The recent floating of a ban on gas stoves by federal regulators caused an uproar nationwide, but the Montgomery County Council's 2022 actual ban on natural gas energy in future home and building construction is already making waves in the county's real estate market. In recent weeks, some for-sale signs in front of Montgomery County homes have added a new shingle underneath: "Natural Gas AVAILABLE."
County homeowners fortunate to have a natural gas hookup, and the advantages and alternatives it provides, may now see a bump in their home values. Buyers dreaming of a true "chef's kitchen," showers that don't run cold just because the power is out, or a generator to keep everything on when electric power does go out, will have a static inventory of older properties to choose from.
Montgomery County's natural gas ban was an instructive moment in more ways than one. Of course, it reminds us all of how much the Council enjoys banning things. It's a cheap way to make news, look busy, and not have to spend much money in the process. All the costs fall on businesses and residents.
Perhaps even more intriguing is the revelation of how County environmental policy often has less to do with actual impact on climate change (though those melting paper straws do add a unique new flavor to our beverages), and more to do with accomplishing hidden or corrupt goals, payoffs, power grabs and other short-term gains. Such is the epic tale of the rise and fall of natural gas in Montgomery County's "green" policy.
It wasn't that long ago that we were told natural gas was "clean energy." This just happened to coincide with fracking mania, which created whole boom towns in often-remote parts of America for a time. Brown drinking water and earthquakes? Merely minor side-effects of "clean energy."
Montgomery County's elected officials and local environmental advocates were all-in on natural gas at that time, as well.
Way back in 1996, Montgomery County purchased its first compressed natural gas Ride On buses. Montgomery County Council staff regularly have referred to these CNG buses as "clean bus technology."
Montgomery County Executive Douglas M. Duncan touted the purchase of 19 more natural gas-powered Ride On buses in 2000, through a multi-agency agreement that included the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG). "Through this agreement, we're helping to reduce traffic congestion and prevent pollution," Duncan said at the time. "The support of The Clean Alternative program has made it easier for the County to purchase low emission vehicles that reduce air pollution while lowering our fuel and maintenance costs."
Maryland Transportation Secretary John Porcari said that the purchase of these natural gas Ride On buses would "improve air quality and enhance the quality of life" of residents. Then-MWCOG Executive Director Michael Rogers said CNG Ride On buses were an "emerging strategy for improving air quality."
Sue Edwards of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission wrote that the CNG Ride On buses used natural gas as a "clean burning fuel." CNG was "a mechanism to meet air quality objectives," she stated.
The most interesting endorsement of natural gas-powered Ride On buses came from Elliott Negin of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Montgomery County is showing the way for our region," Negin was quoted as saying in the press release announcing the natural gas bus purchase.
Two years later, Negin and the NRDC were even more enthused about natural gas. WMATA had announced the purchase of 250 new natural gas CNG buses for the Metrobus fleet. "This is a great Earth Day present for the nation's capital, Maryland and Virginia," Negin said in a joint press release with the Sierra Club(!!). "Expanding Metro's natural gas program and retiring its polluting diesel buses is clearly the best choice for our public health and environment. It also is the best choice for strengthening U.S. energy security, since we get nearly all of our natural gas from North America, and more than half of the oil we consume is imported."
After reading that, you might wonder if Negin's article in Greater Greater Washington last month was written by an imposter.
"WMATA’s fleet is currently made up of diesel and compressed natural gas (CNG) buses, which essentially run on methane, a potent global warming gas," Negin and co-authors Steve Banashek and Timothy Oberleiton wrote on December 7, 2022. "Diesel tailpipe emissions have been linked to cancer and heart disease, as well as premature death. CNG bus emissions have been linked to cardiovascular and neurological diseases." Well, so much for enhancing the quality of life!
"Emissions from both fuels cause smog, which exacerbates allergies and such lung conditions as emphysema, bronchitis and asthma, a major problem in the District," Negin, et al continued. "Both types of fuel also pose a threat to the climate. In the greater Washington region, cars, trucks, buses, and other mobile sources account for a whopping 40% of annual global warming pollution. [CNG buses] spew toxic pollution. Their lifecycle global warming emissions, meanwhile, are on average only 6.4 percent lower than that of a diesel bus and, in many circumstances, are nearly the same due to widespread methane leaks and relatively poor fuel economy."
What a difference 20 years makes! Yet all of the properties of natural gas were known to scientists 20 years ago, when Negin, Montgomery County officials and countless other once-ardent promoters of natural gas were demanding Americans switch to that "clean energy" alternative. What's going on here?
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commissioner Richard Trumka attempted to backpedal on his gas stove ban musings last month, after everyone from annoyed chefs to political opponents of the Biden administration ran wild with the issue. Days later, Trumka quietly doubled down on his personal opposition to gas stoves in the back pages of The Washington Post.
Looking at Montgomery County environmental "policy" this century, we have to ask, what will his position be twenty years from now?
27 comments:
Clueless liberal virtue signalling. What happens when the electric grid is unable to handle the increase in demand? More emergency public money? That plus increased coal & natural gas electric production, especially when democrats close Calvert Cliffs. Unreal
Newspeak and memory holes and 2+2+5. When out of favor politicians are removed from
old photos, we know we'll really be in trouble.
I remember in Elementary School in the 70's being told that the human race would have starved to death by the 1990's
The use of natural gas is indeed less harmful to the environment than petroleum products. Twenty years ago, full EV buses were just a dream, but now they appear to be viable. No doubt that all energy sources have an impact on the environment, even the generation, storage and transmission of electrical energy. As technology presents newer and more sustainable methodologies, we must adapt. Some day, perhaps battery powered electrical vehicles will be surpassed by more sustainable energy sources. We need to ramp up to most efficient and environmentally friendly sources as they are developed.
Never met a ban they didn't like. Just a few come to mind here:
Low flow toilets
Restricted showerheads
Gas-powered lawn equipment
Natural gas appliances/furnaces
Eco-friendly straws (no ban but they are everywhere here)
So sad, eventually we'll pay the piper. Lower real estate values starts the slide.
Anonymous @6:59: Gee, and I thought electricity comes out of a hole in wall, clean as a whistle, like magic. The truth is that gas stoves are inherently more energy efficient than electric stoves because electricity is generated primarily from fossil fuels (gas and coal), and the process of transforming gas into electricity necessarily wastes gas compared to the direct combustion of gas in a gas stove. Duh! And renewables like wind and solar have a more harmful environmental impact than natural gas because of the wide areas of the earth that have to be covered by wind and solar farms to compensate for intermittency and relatively low energy density, the adverse effects on animals (birds, desert tortoises, and whales), the mining of lithium and other metals for battery storage, and the longer transmission lines needed to transmit electricity from the farms to where people live. Even if viable, full EV buses are probably more environmental harmful than buses that run on natural gas. But dream on with your progressive utopia. In my former Bethesda high-rise condo, there was a backup generator that went on when the power went out, but the only thing it did was keep a few lights on in the hallways and the water pump working so we could flush the toilets. At least we had gas stoves, so we could cook food on the stove top. With electric stoves, we wouldn't have been able to do that.
That's a lot of words. Maybe it won't work to do what they say it will work do. It's still important to raise the issue that what we use for energy isn't sustainable or healthy for anybody. Let's slow down nursing off of our world for the sake of our children. Either that or trust them to figure it out in a few years. I can work up a trust if my SSN is at stake.
Is this what those damn mailers I keep getting are for? Trying to get me choose to make a choice for Pepco© to switch over to a renewable energy co-op?
The county has created a monopoly electric company, but no one talks of this bad economics. The county has no study on the cost of going all electric including build out costs Electric energy is very expensive and will drive the low and moderate income peoples out of the county due to affordability issues. New business will not pay the up costs in rent
Even DC didn’t go with this nutty policy. Emergency generators need gas to operate when electricity fails.
These politicians are really ignorant and don’t know what they are doing. They think though like many cults they are saving the planet. Actually they are ruining our lives
8:08 and others, welcome to the revolution! What these fools and many others are doing is what's called ass backwards. It does the reverse of what it's intended as you rightly point out. Wind? They are known as "condor cuisinarts". They kill 100's of birds of prey every year and no one says a word. We all know this is BS yet Elrich was reelected for 4 more long years.
7:06: I don't disagree about the importance, but the question here is, why did they call natural gas "clean energy" up until just recently, and now say it is "toxic pollution" and want to ban it? The properties of natural gas and its use were known to scientists in 2002, and have not changed.
5:42 - Robert, Nat. gas was not harmful at any point and time. Not before and not now. This is insanity.
This brings back faded memories of a bumper sticker: Hit Me Easy I'm Full of Gas!
5:59: JAC, the question I'm asking is, what is the moral authority or credibility of officials to ban natural gas after promoting its use, and endorsing it as clean energy, up until 2022?
Very similar to the Council condemning BRT when it was proposed by Bob Ehrlich, and then turning around and endorsing it when developers wanted them to use it as a cheaper way to convert more corridors to high-density.
Yet local media does not point this out, only repeating Council talking points as fact.
Robert, Such a great question and your memory on Gov. Ehrlich is spot on. The other guy, with a similar sounding name, but who couldn't be any farther apart from our former governor, was absolutely against rapid bus at the time. I recall well when Gov. Ehrlich said BRT isn't sexy but we can afford it. How funny that they now change their tune? They have no moral compass but just issue talking points or policy positions depending on which way the wind blows. The fact is that natural gas is abundant and clean. All fleet vehicles should be CNG run and we could have rapid buses running on it. No talk about that anymore. All of this stuff is crazy but par for their course.
The county simply believed the Purple Line should be light rail while Ehrlich believed it should be BRT. That doesn't mean the county was anti-BRT. In 2010 when Ehrlich was threatening to turn the Purple Line into a bus line the county was already pushing for BRT lines of its own, most notably for the now-tabled Corridor Cities Transitway. The amount of revisionist history on this site that tries to pass as fact is comical.
Reminds me of the lines from the Woody Allen movie "Sleeper," where he wakes up 200 years in the future and learns that scientists found that fatty foods and sugar are good for you.
8:24: Wrong - the CCT wasn't a BRT line at that point, it was light rail. The Council was outspoken in demanding rail for both at the time, and equally outspoken on the downsides of BRT. Much like opposition to slot machines, they flip-flopped when it became expedient for the political cartel to do so.
Funny you guys are talking about 2010 considering the county appropriated a significant amount of money in 2009-2010 (and since) on consultants to study 23(!) different proposed BRT lines. It's safe to say the county was not anti-BRT at the time (except re: the Purple Line, as was pointed out).
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/dot-dte/Resources/Files/mcbrtstudyfinalreport110728.pdf
11:21: Ehrlich was voted out in 2006, long before the Council flip-flopped to love BRT at the behest of their developer sugar daddies.
Bob Ehrlich ran in 2010 on a platform that included changing the Purple Line from light rail to BRT. The county council was vocally against this idea, which you attempted to frame as the council being anti-BRT. Facts do not support that assertion. The council was against the PL being BRT, not against the use of BRT generally. MoCo has had a robust bus system for nearly 50 years at this point.
7:34: That's later. Years earlier, the Council trashed BRT for all its downsides, demanding rail for the Purple Line. Nobody but Ehrlich had pushed for BRT at that point. The Council was also opposed to the CCT being BRT, but now support it being BRT. Flip.Flop
Casinos, BRT, Chesapeake Bay cleanup, ICC - it's incredible how Bob Ehrlich's vision of the future was later embraced and implemented by his most venomous opponents. He shaped the state for the next century and gets no credit.
10:01 - absolutely correct. he's long forgotten by this full Dem state.
I read this publication for the latest news and developments happening in Bethesda to stay informed. I do my best to navigate around your flagrant political tirades, but I think your readership would take off if you could keep your opinions out of it for once and remain objective by just reporting the facts.
6:27 - You're kidding right? This is a blog. Robert Dyer is a private citizen who is neither a professional journalist nor does he operate a news or media publication at least not in the traditional sense yet offers something of value for local residents. For the record, Bethesda Magazine and it's online offering, Bethesda Beat, was often slanted liberal in keeping with the mainstream modis operandi.
Author would be happy if only the opinions expressed were those they agreed with. Twitter has demonstrated what a cluster of lies happens when one side is censored. Grow up and accept that there are other points of view outside of your own.
4:52 - That is so well said. It's a bit like the Catholic boys who were kicked out of the Air and Space Museum recently for wearing "pro-life" hats. Meanwhile, BLM, LGBTQRSTUV, "Fossil Fuels are evil" or anything else of that sort go unnoticed. Nope, they get a free pass. Speaking of free, first amendment applies here.
Post a Comment