Liberal communities in California, Washington, and Massachusetts want to ban or limit the use of natural gas in commercial and residential buildings claiming it's more harmful to the climate than carbon dioxide.
In July, Berkeley, California became the first U.S. city to pass an ordinance banning gas systems homes and businesses. Similar gas bans are happening in a Boston suburb, Minnesota, New York City and Seattle.
Texas Railroad Commission Chairman Wayne Christian said if natural gas doesn't provide heating and cooling, fires to stoves, warm water in showers, electricity would be the alternative.
"The total maximum amount of electrical generation in our grid needed, that windmills and solar panels can do is about 15 percent, so who's going to furnish the other 85 percent that's going to furnish electricity for all these new buildings, so it's hypocrisy at its worst," said Christian.
He said wind power for one megawatt of electricity would take 40,000 acres, solar panels would take 10,000 acres and natural gas 12.5 acres.
Christian said solar gets 1,212 times of what natural gets in funding from the taxpayer. Wind gets 878 times of what natural gets in funding from the taxpayer. So, the cost to the taxpayer will be tremendous.
"So, we're trying to be told we need to suffer just because. And, there's no good reason for it. It's the biggest scam on the taxpayer, and on the public in the history of the country is this environmental need," said Christian.
While the American Public Gas Association thinks it could catch on, Christian said it's ridiculous and environmentalists are hunting for something to fight. In the 70s, it was the big arctic freeze. It eventually moved on to global warming, climate change, carbon dioxide, methane and now natural gas.
According to the Environmental Protect Agency, since 1970, the US is the cleanest environment in the world for an industrialized country.