Southwest Gas increases its political contributions in Nevada ahead of the 2022 election

Southwest Gas ramped up its political giving in Nevada this election cycle, surpassing contribution levels for prior cycles in recent years. According to the most recent campaign finance reports, the gas utility spent over $400,000 this campaign season, which is more than $130,000 from the 2020 cycle and over $160,000 from the 2018 cycle. 

During the legislative session in 2021, Southwest Gas lobbied against legislation that would have directed the utility to file projections of its infrastructure investments, fuel demand, and required regulators to compile reports on the role of gas utilities in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Southwest Gas also introduced a bill, carried by Democrat Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro, that would have allowed the gas utility to replace thousands of miles of pipelines and recover costs through a monthly rate. Neither bill passed. Currently, the utility is looking to supply more “renewable natural gas” to the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada and may join its industry peers in advancing legislation that prevents municipalities and counties from reducing greenhouse gas emissions by banning new gas infrastructure and hookups.

Southwest Gas contributing to individual political candidates

Nevada campaign finance law limits Southwest Gas to contributing $10,000 to a candidate ($5,000 for the primary and $5,000 for the general election) per two-year election cycle. All but one of the recipients of Southwest Gas contributions totaling $10,000 are members of the Democratic Party, across multiple municipal and state offices. Democrats control both houses of the Nevada legislature.

EPI reported on Southwest Gas’s notable contributions leading up to Nevada’s primary elections in June. In March, Southwest Gas gave $10,000 – its largest contribution at the time – to Assemblywoman Lesley Cohen’s Democratic primary opponent, Joe Dalia. Residents in Cohen’s district also began receiving political mailers smearing Cohen. The mailers were paid for by the front group Nevadans for Economic Opportunity (NEO), a 501(c)(4) “pro-growth, public policy” coalition financially backed by the Retail Association of Nevada (RAN) and the Associated Builders and Contractors of Nevada, among others. The address of RAN is also the same one for NEO in the state’s campaign finance disclosure database.

In 2021, Cohen introduced AB380, legislation requiring gas utilities to employ a more rigorous planning process before expanding infrastructure. Southwest Gas built a coalition of affiliated interest groups to defeat the legislation. The utility’s lobbying campaign included creating a now-disbanded front group, Coalition for Cleaner, Affordable Energy. The group sponsored Facebook content to “Stop AB380” and featured RAN’s Senior Vice President, Bryan Wachter, falsely framing the climate bill as a fossil gas appliance ban. Cohen won her primary in June and will be on the ballot on November 8. 

Over the past cycle, three Democratic Nevada Assembly members have received $10,000 from Southwest Gas, including Steve Yeager, Elaine Marzola, and Daniele Monroe-Moreno. Yeager is Speaker pro Tempore and Monroe-Moreno is Assistant Majority Floor Leader. Republican Gregory Hafen II, who also received a total of $10,000, is Assistant Minority Whip.

Southwest Gas contributing to majority of members on the Assembly Growth and Infrastructure Committee

In addition to their leadership roles, Monroe-Moreno is the chair of, and Yeager is a member of, the Growth and Infrastructure Committee, providing jurisdiction over energy matters, among other related issues. In 2019, the committee also voted to approve legislation that required the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (PUCN) to adopt regulations that allowed Southwest Gas to purchase and recover the cost for “renewable natural gas” (RNG). 

The committee’s oversight also includes the Department of Transportation (NDOT), the entity addressing the future of Nevada’s transportation system, which has identified Southwest Gas as a key stakeholder in transportation planning processes. In August 2022, Southwest Gas filed an application with the PUCN, requesting an increase in the use of RNG in its procurement agreement with the Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada (RTC). The request comes after Governor Sisolak launched the State of Nevada Climate Initiative in the summer of 2020 to help ensure the state achieves its emissions-reduction targets of 28% by 2025, 45% by 2030, and net-zero or near-zero by 2050. Many reports have been released in recent years that detail the pitfalls of increasing RNG due to methane leakage throughout the system.  

This cycle, Southwest Gas has contributed over $40,000 to 7 of the 11 members of the Growth and Infrastructure Committee, including Democrats Shondra Summers-Armstrong, Cameron Miller, Tracy Brown-May, and Republicans Tom Roberts and Glen Leavitt. 

Southwest Gas contributing to members of the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee

Elaine Marzola– recipient of $10,000 from Southwest Gas– serves on the Commerce and Labor Committee in the Nevada Assembly. Southwest Gas has contributed nearly $35,000 to 7 of its 13 members, including $7,500 to the Committee Chair, Assemblywoman Sandra Jauregui. 

The Commerce and Labor Committee votes on bills impactful to Southwest Gas. In 2015, this committee advanced legislation that required the PUCN to adopt regulations authorizing Southwest Gas’ infrastructure expansion, which has resulted in the $28 million expansion project to Mesquite and the $62 million expansion project to Spring Creek. 

Southwest Gas supporting Clark County Commissioners race

In 2019, Nevada’s Clark County Board of Commissioners – which includes Las Vegas –  developed and adopted its first Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, All-In Clark County. The plan includes zero emissions from buildings by 2050, citing the need to shift operational energy from fossil gas to clean, renewable energy. Currently, 62% of Clark County’s electricity is generated from gas, meaning the plan could significantly impact Southwest Gas’s current and planned infrastructure investments. Southwest Gas is listed as a stakeholder in the All-In Clark County plan, and participated in the interview process for the greenhouse gas inventory, the working group for the climate vulnerability assessment, and multiple community roundtables. 

Southwest Gas contributed over $20,000 to several of the Clark County Commissioners this cycle, including 3 who are on the November 8 ballot. The next phase of the All-In plan includes the development of a regional greenhouse gas inventory and climate vulnerability assessment, requiring approval from the Clark County Board of Commissioners. 

Southwest Gas spending on political action committees in Nevada

In addition to giving to individual candidates, Southwest Gas contributed $129,000 to Nevada political action committees (PACs) this cycle. These PACs then allocate the funds it has raised and donate to campaigns for or against candidates. Several of the PACs that received Southwest Gas money are affiliated with trade associations and chambers of commerce. These groups may join the gas utility in future lobbying campaigns. 

Southwest Gas contributed $15,000 to the Home Building PAC, the political action committee for the Southern Nevada Home Builders Association (SNHBA). Southwest Gas employees Philip Conors and Tony Stipanov sit on the board of SNHBA as associate director and senior director, respectively. Further, a report from EPI earlier this year regarding the “future of gas” docket at the PUCN, detailed SNHBA’s filed comments highlighting concerns about electrification in buildings. Southwest Gas is a member of SNHBA, paying annual membership of at least $1,592. 

The Vegas Chamber of Commerce’s BizPac received $15,000 from Southwest Gas this year. Boyd Nelson, VP of Strategy and Corporate Development at Southwest Gas, sits on the Board of Trustees at the Vegas Chamber. Debra Gallo, the Director of Regulatory Projects at Southwest Gas, is also the Chair of BizPAC and serves on its Government Affairs Committee. 

Southwest Gas also contributed to PACs registered to state lawmakers. Nevada Victory PAC, received $10,000 from Southwest Gas, and is registered to Assemblywoman Melissa Hardy, a republican member of the Commerce and Labor Committee. Hardy also received an additional $2,500 from Southwest Gas as an individual contribution. 

Southwest Gas gave $10,000 to Steve Yeager’s PAC, NV Strong. As mentioned earlier, Yeager is a member of the Growth and Infrastructure Committee and received an additional $10,000 from the utility as an individual contribution. 

Southwest Gas contributed $6,000 directly to Rochelle Nguyen, in addition to contributing $10,000 to her PAC, Nguyening Leadership. Furthermore, Southwest Gas gave $10,000 to Senator Nicole Cannizzaro’s PAC– Battle Born and Raised Leadership. The PAC predominantly contributes to Democratic candidates campaigning for the Nevada State Assembly. 

Heidi Kasama, a Republican Assemblywoman, received $5,000 from Southwest Gas this year, and her political action committee, Hawk PAC, received an additional $5,000. 

Featured image: Nevada Legislature Building, Carson City, Nevada. Source: Ken Lund, Flickr.

The post Southwest Gas increases its political contributions in Nevada ahead of the 2022 election appeared first on Energy and Policy Institute.

Duke Energy “Carbon Plan” proceeding in North Carolina highlights the utility’s preference for monopolization over customer savings

Duke Energy’s “Carbon Plan” proceeding at the North Carolina Utilities Commission (NCUC) is under fire from clean energy advocates who say Duke is betting big on new gas-fired power plants, small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs), and self-owned offshore wind to further entrench its monopoly rather than deliver affordable, clean energy to customers. The Carbon Plan proceeding was triggered when the North Carolina legislature passed House Bill 951 in 2021, mandating investor-owned utilities reduce carbon dioxide emissions 70% compared to 2005 levels by 2030 and be carbon-free by 2050. But as the proceeding progressed this year, Duke found itself an unlikely ally: the consumer advocate in North Carolina, known as the Public Staff.

The Public Staff has argued that near-term investments in unproven technologies like SMRs should be prioritized over already cost-effective clean energy solutions like solar and battery storage. The Public Staff has also called for delaying compliance with HB 951 until 2032 despite the law’s interim deadline of 2030, and argued for even less renewable energy than Duke has, a possible attempt to provide cover for the utility’s plans.

Clean energy groups made a last-minute attempt to submit to the record a consequential National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) study that called for tripling the amount of solar and onshore wind proposed by Duke. But NCUC Chair Charlotte Mitchell rejected the attempt. The denial occurred despite Duke’s willingness to allow the report onto the record, however, Chris Carmody of the Carolinas Clean Energy Business Association told the Charlotte Business Journal that Duke Energy knew about the report and “sat on it.” 

After the NCUC declined to allow NREL’s report into the record or take judicial notice, a public commenter, Stephen Jurovics, noted that he had already apprised the Commission of the summary version of the report, calling into question whether the NCUC is considering public comments as part of its review of the case record. Jurovics further said, “An initial review of that [NREL’s] plan suggests that it complies with North Carolina law (HB 951) more closely than the four plans submitted by Duke Energy.” 

Public Staff was silent on the issue.

Duke Energy slow playing clean energy, Public Staff provides cover 

Clean energy advocates and large customers, such as Walmart, criticized Duke’s Carbon Plan filings for forcing the construction of approximately 2 gigawatts of new methane gas generation, despite the clear carbon reduction mandate of HB 951 and skyrocketing gas prices. Just a few months ago, Duke requested to increase North Carolinians’ bills by almost $337 million due to rising and volatile gas prices. And while methane gas produces half as much carbon dioxide when burned as coal, the fossil fuel remains one of the biggest drivers of climate change because leaks occur throughout gas extraction, transmission, and distribution systems. Methane has a shorter atmospheric lifespan than carbon dioxide but its global warming potential is 84 to 87 times greater over a 20-year period.

Public Staff previously told the NCUC that Duke’s forced construction of new gas-fired power plants “wasn’t necessary” and that Duke was tilting “the economic analysis” away from battery storage or solar plus storage. Public Staff further claimed that it didn’t believe Duke was appropriately modeling solar plus storage and that the utility was unreasonably limiting standalone storage and solar plus storage. Duke’s plans limited solar to 750 megawatts in 2026, 1,050 megawatts in 2027, and 1,350 megawatts per year from 2028 onward.

Two external studies, one by Synapse Energy Economics and another by Brattle, found Duke customers could save at least $700 million, and nearly $1 billion annually, by removing the utility’s artificial limits on clean energy. 

Nevertheless, Public Staff ultimately endorsed Duke Energy’s plans for the new gas-fired power plants and SMRs while ignoring many of its own concerns with the utility’s treatment of clean energy. 

Another blow to consumers came when Public Staff testified against Duke’s proposal to expand access to low-income energy efficiency programs despite the high energy burden shouldered by many North Carolinians. Specifically, Charlotte has one of the highest energy burdens in the Southeast, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. 

Edward Burgess, a consultant representing the North Carolina Attorney General, told the NCUC that it should be skeptical of the “supplemental portfolios” submitted by Duke after the Commission requested them because none comply with HB 951’s carbon reduction mandate and all heavily restrict clean energy development. 

The Public Staff recommended the NCUC adopt “Supplemental Portfolio #5” (SP5), which delays carbon reduction compliance to 2032 and accelerates the entry date for SMRs to mid-2032, the earliest of any of the portfolios submitted by Duke. The recommendation also detailed how Public Staff relied on Duke’s proprietary SMR cost forecast, which was substantially lower than publicly available information. 

Under SP5, the earlier date for an SMR pushes back near- and medium-term clean energy development like solar, battery storage, and offshore wind. Public Staff claimed it was less risky to build an SMR in 2032 than to increase cost-effective clean energy deployment over the near term. However, no other portfolio modeled by any other intervenor selected SMRs to meet the 70% carbon reduction by 2030 mandate. While NREL’s study did not consider SMRs in its modeling, it does maintain that SMRs or other firm zero-carbon capacity will be necessary to achieve the last 5% to 10% of needed carbon reductions on the way to achieving 100% carbon reduction by 2050.

Public Staff’s recommendation of SP5 did not just accelerate the timeline for SMRs, it also pushed back offshore wind development until the 2040s. Only a single SMR design has been approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, for which the first-of-a-kind pilot plant is not currently forecasted to come online until the late 2020s, with highly uncertain costs and substantial risk of delay. Offshore wind, however, enjoys more than 50 GW of installed capacity globally and with 40 GW under active development in the US. SP5 is in direct contradiction to North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper’s goal to have 2.8 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind off the coast by 2030 and 8 GW by 2040. 

The Commission has until December 31, 2022, to develop a Carbon Plan that complies with HB 951, taking all “reasonable steps” to achieve 70% reduction in CO2 emissions from electric generating facilities by 2030 and carbon neutrality by the year 2050. 

Additionally, the Commission is currently presiding over Duke’s request to increase its retail electric base rates and charges.The average residential customer could see rates rise nearly $26 a month if Duke’s request is approved.

Header image source: Wikipedia

The post Duke Energy “Carbon Plan” proceeding in North Carolina highlights the utility’s preference for monopolization over customer savings appeared first on Energy and Policy Institute.

Recent Articles: