwhile, US public housing stock shrank by 25% between 2009 and 2022, according to a recent analysis of federal data by Climate and Community Project.Habitat depends on financial donations to fund their work, which Aldana Cohen said created the opportunity for “dramatic inconsistency or contradiction, like using affordable housing to prop up the gas industry”.In another example, Habitat International, has accepted donations from the multinational fossil fuel conglomerate Koch Industries.“When you delegate things to any number of non-profits and for-profit companies, you’re far more likely to just get totally self-serving interventions,” he said.“There’s no reason to lock a single social policy priority, like affordable housing, into the survival of the fossil fuel industry,” he said.

Revealed: Four gas utilities have teamed up with Habitat for Humanity to build ‘zero-net energy homes’, investigation showsUS gas utilities are partnering with one of the nation’s most trusted non-profits as part of a “cynical PR stunt” to combat efforts to curb fossil fuel usage, a Guardian investigation has found.Local Habitat for Humanity affiliates have teamed up with at least four utilities across 10 states to build “zero-net energy homes”, which are meant to produce more energy than they use. Continue reading...

US gas utilities are partnering with one of the nation’s most trusted non-profits as part of a “cynical PR stunt” to combat efforts to curb fossil fuel usage, a Guardian investigation has found.

Local Habitat for Humanity affiliates have teamed up with at least four utilities across 10 states to build “zero-net energy homes”, which are meant to produce more energy than they use.

The houses, which are sold at affordable rates to low-income families, are weatherized and meticulously insulated to boost efficiency and equipped with rooftop solar panels. But they also come with appliances powered by gas, a planet-heating fossil fuel that has been shown to degrade indoor air quality.

The utilities say the homes provide lower electricity bills and affordable mortgages for vulnerable families.

“It’s part of our culture to really give back to the communities that we serve,” Jennifer Altieri, vice-president of public affairs for Atmos Energy’s Colorado-Kansas division, said in a video announcing the utility’s first Habitat home in Evans, Colorado, in September 2021, which was provided to a single mother and her children.

Yet Atmos has privately described the project as something closer to a public relations tactic, intentionally launched in a state that is “on the frontlines” of attempts to quell reliance on gas.

Atmos has since expanded the Habitat partnerships to seven communities, with plans to launch similar initiatives in at least two more. National Fuel in the north-east, SoCal Gas in southern California, and Nicor in Illinois have also partnered with Habitat on zero-net energy (ZNE) projects.

Volunteers for Habitat for Humanity International work on a house in Nashville, Tennessee, in 2019. Photograph: Jason Asteros/AP

The moves by utilities to attach themselves to social justice causes come as the US is embroiled in a broader political culture war over federal, state and local attempts to phase out gas and make new buildings electric.

The projects by Atmos and others have won widespread praise from gas interest groups. An autumn 2022 feature in Southeast Gas’s magazine Natural Living says the Atmos-Habitat partnerships promote “healthy living”, and that same year, its Evans, Colorado, home was a finalist for an ESG award from the Southern Gas Association.

“These ZNE homes demonstrate that natural gas is a part of the solution to achieve our low-carbon energy future,” the award submission says.

Habitat for Humanity International has participated in international climate negotiations and says it prioritizes climate safety. In a statement, the non-profit said: “We know that innovation is required so future construction doesn’t exacerbate the climate crisis.”

Habitat for Humanity says it helps millions of people access affordable homes each year who are often “among the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change”. But to do so, it relies on independent, locally run affiliates, which can decide how houses are built and funded.

Asked about the perceived conflict between the gas utility partnerships and its climate-related statements, a spokesperson for the organization said the group’s affiliates “engage a wide range of partners”. The world is “facing a growing crisis in affordable, adequate housing” which requires “a multi-faceted challenge that demands non-profit organizations, individuals, corporate partners, elected officials and more to work alongside one another”, he said.

A Habitat for Humanity construction site in Oakland, California, on 16 April 2010. Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

He said Habitat’s advocacy and partnerships were “designed to confront the housing crisis and ensure more people have a decent place to call home”. But critics say those arrangements appear to have opened the door for gas utilities to attach themselves to the organization and its reputation.

“It’s a cynical PR stunt by the gas utilities,” said Itai Vardi, research and communications manager at the utility watchdog group the Energy and Policy Institute, which provided some research about the partnerships to the Guardian. “We know that we need to transition very rapidly and dramatically off of fossil fuels, and there’s really no good reason to build new construction that is not all electric.”

Zero-net energy homes

“Zero-net energy” is a building standard requiring a home to produce as much energy as it uses. Builders first work to boost a home’s efficiency with insulation and air sealing, then equip the home with energy production capacity, such as solar panels.

But efficient homes that still use gas should not be considered climate-friendly, said Mike Henchen, who leads the carbon-free buildings program at the pro-electrification non-profit RMI. “When it comes to climate, gas is part of the problem,” he said. “There’s this effort to hype natural gas as clean energy, but it’s not.”

Gas is primarily composed of methane, a greenhouse gas 80 times more planet-warming than carbon dioxide in the short term.

In the US, gas accounts for the vast majority of planet-heating pollution from buildings, which makes up more than one-10th of all US greenhouse gas emissions.

The utilities say the projects illustrate that gas can be part of decarbonization efforts. Describing its Habitat partnerships to American Gas Magazine, a representative from the gas utility Nicor said: “These homes demonstrate the importance of natural gas as part of a diverse energy mix in a net-zero future.”

Jennifer Golz, spokesperson for Nicor, said that “research shows a hybrid energy approach will help drive greater emissions reductions at lower overall costs” while improving reliability during extreme weather. A spokesperson for Atmos said: “We believe a balanced energy approach that includes natural gas and preserves energy choice, rather than supporting specific fuels or technologies, will achieve goals of reducing emissions while maintaining energy reliability.”

But climate experts agree that gas must be swiftly curbed to avert climate catastrophe.

Spokespeople from Atmos and Nicor did not directly respond to questions about that scientific consensus.

In an emailed comment, a representative from Colorado’s Greeley-Weld Habitat affiliate said: “We have long constructed homes with a variety of energy sources, including natural gas and electricity.”

Daniel Aldana Cohen, a co-director of the progressive thinktank Climate and Community Project, said the gas-powered ZNE projects made an unnecessary compromise: they tie access to affordable housing to increased planet-heating pollution.

“The two great existential crises that most people face are eviction and climate breakdown, and the second one is making the first one worse,” said Aldana Cohen, whose research has informed federal Green New Deal for Public Housing proposals.

Health concerns

Experts have long warned that gas appliances can emit pollutants, including carcinogens. In recent years, a slew of studies have linked gas stoves to increased risk of childhood asthma, chronic lung disease and other health impacts.

Low-income people and people of color may be at higher risk if exposed to these pollutants, as they are more likely to have asthma and other underlying respiratory issues due to disproportionate exposure to environmental contaminants.

Gas trade groups note a recent World Health Organization-funded study found gas stoves had a non-significant impact on childhood asthma. The same study noted a connection between gas use and pneumonia and lower respiratory infections.

Last year, US regulators suggested a potential eventual nationwide gas stove ban, though Biden later ruled out such a policy.

A Nicor gas facility in Skokie, Illnois, in 2003. Photograph: Tim Boyle/Getty Images

Yet the utilities behind the partnerships have repeatedly referred to gas as “clean”. And during a dedication ceremony for a zero-net energy home built by a Habitat affiliate and Atmos in Lafayette, Louisiana, a representative from the utility claimed that the air quality in the home would be of “the best quality breathing air that you can have”.

Spokespeople from Atmos and Nicor did not respond to inquiries about whether the ZNE homes included gas stoves. But an Atmos representative in a December 2023 industry webinar said there was “natural gas cooking in these homes, in every single one of them”.

Asked about concerns that gas appliances can degrade indoor air quality, a representative for Atmos Energy directed the Guardian to claims made by the American Gas Association, a major trade group for private gas utilities.

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

Public relations

Despite evidence of the dangers of gas, utilities and their interest groups are using the Habitat partnerships as a public relations tool. The Energy Solutions Center, a trade association of gas utilities, cited the partnerships in a gas-promoting marketing document for its members, which was reviewed by the Guardian. (In an emailed statement, the executive director of Energy Solutions Center, Sonia Vahedian, pointed to recent studies that it said showed gas “remains essential for energy security and will significantly contribute to economic security beyond 2050”.)

And during a December 2023 industry webinar, a recording of which was also reviewed by the Guardian, a representative from Atmos said that the project began as a response to attempts to ban gas in buildings.

“In Colorado, they are a little bit on the frontlines, as far as some of the efforts to maybe dissuade people from utilizing natural gas,” a representative of the utility said. “And as such, that became the chosen site for our very first natural gas-fueled ZNE home build.”

Another representative went on to describe the need to produce a “marketable” product. “Like everyone in the natural gas industry … we’ve kept an eye on the growing loud voice for green energy and squeezing out fossil fuels as an energy source,” he said, adding that the partnerships sought to show that “natural gas can be a part of that future solution or transition state”.

The choice to “combine with renewables”, the representative says, is “kind of a great talking point that ‘hey, we’re partnering with renewables, we’re not against them.’”

It’s a strategy that was highlighted in a congressional report last month, based on a tranche of subpoenaed internal documents. A 2018 draft presentation from BP said one way to “harness excitement” about renewables was to suggest gas could be a backup fuel source for wind and solar.

Atmos representatives on the call also said Habitat had a “well-oiled machine in terms of public relations”.

“Utilities enter into places where government investment is lacking and use that to promote its product, but also brandish its image through these kinds of PR stunts,” Vardi said.

Environmental justice

Each ZNE home in these projects has gone to low-income members of vulnerable communities, including immigrants, people of color and veterans.

“The gas companies,” said Aldana Cohen, “are essentially using poor people as human shields to perpetuate a business model that is going to do the most harm to poor people.”

It’s not the only instance of fossil fuel interests hitching their wagon to this kind of advocacy. Reports show that utilities have long funded Black civil rights leaders; the NAACP in 2020 urged local chapters to stop accepting this funding.

Promotional materials often say the ZNE homes can help lower energy bills.

“Natural gas is really important to the homes we build because it’s reliable, predictable and affordable month to month,” a representative of the Habitat affiliate in Austin, Texas, said in a 2021 report on environmental, social and governance investments.

In a 2022 call with financial analysts shared with the Guardian by the Energy and Policy Institute, Atmos’s CEO, Kevin Akers, said the ZNE homes demonstrated “the value and vital role natural gas plays in helping customers reduce their carbon footprint in a cost-effective manner”.

Recent research, however, shows that newer, efficient electric appliances – such as heat pumps and induction stoves – can cost the same amount or even less to run as their gas-powered counterparts, though they can be more expensive to install.

In some cases, utilities are also using customers’ money to pay to build the homes. In Mississippi, public utility commission documents shared by the Energy and Policy Institute show Atmos is recovering costs to build the ZNE homes from ratepayers.

Zero-net?

Though the projects are billed “zero-net energy” homes, it is not clear that they are always meeting that goal.

SoCal Gas in 2017 partnered with Habitat for Humanity of Orange county on a ZNE home, and has touted the benefits of “dual-fuel” ZNE homes over all-electric ones, saying customers prefer them.

But a 2021 study funded by SoCalGas and the California Energy Commission comparing two ZNE homes in the city of Stockton – one fully electric model and another home that included both solar panels and gas appliances – seemed to undercut the purported benefits of gas. Researchers found that the all-electric home produced more energy than it used, but the gas-powered model did not achieve ZNE status.

In webinars held last year researchers noted that even when ZNE homes do not achieve “absolute zero”, they can still help to promote efficiency.

ZNE homes with gas can meet the zero-net benchmark – in a statement, Atmos said its Habitat homes have done so – and not all fully electric ZNE homes necessarily achieve the goal. Still, Vardi said the SoCal Gas-funded study provided yet more evidence that gas is unnecessary. “There is really no reason to build new construction that is not all electric,” he said.

Some Habitat partnerships show that this is possible.

Habitat’s affiliate in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, built all-electric homes in partnership with a Cape Cod utility, which in 2021 were the “best-rated” Habitat homes in the nation in terms of efficiency. Another affiliate in Massachusetts’s Pioneer Valley built an affordable, all-electric ZNE home that won praise from the federal government.

This year, the federal government announced $2bn for a coalition of non-profits including Habitat for Humanity International and Rewiring America to build fully electric low-income housing.

The costs

The projects began amid a widespread lack of affordable housing in the US. A poll this year found that most US renters believe they will never be able to afford a home, and that a majority live in areas that are so unaffordable that they are “barely livable”. Meanwhile, US public housing stock shrank by 25% between 2009 and 2022, according to a recent analysis of federal data by Climate and Community Project.

Habitat depends on financial donations to fund their work, which Aldana Cohen said created the opportunity for “dramatic inconsistency or contradiction, like using affordable housing to prop up the gas industry”.

In another example, Habitat International, has accepted donations from the multinational fossil fuel conglomerate Koch Industries.

“When you delegate things to any number of non-profits and for-profit companies, you’re far more likely to just get totally self-serving interventions,” he said.

“There’s no reason to lock a single social policy priority, like affordable housing, into the survival of the fossil fuel industry,” he said.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

As data centers go up, North Carolina weighs how to handle energy demand

In small communities across North Carolina, data centers are already sparking conflict over land use, water use, and quality of life. Now, the debate over the facilities’ voracious need for electricity — and whether it can be met with clean sources — is heating up in the state capital of Raleigh. For months, North…

In small communities across North Carolina, data centers are already sparking conflict over land use, water use, and quality of life. Now, the debate over the facilities’ voracious need for electricity — and whether it can be met with clean sources — is heating up in the state capital of Raleigh. For months, North Carolina’s predominant utility, Duke Energy, has forecast ballooning demand from large customers like data centers: immense buildings that house the computing devices powering AI and other software that’s become part of everyday life. Early last year, Duke projected these ​“large loads” would need an additional 3.9 gigawatts of capacity, equal to about four nuclear power plants and enough to serve millions of households. By May of this year, the company’s prediction had swelled to almost 6 gigawatts. The eye-popping estimates helped lead regulators to approve Duke’s current plan to build a massive new fleet of gas plants, alongside some clean energy investments, despite a state law requiring the utility to decarbonize. The projections are certain to factor into the next iteration of Duke’s long-term blueprint, a draft of which is due in the coming weeks. The forecasts have ​“thrown everything out of whack,” said Nick Jimenez, senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. That’s why his organization asked the state’s Utilities Commission to host a technical conference on large loads. Electricity-demand projections undergird virtually every Duke case before the panel. But at a technical conference, commissioners could grapple exclusively with the issues vexing energy experts across the country: How can data center demand be predicted with the most accuracy? Will the tech giants pay their fair share of grid upgrades and other costs? What will power the new facilities, and will it be carbon-free? In June, the Utilities Commission granted the law center’s request and then some by opening an entire proceeding to debate these questions. Stakeholders had the summer to submit written comments, with responses due from Duke early this month. In-person presentations are scheduled for Oct. 14. It’s not clear if the process will culminate in a discrete order from the commission, or simply inform the myriad other Duke cases before it. But Jimenez praised regulators for being proactive. ​“You need a proceeding to get your arms around some of these issues,” he said. ​“I think that’s really smart and forward-looking.” The data center boom In the race against other states to attract economic development, Duke and North Carolina officials keep confidential exactly which entities hope to draw power from the electric grid. And skeptics question whether all of the new facilities behind predictions of unprecedented demand growth will pan out. But there’s little doubt that data centers are on the rise, propelled by the AI explosion. Researchers say they could account for 44% of U.S. load growth by 2028, and there’s ample evidence that North Carolina is following the national trend. In June, Amazon Web Services announced a $10 billion, 800-acre computing campus in Richmond County, east of Charlotte, billed as the largest single capital project in North Carolina history. To the west of Charlotte, the development of a ​“data center corridor” is underway: Apple says its Catawba County site is included in its $500 billion U.S. expansion plans, and Microsoft envisions four new data centers nearby. Google is considering growing its facility in neighboring Caldwell County. Not all communities are welcoming data centers with open arms. The town council of tiny Tarboro, an hour east of Raleigh, just voted to reject a $6.4 billion facility. In Apex, southwest of the city, opposition is mounting to a proposed ​“digital campus” that would displace 190 acres of farmland. Still, early this month, Gov. Josh Stein, a Democrat and former attorney general, issued an executive order creating an ​“AI Accelerator” and a council designed to make the state ​“a national leader in AI literacy, governance, and deployment to the benefit of our residents, communities, and economy.” Stein did note the technology’s downsides, including ​“the uncertainty around AI systems and their associated energy and water needs.” But his edict also reflects the seeming common wisdom of the moment: AI and its requisite facilities are multiplying and expanding, bringing economic opportunities that can outweigh their challenges. “We can come to the table” In the open docket before regulators, experts say that with the right policies in place, clean energy, efficiency, and related strategies can meet the moment. ​“We can come to the table,” said John Burns, general counsel for Carolinas Clean Energy Business Association, a trade group representing developers, manufacturers, and others in the clean energy industry. In their comments, Burns and others particularly promoted ​“load flexibility,” a form of demand response in which data centers curtail their electricity use when the grid is strained by lots of energy consumption. Load flexibility is feasible because data centers don’t run at maximum capacity 24/7, said Tyler Norris, former special adviser at the U.S. Department of Energy and a doctoral fellow at Duke University, which has no connection to the utility. “You never actually run the chips and the servers to 100% of their rated nameplate power,” he said. ​“You wouldn’t want to, because they overheat and they don’t perform as well when they’re running that hard.” Norris is the lead author of a February paper showing that Duke’s two utilities in the Carolinas could accommodate 4.1 gigawatts of load if data centers shave just 0.5% off their peak usage annually. In a simple example, the facilities could operate at half their maximum capacity for 88 hours over the course of a year. A load-flexibility arrangement between Duke Energy and data centers could, in theory, avert the construction of several gigawatts of new gas plant capacity and expensive and time-consuming transmission upgrades. Last month, Google announced demand-response agreements with the utilities Indiana Michigan Power and the Tennessee Valley Authority. In formal comments to the North Carolina Utilities Commission, Norris called the tech giant’s move the ​“first documented case where AI data center flexibility is explicitly integrated into U.S. utility planning.”

Portland rolls out $100M tree expansion, relaunches contract with Friends of Trees

New tree planting and tree care programs will launch this year, with funding via the Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund.

The city of Portland is launching a major expansion of its citywide tree planting and tree care efforts, including restarting its relationship with the well-known nonprofit Friends of Trees. The initiative, announced Monday by Portland Parks & Recreation’s Urban Forestry division, aims to plant a total of at least 15,000 trees over the next three years, more than doubling Portland’s annual plantings, which currently stand at about 3,500 per year. Over 6,700 trees are planned for planting this coming season. The effort will be funded via $40 million from the Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund, the climate justice fund seeded by a 1% tax on large retailers in the city. Urban Forestry is also launching pilot projects for two other programs via $70 million from the climate fund, including a street tree maintenance program and another program to provide free yard tree care services to low-income households. Portland has experienced a canopy decline in recent years, likely due to housing development and extreme weather. City officials have identified an imbalance of tree cover across the city – a problem, given that trees are the first defense against heat waves and bad air quality. The plan calls for the city to pay for planting 660,000 trees over the next 40 years, particularly on the far east side of Portland where lower income and many people of color live.To expand its tree planting, Urban Forestry will partner with 12 contractors and 13 community-based organizations, including Friends of Trees, the venerable Portland-based nonprofit that for more than a decade had brought together hundreds of volunteers to plant roughly 40,000 street trees all over Portland. That ended in 2022 after 14 years when the Portland Bureau of Environmental Services abruptly ended its $5.8 million planting contract with Friends of Trees, prompting protests from many Portlanders. The move came as Urban Forestry said it was developing its own tree-planting program instead. But the city seems to have partly gone back to the community planting model. Urban Forestry has just announced a $1.8 million partnership with Friends of Trees for planting 750 new street and yard trees in Portland over the next two planting seasons. The money also will pay for three years of care and watering for each tree planted. As before, the new contract with Friends of Trees will include intensive community outreach and volunteer training, with the first community planting event scheduled for Dec. 6. The nonprofit’s outreach includes sending thousands of multilingual, returnable postcards to residents in priority neighborhoods, delivering door hangers and flyers with signup info, tabling at community events and disseminating information through its expansive network of volunteers and community partners. The group also spreads the word about planting by hosting events like bilingual tree walks and tree-themed bike rides. Friends of Trees’ executive director Yashar Vasef said past differences with the city have been resolved. The nonprofit and Urban Forestry have recently partnered on other tree planting efforts, including a $12 million grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture awarded to a Portland-area coalition as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, he said. “We’re really excited,” Vasef said. “This is going to look like our traditional model, with community members planting trees together.” Residents can, once again, request a tree from Friends of Trees and the organization will gather volunteers and engage them in mass plantings in different areas of the city. People separately also can request street trees on the city’s website. They also can receive up to three free trees to plant in their yard – but must plant the trees themselves. In addition to Friends of Trees, the other tree-planting contractors are: Bridgetown Construction and Landscaping, Pac Green Landscape, Seagraves Landscape, SymbiOp, Wyeast Gardens, A Plus Tree, Andres Landscape, Cascadian Landscapers, SaveATree, Super Trees and Multnomah Landscape. Additionally, the 13 partner organizations will provide multilingual outreach to help connect diverse communities with free trees. Some will assist with registering community members to sign up for free trees at in-person events and others will post program information on social media, in newsletters and through other channels of communication with particular communities. The other two programs starting up now will focus on tree care, with initial rollout and pilot projects planned for this fall and winter. The $65 million from the Clean Energy Fund will pay for Urban Forestry to develop a program to care for Portland’s street trees that will shift responsibility for maintenance away from adjacent property owners. And another $5 million will allow low-income households to qualify for free yard tree care and arboriculture-related technical mentorship from professional tree care providers. — Gosia Wozniacka covers environmental justice, climate change, the clean energy transition and other environmental issues. Reach her at gwozniacka@oregonian.com or 971-421-3154.If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

How Mississippians Can Intervene in Natural Gas Pipeline Proposal

Mississippi residents can comment on a proposal for a natural gas pipeline that would span nearly the full width of the state

Mississippians have until Tuesday to intervene in a proposal for a natural gas pipeline that would span nearly the full width of the state.The pipeline, called the “Mississippi Crossing Project,” would start in Greenville, cross through Humphreys, Holmes, Attala, Leake, Neshoba, Newton, Lauderdale and Clarke counties and end near Butler, Alabama, stretching nearly 208 miles.Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, sent an application for the project to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on June 30. The company hopes the pipeline, which would transfer up to 12 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day, will address a rising energy demand by increasing its transportation capacity.Kinder Morgan says on its website that, should it receive approval, construction would begin at the end of 2027 and the pipeline would begin service in November 2028. The company says the project would cost $1.7 billion and create 750 temporary jobs as well as 15 permanent positions.The project would also include new compressor stations in Humphreys, Attala and Lauderdale counties, although exact locations haven’t been set.Singleton Schreiber, a national law firm that focuses on environmental justice, is looking to spread awareness of the public’s ability to participate in the approval process, whether or not they support the proposal.“We’re just trying to raise awareness to make sure that people know this is happening,” said Laura Singleton, an attorney with the firm. “They’re going to have to dig and construct new pipelines, so it’s going to pass through sensitive ecosystems like wetlands, private property, farmland, things like that. So you can have issues that come up like soil degradation, water contamination, and then after the pipeline is built you could potentially have leaks, spills.”Singleton added while such issues with pipelines are rare, when “things go bad, they go pretty bad.”To comment, protest, or file a motion to intervene, the public can go to FERC’s website (new users have to create an account, and then use the docket number “CP25-514-000”). The exact deadline is 4 p.m. on Aug. 5. More instructions can also be found here.In addition to FERC, the proposal will also face review from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service and the state environmental agencies in Mississippi and Alabama.Mississippians have seen multiple incidents related to gas leaks in recent years. In March, three workers were injured after accidentally rupturing an Atmos Energy pipeline doing routine maintenance in Lee County, leaving thousands without service. Then last year, the National Transportation Safety Board found that Atmos discovered gas leaks over a month prior to two explosions in Jackson, one of which claimed the life of an 82-year-old woman.This story was originally published by Mississippi Today and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - June 2025

BPA faces suit over energy market decision that opponents say would raise rates

The lawsuit comes after governors, lawmakers, utility regulators and renewable energy proponents in the region unsuccessfully pressed the BPA to reconsider its plans.

Five energy and conservation nonprofits are suing the Bonneville Power Administration over its decision to join a new energy trading market, claiming it will raise electricity and transmission costs in Oregon and across the region. The lawsuit, filed Thursday in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, alleges that BPA’s move violates the Northwest Power Act and the National Environmental Policy Act and will also weaken energy grid reliability and reduce access to clean energy. BPA, the Northwest’s largest transmission grid operator, in May announced it would join the Arkansas-based Southwest Power Pool day-ahead market known as “Markets Plus” instead of joining California’s day-ahead market. The Southwest market is smaller with fewer electrical generation resources, experts say. Prior to that decision, Pacific Northwest governors, lawmakers, utility regulators and renewable energy proponents had pressed the BPA for months to reconsider its plans, which the agency initially announced in March.The nonprofits involved in the legal challenge are the Oregon Citizens’ Utility Board, a watchdog organization that advocates for utility customers; national environmental group the Sierra Club; the Montana Environmental Information Center, which promotes clean energy; the Idaho Conservation League, a natural landscape conservation group; and the NW Energy Coalition, which promotes affordable energy policies. The groups, represented by San Francisco-based environmental law nonprofit Earthjustice, want the court to vacate BPA’s decision, require the agency to prepare an environmental impact statement and rescind the financial commitments already made to the Southwest energy market.The BPA’s spokesperson Nick Quinata declined to comment on the pending litigation. Previously, the agency said the Southwest day-ahead market is superior to the California one because it would allow BPA to remain more independent due to its market design and governance structure. BPA, part of the U.S. Department of Energy, markets hydropower from 31 federal dams in the Columbia River Basin and supplies a third of the Northwest’s electricity, most of it to publicly owned rural utilities and electric cooperatives. It also owns and operates 15,000 miles – 75% – of the Northwest’s high-voltage transmission lines. Nearly every electric utility in Oregon benefits from either the clean hydroelectricity or the transmission lines controlled by BPA. BPA’s decision sets the stage for having two energy markets across the West.The lawsuit says that will likely lead to rising prices and blackouts during periods of high electricity demand because of the complexity of transmitting power across boundaries between different utilities and the agreements required for such transfers. Oregon’s two largest utilities, investor-owned Portland General Electric and Pacific Power, have both signed agreements to join California’s day-ahead market instead. They, too, have argued that once BPA leaves the Western market, the available energy they can purchase would diminish and become more expensive, leading to higher prices for customers across the region.Regional electricity providers also may have to construct additional power generation facilities, increase operation of existing facilities or both, to make up for BPA’s participation in a smaller and less efficient energy market, the suit contends. It could also increase reliance on generation resources powered by fossil fuels such as coal or natural gas plants because clean energy isn’t as widely available in the smaller Southwest market, the suit says. The Northwest Power Act, passed by Congress in the 1980s, requires BPA to provide low-cost power to the region while encouraging renewable energy, conservation and protection of fish and wildlife.BPA violated those duties when it chose the Southwest market option, according to the lawsuit. The groups also allege BPA’s market choice could harm fish and wildlife in the Columbia basin because it could alter the operation of the federal hydroelectric dams from which Bonneville markets power. The lawsuit claims BPA failed to comply with federal environmental law by not conducting any environmental impact analysis on impacts to fish and wildlife before making its decision. The Citizens’ Utility Board, a party to the lawsuit, said it hoped the BPA reverses course – otherwise its decision will splinter the West’s electricity markets, costing utility customers billions of dollars at a time when many are already dealing with skyrocketing bills.The board, as well as other critics of BPA’s decision, have pointed to an initiative developing an independent governance structure for California’s day-ahead market.“Oregon is facing overlapping energy challenges: rising utility bills, rising electricity demand from data centers, and stalling progress on meeting clean energy requirements. The last thing we need is for one of our region’s largest clean energy suppliers to reduce ties with the Pacific Northwest,” said the group’s spokesperson Charlotte Shuff. — Gosia Wozniacka covers environmental justice, climate change, the clean energy transition and other environmental issues. Reach her at gwozniacka@oregonian.com or 971-421-3154.If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

States, enviro groups fight Trump plan to keep dirty power plants going

In late spring, the Department of Energy ordered two aging and costly fossil-fueled power plants that were on the verge of shutting down to stay open. The agency claimed that the moves were necessary to prevent the power grid from collapsing — and that it has the power to force the plants to stay open even if the…

In late spring, the Department of Energy ordered two aging and costly fossil-fueled power plants that were on the verge of shutting down to stay open. The agency claimed that the moves were necessary to prevent the power grid from collapsing — and that it has the power to force the plants to stay open even if the utilities, state regulators, and grid operators managing them say that no such emergency exists. But state regulators, regional grid operators, environmental groups, and consumer groups are pushing back on the notion that the grids in question even need these interventions — and are challenging the legality of the DOE’s stay-open orders. The DOE claimed that the threat of large-scale grid blackouts forced its hand. But state utility regulators, environmental groups, consumer advocates, and energy experts say that careful analysis from the plant’s owners, state regulators, regional grid operators, and grid reliability experts had determined both plants could be safely closed. These groups argue that clean energy, not fossil fuels, are the true solution to the country’s grid challenges — even if the ​“big, beautiful” bill signed by Trump last week will make those resources more expensive to build. Some of the environmental organizations challenging DOE’s orders have pledged to take their case to federal court if necessary. “We need to get more electrons on the grid. We need those to be clean, reliable, and affordable,” said Robert Routh, Pennsylvania climate and energy policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the groups demanding that DOE reconsider its orders. Keeping J.H. Campbell and Eddystone open ​“results in the exact opposite. It’s costly, harmful, unnecessary, and unlawful.” Taking on the DOE’s grid emergency claims The groups challenging the DOE’s J.H. Campbell and Eddystone stay-open orders point out that the agency is using a power originally designed to protect the grid against unanticipated emergencies, including during wartime, but without proving that such an emergency is underway. “This authority that the Department of Energy is acting under — Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act — is a very tailored emergency authority,” said Caroline Reiser, NRDC senior attorney for climate and energy. ​“Congress intentionally wrote it only to be usable in specific, narrow, short-term emergencies. This is not that.” For decades, the DOE has used its Section 202(c) power sparingly, and only in response to requests from utilities or grid operators to waive federal air pollution regulations or other requirements in moments when the grid faces imminent threats like widespread power outages, Reiser said. But DOE’s orders for Eddystone and J.H. Campbell were not spurred by requests from state regulators or regional grid operators. In fact, the orders caught those parties by surprise. They also came mere days before the plants were set to close down and after years of effort to ensure their closure wouldn’t threaten grid reliability. J.H. Campbell was scheduled to close in May under a plan that has been in the works since 2021 as part of a broader agreement between utility Consumers Energy and state regulators, and which was approved by the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), the entity that manages grid reliability across Michigan and 14 other states. “The plant is really old, unreliable, extremely polluting, and extremely expensive,” Reiser said. ​“Nobody is saying that this plant is needed or is going to be beneficial for any reliability purposes.” To justify its stay-open order, DOE cited reports from the North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC), a nonprofit regulatory authority that includes utilities and grid operators in the U.S. and Canada. NERC found MISO is at higher risk of summertime reliability problems than other U.S. grid regions, but environmental groups argue in their rehearing request that DOE has ​“misrepresented the reports on which it relies,” and that Consumers Energy, Michigan regulators, and MISO have collectively shown closing the plant won’t endanger grid reliability. Eddystone, which had operated only infrequently over the past few years, also went through a rigorous process with mid-Atlantic grid operator PJM Interconnection to ensure its closure wouldn’t harm grid reliability. The DOE’s reason for keeping that plant open is based on a report from PJM that states the grid operator might need to ask utility customers to use less power if it faces extreme conditions this summer — an even scantier justification than what the agency cited in its J.H. Campbell order, Reiser said. As long as the DOE continues to take the position that it can issue emergency stay-open orders to any power plant it decides to, these established methods for managing plant closures and fairly allocating costs will be thrown into disarray, she said. “We have a system of competitive energy markets in the United States that is successful in keeping the lights on and maintaining reliability the vast, vast majority of the time,” Reiser said. ​“The Department of Energy stepping in and using a command-and-control system interferes with those markets.”

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.