Across North America, jurisdictions are starting to ban gas from new buildings as part of plans to tackle the climate emergency. And that has fossil fuel gas companies very nervous and pushing back. FortisBC, the primary provider of “natural” gas to British Columbia homes and businesses, sensing an impending existential threat to their business plan has a counter-plan.

In many cities, well over 50 per cent of carbon pollution comes from burning “natural” gas in buildings, so action to get our buildings off gas can have a huge climate impact, as well as a positive health impact. The City of Vancouver already has a new regulation in place that, effective this year, prohibits new buildings from using fossil fuels for space and water heating. Other municipalities want to follow suit. Pressure is mounting on the provincial government from climate-concerned organizations and citizens to simplify and expedite this trend by making it a provincewide policy to ban new buildings from tying into gas lines.

All of which has Fortis scrambling, desperate to figure out how to end-run these climate plans and continue to expand its customer base.

The company’s latest mischief-making? On Jan. 20, FortisBC announced it is bringing a proposal to the BC Utilities Commission (the provincial energy regulator) to supply all new homes with 100 per cent “renewable gas” — at no extra cost to these future customers.

In a “North American first,” declared the company, “every newly constructed home connecting to the gas system would automatically receive 100 per cent renewable gas for the lifespan of the building. The approval of this proposal would mark a new era in the evolution of the company's renewable energy programs.”

Wow, sounds fantastic. Well, not so fast.

The pledge to provide new buildings with 100 per cent renewable gas is a fiction, an imaginary and arbitrary assignment. And the company’s desire to provide this renewable gas at no extra cost to new customers — meaning, to bury the actual high expense of producing renewable gas by spreading it across all ratepayers ­— likely stems from Fortis’s desire to hide the true cost of renewable gas for as long as possible. Its real cost would certainly make the choice of electric more appealing.

Fortis’s recent news release also touts plans to increase the overall share of renewable natural gas in its system, and makes the brash claim, “The use of renewable natural gas eliminates any need for expensive building retrofits to fuel switch.” This is an outrageous statement that lays bare the company’s real end-game here — to get around the new climate regulations of cities like Vancouver and forestall households swapping to electric heat pumps for the sake of the climate.

First, let’s be clear about what renewable gas is. Renewable natural gas (RNG) is methane captured from organic waste — landfills, sewage, agricultural waste — and then purified so it can be added to the gas line system. The benefit of RNG is that, in the absence of this capture, this methane would simply be released into the atmosphere.

'We can’t afford to be tricked into fictional solutions or be lured by false promises. The emergency is too real, the urgency too great,' writes columnist @SethDKlein. #Climate Crisis #FortisBC #RNG

But when Fortis talks about “renewable gas,” it isn’t speaking only of RNG, it is employing a broader definition that also dubiously includes, among other things, blending in hydrogen (what kind Fortis doesn’t say, but much of it may indeed be fossil fuel-derived), the scale of which remains unknown.

Second, much of the public has the impression that if they purchase RNG, or Fortis pledges that their building will be supplied “100 per cent by renewable gas,” the gas that enters their home is somehow cleaner — they believe they have done better for the environment. No such luck.

There are no separate gas lines for renewable gas. Fortis is not assigning “renewable” gas molecules to specific dwellings. Rather, all the renewable gas produced or purchased by Fortis enters the same gas line system like all the rest of the fracked gas burned in our homes. Fortis may wish to claim that new buildings will be supplied 100 per cent with renewable gas, but it’s a deceit — under its plan, the gas that enters a new home will be no different from the gas that enters an older home next door.

The real question is how much RNG Fortis can manage to put into the overall system.

CleanBC, the province’s official climate plan, has a target — to which FortisBC has agreed — that 15 per cent of BC’s gas supply will be RNG by 2030, although this has yet to be embedded in regulation. It is merely an aspirational target.

Fortis claims, “The company is currently on pace to exceed its target of having 15 per cent of its gas supply being renewable by 2030 and is working towards having about 75 per cent of its supply be renewable by 2050.”

That’s a highly speculative pledge, not to mention extremely expensive to achieve. For now, consider it a fanciful pipe dream — an assertion plucked from the air.

Currently, only about one per cent of the gas supplied by Fortis is renewable (as a company rep recently confirmed to CBC radio after some prodding). True, there are a number of new renewable gas projects in the works, and that share is escalating at a solid clip. But at this point, even the 15 per cent target remains notional.

There is absolutely no assurance that Fortis can meet the more ambitious renewable gas targets it is now bandying about. Indeed, there is good reason to hope such supply goals cannot be met. Large-scale growth in RNG hinges on the continuation and expansion of our wasteful consumption habits. It assumes we as a society will continue to produce an endless supply of agricultural and household waste from which “renewable” methane can be captured. For all our sakes, we should hope that assumption is wrong.

Alternatively, Fortis may presume that much of that 75 per cent target will be met by means of hydrogen production, but that technology is far from ready, it may be derived from fossil fuels, and it presents Fortis with another challenge, which is that the current gas piping cannot handle too much hydrogen.

There are numerous other reasons electrification is a better approach to zero-emission buildings than renewable gas.

First, unlike with gas (renewable or otherwise), electric heat pumps provide cooling in the summer, a side benefit that will only become increasingly vital for human health and survival in an era of global heating. Indeed, if new buildings continue to heat with gas, those new owners will likely, in time, additionally invest in separate air conditioners, a poor use of energy and money when a heat pump system could have provided an all-in-one solution.

Second, RNG is still methane, and there are compelling health and safety reasons we should seek to get this gas out of our homes. No need for carbon monoxide detectors or to worry about what your kids are breathing when your home heating and cooking is electric.

And arguably most importantly, as we shift our society to carbon-zero, there are a few sectors and industrial activities that, for various reasons, cannot electrify, and which consequently will genuinely need the limited supply of RNG we can produce. Buildings — especially new buildings — are not among them. We do indeed need to capture the methane released from our waste. But that source should hopefully be limited, and the captured gas should be well and thoughtfully deployed.

Just the latest salvo from an organized fossil fuel campaign

The gas companies are relentless in defence of their growth plans. I’ve written previously about all the ways FortisBC tries to discourage electrification — offering rebates for new high-efficiency gas furnaces, hot water heaters and fireplaces; writing letters to customers discouraging fuel-swapping to electric; paying for “energy specialists” on staff with municipalities.

More recently, it’s come to light that Fortis is making mischief in B.C.’s schools. The company has an extensive package of lesson plans — a so-called "Energy Leaders K-12 curriculum" — it has made “freely” available to school districts (meaning, paid by Fortis ratepayers) for which over 2,000 teachers have already registered. Thankfully, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and other health professionals have begun an organized push to get this fossil fuel company’s resources out of our schools.

To be clear, FortisBC is not alone in such efforts. They are rife among the gas companies. As the leaked slide below shows, FortisBC and Enbridge (the largest provider of natural gas in Canada, servicing mainly Ontario and Quebec) are both members of a North American Consortium to Combat Electrification, an alliance of 15 gas companies across the continent that seeks to block gas bans and for which the push for “renewable” natural gas figures centrally in its collective strategy (as the consortium slide linked to here reveals).

In Ontario, Enbridge Gas has found a dependable ally in the government of Doug Ford. As the CBC reports, rather than seeking to limit gas from new building developments, the Ontario government is doing the opposite — “building new natural gas heating infrastructure to serve more customers and communities, including some that have been relying on electric heat until now. And it's making existing customers subsidize that expansion.”

Fortis could choose a different path. It could seek to truly reinvent itself as a new generation energy company, focusing on electric heat (as the company does in other provinces), and on neighbourhood geothermal and heat exchange systems where its expertise would be welcome. Instead, like much of the fossil fuel industry, the company is choosing to double down on gas.

We can’t afford to be tricked into fictional solutions or be lured by false promises. The emergency is too real, the urgency too great. Jurisdictions moving quickly to get gas out of buildings are showing important leadership that will result in significant GHG reductions.

Perhaps with this latest move, Fortis has overplayed its hand. Consider this the last desperate gasp of a dying industry. The province should take Fortis out of its misery (and the rest of us), refuse its request to the BC Utilities Commission, and move expeditiously to regulate a provincewide ban on new gas tie-ins for buildings.

Keep reading

Before the 1980s, most of what is now Fortis BC was part of BC Hydro. If it had never been privatized, we'd be in control of it and able to simply tell the executives to plan for a gradual wind-down of gas in favour of electricity. There wouldn't be any of these shenanigans.
As things stand, we should impose the no-new-gas-connections zoning bylaws, put big taxes on natural gas, and have the government buy it up when its valuation goes through the floor. Once they own it, they can do just transition stuff, so the workers don't get stranded.

I worked for Calgary Water & Sewer, and when the two merged, I got a tour of the huge Bonnybrook Wastewater Treatment plant around the turn of the century. The methane-capture system was nearly 20 years old, even then, now it's pushing 40. A huge success. Alas, none is for sale. It merely defrays the cost of heating and powering the plant, something like six megawatts - half the plant's power consumption.

Most renewable gas can be used that way: just power the sewage plant, or the bulldozers and graders of the dump. Imagining that there's enough of the stuff to power a civilization is simply silly. Organic fuels, like wood, can only power a medieval civilization, not ours.

FortisBC needs to be tamed, to be hauled out to the woodshed for a lesson on who's in freakin' charge here.

Excellent article. I doubt many municipal Councils will be conned into believing that FortisBC's 1% biomethane feed to a new building becomes, magically, a 100% biomethane supply and is therefore compliant with the new GHG intensity measures munis have put in place for all new buildings. Similarly, a climate-conscious homeowner paying Fortis a $7 per gigajoule premium for a 5% or 10% biomethane supply may wonder why that new building next door is getting a 100% mix without paying a red cent in premium. And why Fortis is trying to mask the fact that biomethane costs $20-$30 per gigajoule - 10 times the cost of the fracked stuff - by spreading the cost over all of its roughly 1 million customers. Do try to become an energy company, Fortis - the times they are a'changin'.

That might well be an over-estimation of "conning" required. It looks to me like local governments "believe in" "development" ... as long as it provides jobs during the term of the voting councillors.

Your Fortis piece needs balance. Banning gas in favor of electric heat pumps needs an
economic reality check.
1. I'm switching from an electric heat pump to gas. My savings with the heat
pump just were not there. $800 vs $260 for two months.
2. It's fine for politicians and greeies in Vancouver, who already have gas
powered mansions in West Point Grey, to ban the use of gas in YOUR new house. You pay the $800 while they stay with $260.
3. Heat pumps only work for journalists and politicians in Vancouver, not in the rest of
Canada. Heat energy can only be derived from air down to about
0 degrees C. Then you switch over to resistive electrical heat at high cost and consumption. That won't sell in Prince George or Kamloops or Winnipeg.
3. Two thirds of the power in BC comes from those pesky hydro dams (which you also don't want.) That's not the case in the rest of Canada or the US. They burn coal for their base load of electricity, and natural gas for top
ups. Should they burn more coal? I think not.
4. The latest news from Suncor is their long held secret that they
convert/strip hydrogen from natural gas for their oil sands extraction
process, and sequester the carbon. That will be worth some research time for our benefit. You will discover there is more to the whole story!

Some misconceptions here ...
As with most things there are good and bad versions of heat pumps. Cold weather ductless heat pumps can provide heat at temperatures as low as -20C ( COP decreases gradually as temperature drops, but is only equivalent to plain resistance heat at or below the minimum temperature quoted for the system. Our 2500 sq ft house (mid Vancouver island) has a 8 year old ductless system that works down to -9C, and we have never paid more than about $450 for any 2 month period (and that's for all electric use, not just heating).

There are additional benefits ... quiet, air conditioning in summer, and with multi head systems customization of what areas are heated or cooled. Furthermore, getting rid of gas means lower indoor air pollution (particularly from induction stoves replacing gas stoves) which is a health hazard (e.g asthma risk in children), and decreasing GHG emission.

Furthermore no-one is suggesting simply replacing gas heating with electric (although in newer houses with good insulation this would be an OK option) without also updating insulation, etc. to decrease heating load. Look at Halton Hills in Ontario or Ithica in NY state for how municipalities are approaching total electification of municipalities.

As with most major changes in society moving away from gas will require holistic thinking and a multi-track approach. Financing options for energy assessment and building retrofits in existing houses (to decrease necessary heating load not just the heating device) through low/no interest loans, repaid through savings are being pursued. See: Individuals can go it alone, but to be really effective government (Municipal, at least, and preferably Provincial) support will be required.

My suggestion to you is, before replacing your heat pump consider getting an energy audit and addressing insulation improvements and consider a cold weather ductless system. You may be surprised.

I have a couple of questions:

1. If FortisBC starts displacing fossil gas with “green” hydrogen by 2030, is there a problem?

“Green” hydrogen is on its way to being cheaper than fossil gas by 2030, especially as carbon tax makes fossil gas more expensive than today. The US department of energy has prioritized 1-1-1 program for “green” hydrogen (one kilogram green hydrogen for $1 within one decade), which translates to 80% cheaper than today, and lower price than fossil gas.

There are huge benefits of leveraging the existing pipeline infrastructure, with minimal worker displacement. That is the direction Europe, Korea, and Japan are headed.

About 90% of the fossil gas pipelines in Europe are ready for 100% hydrogen with minimal modifications. In America, about 50% of the pipelines are ready for hydrogen. I do not have numbers for Canada, maybe FortisBC has.

2. What is the lifecycle emissions footprint of heat pumps?

Even as HFCs are low emitting compared to CFCs (which caused the hole in ozone layer in 80s), they may still be 100x, or even 1000x worse than CO2. Any analysis of their lifecycle impact on the environment must include disposal of toxic chemicals. Most heat pump promotions, even BC Hydro’s, are mostly silent on the refrigerants (HFCs) issue.

Here is a 2020 study from Washington, see p13 for global warming potential GWP of HFCs, and p43 for conclusions and recommendations:

Without HFC management regulations for heat pumps, in a few years we will end up with a problem similar to plastics and toxic chemicals from EV batteries in our waters.

My house needs numerous "climate efficiency" measures.
But even now, having compared the numbers provided by the heat pump advocates here, it would take beyond the life of the heat pump to recover costs of purchase and installation, absent solar panels to reduce the cost of electricity.
I use a minimum amount of electricity: one (sometimes two) LED light bulbs burning at a time, and then only as needed for task lighting, cooking with all the "tricks" to save cooking time and energy expended, a freezer in the basement (it's cooler there, so takes the least amount of electricity it can), two dishwasher loads a week and one load of laundry per week, dried on racks, plus the furnace fan.
Heating and hot water is all gas.
And at that, my average monthly electricity bill is higher than my average gas bill.
I asked proponents of heat pumps for their cost/savings breakdown. I don't know where they get their numbers from, and whose house and what electricity utility they're referencing, but it's certainly not my house and my city.
The truth of the matter is that "affordability" for most people is dependent on cash flow, not long-term finance strategies. It doesn't really matter how much one saves over the long term if one can't afford the initial outlay. We all need to eat, too.
Mainly, these days, we eat corporate profits: we have no choice.