
In the heart of the Rocky Mountains, Crested Butte, Colorado, once a quiet coal mining town, has undergone a dramatic transformation into a bustling year-round tourist destination. Yet, Mayor Ian Billick, also a field biologist leading the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory, sees a looming threat to the town's idyllic charm—climate change. With declining snowpack and the peril of iconic flower species due to arid conditions and rising temperatures, Billick, after a successful election in 2021, made climate action a focal point of his leadership.
In a bid to combat climate change, Billick initiated a groundbreaking effort to address the town's major source of greenhouse gas emissions: buildings. The proposed solution—banning natural gas hookups in new constructions—aligns with expert recommendations for reducing emissions and aligning with U.S. climate goals. Recognizing the urgency from his perspective as a field scientist, Billick pushed for an all-electric approach in new homes and businesses, tapping into low-carbon electricity sources like wind and solar power.
However, this progressive move placed Billick in direct opposition to Atmos Energy, the town's natural gas provider and the largest gas-only utility in the nation. Atmos Energy, based in Dallas, vigorously contested the proposal, arguing in public hearings and private discussions that it would limit consumer choice and further elevate the community's already high cost of living.
The clash epitomizes the broader tension between environmental stewardship and economic considerations, echoing debates seen in various regions, including Berkeley, California, where a similar gas ban faced legal challenges. As Crested Butte grapples with its commitment to climate action, the struggle against fossil fuel dependency highlights the complexities inherent in transitioning toward a sustainable future. Mayor Billick's initiative showcases the challenges faced by communities aiming to balance environmental responsibility with economic concerns in an era defined by the urgent need for climate action.
Amidst the picturesque landscapes of Crested Butte, a groundbreaking initiative to ban natural gas hookups in new constructions has encountered fierce resistance from Atmos Energy, the town's gas provider and the largest gas-only utility in the United States. Asserting that the latest generation of heat pumps, efficient in electric heating and cooling, is ill-suited for the mountain climate's harsh conditions, Atmos Energy has waged a campaign against the proposal. However, experts and installers refute this claim, highlighting the viability of electric alternatives in such environments.
This clash in Crested Butte reflects a broader pattern across the country, where local gas companies, backed by a formidable trade association, have successfully opposed all-electric building standards. Environmental advocates and utility watchdogs express concern that such efforts, funded by customer dollars, hinder an effective strategy to curb climate pollution from buildings, which contribute approximately 13% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
Recognizing the need to address this challenge, Colorado, along with Maine and Connecticut, has taken steps to limit utilities' ability to charge customers for lobbying activities. In August 2022, Crested Butte became the first in Colorado to enact a natural gas ban, a significant milestone despite similar policies facing obstacles in other communities.
For instance, just 30 miles away in Gunnison, a neighboring community with ties to Crested Butte's ski resort, efforts to encourage a gradual transition away from fossil fuels faced resistance. Unlike Crested Butte's outright ban, Gunnison proposed a more modest plan involving building code updates to facilitate future residents' seamless switch from gas to electric appliances. Yet, Atmos Energy launched a vigorous campaign against this policy as well, showcasing the formidable challenges faced by communities attempting to navigate the complex intersection of environmental responsibility and economic interests. The struggle in Crested Butte and Gunnison underscores the broader implications of the battle between natural gas utilities and local climate policies, leaving the future of sustainable energy practices in the balance.
A comprehensive investigation by CPR News and NPR, delving into communications between Atmos Energy and local officials, has unveiled a strategic effort by the gas provider to thwart the proposed natural gas ban in Crested Butte and Gunnison. Obtained through a public records request by the Energy and Policy Institute, the communications, first reported by High Country News, shed light on Atmos Energy's attempts to influence public opinion and policy decisions.
In September 2022, Atmos Energy sent an email to local residents, asserting that the proposed ban would escalate housing costs, limit energy choices, and potentially increase climate-warming emissions. The communication encouraged residents to attend a town meeting and voice their opinions on the rule. However, local leaders later discovered inaccuracies in Atmos' claims. John Cattles, a Gunnison County sustainability official, highlighted a 50% overestimation of local electricity costs in a follow-up email to government officials. He also pointed out that Atmos appeared to base its price estimates on less energy-efficient electric resistance heaters rather than the more efficient electric heat pumps in current use.
Kurtis Paradisa, a manager for public affairs at Atmos Energy, defended the company's estimates, referencing an energy calculator by GTI Energy. Paradisa emphasized a balanced energy approach that includes natural gas, asserting that it aligns with emission reduction goals while ensuring energy reliability. However, the city council in Gunnison ultimately followed Atmos Energy's recommendations, rejecting the pro-electrification elements of the proposed building code.
Atmos Energy's executive, Ken Fogle, reiterated the company's claims in a public meeting in October 2022, leading the city council to make decisions aligning with the gas provider's stance. Gunnison Mayor Diego Plata acknowledged the challenges posed by the rural electrical grid's limited capacity but criticized Atmos' mass email campaign, viewing it as advocacy work beyond the scope of the company's role as a natural gas provider.
This revelation underscores the intricate dynamics at play as utilities engage in advocacy efforts, raising questions about the boundaries of their influence and the implications for communities striving to balance economic considerations with the imperative of climate action. The Crested Butte and Gunnison saga serves as a case study in the broader struggle between environmental responsibility and vested interests, shedding light on the complex interplay between utility companies, local governance, and public opinion.
Atmos Energy's campaign against climate-friendly building codes extends beyond the local battles in Gunnison and Crested Butte, marking a broader effort to influence legislation and policies in Colorado and beyond. The gas company established a purported "grassroots" group named Coloradans for Energy Access, seemingly aimed at aiding trade unions and smaller companies in opposing building standards aligned with sustainability. Additionally, Atmos Energy unsuccessfully lobbied against state-level green building codes enacted the previous year.
This strategic opposition is not unique to Colorado, as the industry deploys its political clout to prevent similar battles across various states. An analysis by S&P Global in June revealed that at least 24 states have enacted laws preventing local authorities from restricting gas use in buildings. The American Gas Association, the industry's leading trade group, has actively contributed to the passage of these state-level policies, as disclosed in a 2021 NPR investigation.
David Pomerantz of the Energy and Policy Institute emphasizes the need for scrutiny given that utilities operate as state-sanctioned monopolies. This grants them considerable political influence and lobbying power, fueled by the fact that households are obligated to pay these companies, even if they disagree with their initiatives. Pomerantz points out that while federal rules prohibit utilities from recovering political influence costs from customers, companies often find ways to circumvent these regulations by categorizing their efforts as "public education" or collaboration with stakeholders.
The case of Atmos Energy's involvement in Gunnison and Crested Butte raises questions about the financing of such initiatives, as company executive Kurtis Paradisa clarifies that lobbying expenses are not included in customer rates but fails to provide details on how the recent work in these communities was funded.
The ongoing struggle between utilities and advocates for climate-friendly policies underscores the complex interplay between economic interests, environmental responsibility, and the structural advantages wielded by state-sanctioned monopolies. As communities and states grapple with the urgent need for climate action, the activities of utilities like Atmos Energy raise critical questions about transparency, accountability, and the role of public funds in shaping the energy landscape.
David Pomerantz from the Energy and Policy Institute raises concerns about Atmos Energy's lobbying activities, suggesting that the cost of these efforts may have been shouldered by customers. The company's 2022 Colorado lobbying report, which lists only one state-level contract lobbyist, indicates that Atmos Energy might not categorize its work in Crested Butte and Gunnison as traditional "lobbying." Despite attempts to seek clarification from Atmos Energy officials, no response was received regarding the classification of their activities in the two communities.
In response to potential loopholes, Colorado State Senate President Steve Fenberg, a Democrat representing Boulder, sponsored a new state law aimed at defining and regulating lobbying more comprehensively. The law broadens the definition of lobbying to include any attempts to influence regulations, laws, or ordinances, whether through grassroots efforts or direct engagement. While utilities can still participate in such activities, the law mandates that the costs be covered by profits designated for executives or shareholders, not passed on directly to consumers through energy bills. Detailed annual lobbying disclosures are also required for compliance.
Mayor Ian Billick of Crested Butte acknowledges the significance of the new state rules but remains skeptical about their effectiveness in preventing utilities from opposing policies that may impact their profits. He anticipates that local-level conflicts will persist, with communities having to confront utility objections if they seek to implement all-electric standards. Billick emphasizes the crucial support received from local installers who contested Atmos' assertions about the impracticality of heat pumps in cold weather and high altitudes. Builders showcased successful installations, demonstrating cost-effectiveness and countering Atmos' claims.
Crested Butte's gas ban has already made a tangible impact on a new workforce housing development, where 68 units lack the infrastructure to connect to Atmos Energy's gas network. Instead, the development relies on electric heat pumps for warmth and electric induction ranges for cooking—a visible outcome of the town's commitment to sustainability.
In conclusion, the conflict between Crested Butte, Gunnison, and Atmos Energy epitomizes the broader struggle unfolding across the United States as communities endeavor to transition towards sustainable energy practices. The revelation of lobbying efforts and the subsequent legislative response in Colorado underscores the intricate dance between utilities, local governance, and environmental responsibility. While new state laws seek to address potential loopholes and ensure transparency, skeptics like Mayor Ian Billick anticipate continued local-level clashes as communities push for all-electric standards.
The narrative also sheds light on the structural advantages held by state-sanctioned monopolies, allowing utilities to wield considerable lobbying power often funded by customer dollars. The complexities surrounding lobbying classifications and the potential impact on energy bills highlight the need for vigilant oversight and regulatory frameworks that balance economic considerations with the imperative of climate action.
As Crested Butte pioneers its gas ban, relying on support from local installers and challenging utility claims, it serves as a microcosm of the larger national debate on the role of natural gas in a sustainable future. The outcomes in Crested Butte's construction projects—embracing electric alternatives—underscore the tangible impact of local initiatives, even in the face of utility opposition.
Ultimately, the Crested Butte and Gunnison saga represents a chapter in the ongoing narrative of communities navigating the complexities of environmental advocacy, energy infrastructure, and economic interests. It emphasizes the importance of transparency, regulatory clarity, and grassroots support in steering the trajectory of energy policies towards a more sustainable and climate-conscious future.