D.C. Attorney General Urges Regulators to Reject Washington Gas Pipeline Plan
The D.C. Public Service Commission is weighing whether to retain, modify or reject Washington Gas’s pipeline-replacement plan after a July 27-28 evidentiary hearing. The dispute could affect future gas bills, neighborhood construction and the District’s long-term gas planning.
Attorney General Brian Schwalb is asking the D.C. Public Service Commission to reject Washington Gas’s next pipeline-replacement phase after regulators held a two-day evidentiary hearing on July 27-28.
The proceeding remains pending. The commission approved a modified District SAFE plan on March 4, 2026, authorizing $150 million over three years, but later granted reconsideration requests from the Office of the People’s Counsel, the District government and the Sierra Club. No final post-hearing decision retaining, changing or rejecting the plan has been identified as of August 1.
What is at stake
Washington Gas originally asked the commission to approve $215 million over three years for accelerated replacement of aging and leak-prone gas infrastructure. The company proposed recovering eligible costs through surcharges on customers’ gas bills.
Schwalb’s July 24 request says the commission should reject the plan because regulators need stronger cost controls, better prioritization of the highest-risk pipe and a clearer analysis of the District’s climate and electrification policies. Those are positions advanced by the attorney general and other parties, not final findings by the commission.
What the commission approved in March
On March 4, the commission approved a modified version of District SAFE for July 2026 through June 2029. The commission’s program page says the modified authorization is capped at $150 million over three years, about 30% below Washington Gas’s original request.
The modified plan includes annual spending caps, a risk-scoring process intended to prioritize the most dangerous and leak-prone pipes, and requirements that Washington Gas consider alternatives to replacement before seeking approval for particular projects. The commission also included cost-recovery conditions intended to limit ratepayer exposure.
The plan’s rollout, originally scheduled to begin July 1, was temporarily paused while the commission considered the requests for reconsideration and prepared for the new evidentiary hearing. The pause did not itself impose a new customer charge or authorize additional construction.
Why the case was reconsidered
In Order No. 22855, the commission granted the reconsideration requests and identified material factual disputes that could affect the outcome. The order specifically cited the basis for increased pipeline-replacement costs, whether District SAFE achieves the highest risk reduction for each dollar spent, and how greenhouse-gas reductions should be calculated.
The order also describes disputes over the plan’s use of the JANA risk model, non-pipeline alternatives, cost controls and surcharge recovery. The July 27-28 hearing gave the parties an opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses on the issues that remained in dispute.
The District’s objections
In its post-hearing brief, the District government asked the commission to reject District SAFE. The filing argues that the plan is too expensive, does not sufficiently focus work on the highest-risk pipe and does not adequately account for electrification, climate policy or the risk that some gas infrastructure could become underused.
The District’s filing also presents analyses asserting that replacement could take many decades at the proposed pace and cost billions of dollars if extended across the system. Those estimates and conclusions are part of the District’s arguments and supporting evidence; they are not final commission determinations.
Washington Gas’s stated rationale is that replacing aging, leak-prone infrastructure can improve gas-system safety and reliability. The PSC’s modified plan attempts to retain that safety objective while adding risk prioritization, cost controls and consideration of alternatives.
What residents could see
The immediate issue for gas customers is not a new District SAFE surcharge already appearing on bills. Any future bill effect would depend on the commission’s final action and on which costs, if any, it permits Washington Gas to recover from customers.
If replacement work ultimately proceeds, affected neighborhoods could experience construction, noise, temporary service interruptions and traffic impacts. The PSC says Washington Gas must provide notice to residents in areas affected by pipeline work.
The case also raises longer-term questions about the District’s gas system: how much customers should pay for infrastructure safety, whether replacement is the most cost-effective response to particular risks, how methane and other greenhouse-gas effects should be measured, and how new investment fits with the District’s electrification and climate goals.
What happens next
The commission must consider the hearing record and subsequent filings before deciding whether to retain, modify or reject District SAFE. Order No. 22855 sets August 11, 2026, as the deadline for post-hearing briefs and says the evidentiary record will close then.
Until the commission issues its next decision, the $150 million authorization from March should not be treated as a final post-reconsideration resolution, and Washington Gas’s original $215 million request should not be described as approved.
Sources
- D.C. PSC Washington Gas Pipeline Replacement Program
- D.C. PSC Order No. 22855
- District of Columbia Government post-hearing brief
- Axios Washington D.C. hearing report
Discover more from Interactive News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
