STEVE SEBELIUS: Strategy matters, even in an existential fight

In late February, Southwest Gas Co. led a coalition of groups in writing to Gov. Steve Sisolak to object to one aspect of his signature Nevada Climate Strategy.

In retrospect, that might have been a mistake.

The letter — which took issue with language in the climate plan that calls for “transitioning away from natural gas” to meet the state’s climate goals — landed with a thud in Carson City. And it has sparked a fight with Nevada’s other big regulated utility, NV Energy, which supports the climate plan.

Perhaps Southwest Gas can be forgiven some anxiety, if not political savvy. The climate plan in general — and a new bill introduced last week in the Assembly in particular — envisions phasing out their product in Nevada. How would the Coca-Cola Co. react if health fanatics wrote a plan that calls for “phasing out brown sugary beverages to achieve statewide weight loss goals by 2050”?

Certainly, the coalition could have focused its fire exclusively on Assembly Bill 380, introduced by Assemblywoman Lesley Cohen, D-Henderson, and its “goal of statewide reductions in net greenhouse gas emissions that occur each year from the use of combustible fuels in commercial and residential buildings,” starting with 2.5 percent next year and ramping up to 95 percent by 2050.

Instead, the letter to Sisolak says his signature policy document “leaps to the conclusion that the only way Nevada can obtain its (greenhouse gas) emission reduction goals is to ‘transition’ away from the direct use of natural gas.” (Think: Give up your water heater, clothes dryer, stove and furnace.)

And again: “For consumers, this means eliminating their most affordable utility bill in favor of increasing the cost of their most expensive energy bill.” (Little wonder NV Energy didn’t sign on!)

Southwest Gas officials argue there are alternatives to natural gas — such as capturing waste methane and treating it to burn as a cleaner fuel or developing ways to use hydrogen — that could meet the state’s goals without putting the company out of business. That’s the reason behind the letter, they say.

“This is a life-or-death issue for us,” says Scott Leedom, the director of public affairs for the company. “Nevada’s not ready for policies like this.”

So why not ease off the governor’s plan — which contains no deadlines, timelines or recommendations for legislation — and just oppose Cohen’s bill?

“We want to be on record opposing policies that transition away from natural gas wherever they come from,” Leedom said. “We hope the ship has not sailed. We hope there are still opportunities for us to engage and lay out what those alternative strategies are.”

But supporters of Cohen’s approach will cite the state’s climate strategy as the inspiration for her legislation and ask: Why wouldn’t we move away from natural gas if that’s part of the long-term goal? Is the climate plan a serious document or just hundreds of pages of platitudes?

“There needs to be a long-term transition away from the direct use of gas,” says David Bobzien, head of the governor’s Office of Energy. “It’s going to have to be a long-term process on all these fronts. It’s a math problem. It’s one that we have time to solve.”

So while nobody’s talking about forcing you (or, more likely, asking you nicely with an incentive check) to trade in your gas stove for an electric one today, eventually, that’s going to be the state’s policy. And by “eventually,” they mean 2050, just 29 short years from now.

And that’s notwithstanding Southwest Gas’ alternatives. According to Bobzien, those ideas don’t cut it.

“I thought the letter was a little surprising,” he said. “There was no coherent alternative to the central problem before policymakers.” (That’s a point Southwest Gas vigorously disputes)

And there’s another problem, a political one. Does Sisolak stand by his climate plan and its call to transition away from natural gas? Does he support Cohen’s bill? It would be hard to champion the former and eschew the latter.

But if he does, then Sisolak’s the guy Southwest Gas says is going to take away your hot water heater, your clothes dryer and your stove, the one who’s going to deny consumer choice and increase costs. That’s not a good look.

In retrospect, it’s easy to kill a single bill in a single session of the Legislature, even if you know it will be back. At least that way, you anger only a single lawmaker, maybe a caucus, rather than the state’s chief executive.

But when you’re fighting for your life, certain missteps may be inevitable. The debate over AB380 will tell us whether natural gas is an industry that can adapt to become part of the state’s clean energy future or whether it will go the way of whale oil and coal-burning power plants.

Contact Steve Sebelius at SSebelius@reviewjournal.com. Follow @SteveSebelius on Twitter.

Southwest Gas Coalition Letter by SteveSebelius on Scribd