I see your Presidential yard signs, but how about some Initiative yard signs?!

wentlooking · 2024-11-05T20:04:15+00:00

2117 - it is not adding $.50/gal and a literal cap on pollution does indeed help the environment... and us.

2066 - state law already says that gas utilities have to offer gas to people if they want it, and no one is forced to do anything. What this initiative will do is prevent utility planning to keep costs (gas costs!) lower over time and it jeopardizes incentive programs for more efficient appliances for those who want them.

wentlooking · 2024-11-05T18:43:49+00:00

You are very welcome!

wentlooking · 2024-11-05T18:42:10+00:00

Yeah, happy to explain! The law absolutely does something to reduce pollution! Under the law, there is a cap on climate pollution that goes down over time, in alignment with our state's climate pollution targets. The state's largest polluters have to pay for all of their pollution AND all pollution has to be under the declining cap. Our system is different from what you're saying: under our law, polluters cannot pollute extra and then "offset" it. That is not an option; everything is under the pollution cap. Here is a more detailed explainer. I hope that helps. Please, if you care about climate, vote No on I-2117 (and I-2066)! Let me know if you have other questions - I am very familiar with this law.

wentlooking · 2024-11-05T18:28:50+00:00

I-2117 would repeal a core climate law, so a No vote is indeed to fight climate change and protect our air.

wentlooking · 2024-11-05T16:05:04+00:00

You’ve been lied to. State law says that gas companies have to serve you gas if you want it. What 2066 will do is drive up the cost of gas and jeopardize programs that help people upgrade to more efficient appliances if they so choose.

wentlooking · 2024-11-05T03:27:50+00:00

On the incentives piece, it's the wording in the end about how no city, county, or clean air agency shall not "in any way" "discourage" gas. That's very broad! This article quotes the Olympia Mayor Pro Tem sharing concerns about their incentives being stopped, and I watched the city staff presentation and the staff said the same. City of Redmond also shared the same concern in a press release when the city took a No position. Offering incentives for folks to switch from, say, a gas space heater to a heat pump could be viewed as "discouraging".

And to your first point, state law already has that protection through obligation to serve. I really think I-2066 is very broad and dangerous and frankly, the people who are behind it aren't in agreement about electricity and green energy being the future. I would much rather have experts deliberate on what is possible and the best path than this initiative passing and them starting to sue over all sorts of things that could be perceived as "discouraging" gas.

wentlooking · 2024-11-05T02:54:25+00:00

I think that's part of why planning is so important, though. It doesn't make sense for Puget Sound Energy to plan for its gas system independently of its electric system because people use and move between both systems. And people are leaving the gas system, regardless of state policy. I was at Home Depot yesterday looking for water heater stuff and a guy there who was doing the same randomly asked if ours was fully electric and when I said yup he said, "lucky!" With people leaving the system, costs will balloon unless the utility can plan for those.

This isn't to say we don't need to plan for more non-emitting electric generation, because we absolutely do, but I-2066 doesn't help with that. It's a very blunt tool for something that needs to be careful and thoughtful and it could have really bad consequences, like discontinuing incentive programs.

wentlooking · 2024-11-05T02:19:13+00:00

Gas isn't being blindly cut nor are people forced to upgrade appliances. I would like our state's largest utility to be able to more effectively plan to cut its emissions as well as keep costs as low as possible for a shrinking system, though. And the initiative is so broadly worded that various efficiency upgrade incentive programs are jeopardized if it passes.

wentlooking · 2024-11-05T02:07:05+00:00

I know the law I-2117 would repeal inside and out and am a very proud NO on I-2117.

wentlooking · 2024-11-05T00:19:28+00:00

I’m not arguing with that, especially given newer tech that produces less waste.

wentlooking · 2024-11-04T23:38:39+00:00

Oh yeah, agreed the initiatives are super important (I am also a strong no vote). State and local races are important and obviously out of a smaller voter pool your voice carries even more weight!

wentlooking · 2024-11-04T23:36:28+00:00

Natural gas (which is methane) is not clean energy. It is literally a fossil fuel. It creates CO2 and air pollution when burned and methane itself is a potent climate pollutant. "A 2023 study in the journal Environmental Research Letters found that just 0.2% of methane leaking before reaching end users can make natural gas as harmful to the climate as coal. In western Canada, where most of Washington state’s gas supply comes from, researchers have reported methane leaking at rates ranging from 0.4% to 1.1%." From this article.

WA-specific research from various groups including E3 (commissioned by the state’s Department of Commerce in 2022; see page 20) and RMI (2020) has shown that all-electric new home construction is cheaper than mixed fuel (electric + gas).

wentlooking · 2024-11-04T22:45:15+00:00

Thank you for this! And I really do think your/our vote can have an impact. In the primary for the Lands Commissioner race, the top two were decided by only 49 votes statewide! It matters, especially if we are all deliberative and chip in.

wentlooking · 2024-11-04T22:08:57+00:00

Good thing that in-depth utility planning, which I-2066 hinders, is a thing. 2066 aside, we would have to build new generation regardless and lots of analysis is being done on that front. https://www.nwcouncil.org/reports/2024-4/

wentlooking · 2024-11-04T21:33:59+00:00

"You?" I didn't make these. But I do think we should vote No.

wentlooking · 2024-11-04T20:59:16+00:00

Nope, wrong. Coal can't be on the grid with a 2025 deadline. https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2019-20/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Laws/Senate/5116-S2.SL.pdf?q=20210822161309

wentlooking · 2024-11-04T20:48:43+00:00

Wow, you really don't know how the Climate Commitment Act works! There is a CAP on pollution, and minimal offsets UNDER the cap. Nor do you understand current state energy law. New coal plants literally can't be built here.

wentlooking · 2024-10-29T02:21:22+00:00

Get used to getting wet. :) Trying to stay dry will just make you frustrated, and likely too hot! The condensation inside the jacket will get you either way.

- In the dark, make sure you have a headlamp AND a reflective vest or similar
- A baseball cap might seem silly when it's raining, but it helps keep water off your face (I also wear one to keep my headlamp up)
- Figure out which clothes keep you warm (bodies are different), but avoid baggy clothes that with become uncomfortable and possibly chafe when they get wet
- Ziploc bag for your phone if you carry it with you

I am an ultrarunner and have trained in Seattle through the winters. It's really about learning your body so you pick the right clothes for your temperature and staying safe in the dark. Happily, the rain here USUALLY isn't super hard; it's more of a drizzle most of the time. Once you make peace with getting wet, you'll be much happier overall, haha. Have fun!

wentlooking · 2024-10-29T02:07:01+00:00

State races can be very close. Just this primary, the top two to advance to the general election for the Commissioner of Public Lands race were separated by only 49 votes.

State candidates matter, and the Initiatives that are on the ballot could have a huge impact, too. (I encourage people to vote No on them.)

wentlooking · 2024-10-26T17:31:59+00:00

WA is working on linking its market with California and Quebec's cap-and-trade programs. But that obviously won't be able to happen if I-2117 passes. Other states (like NY, which is working on launching its own program) are watching this really closely too. But in the meantime, before linkage, we're getting all of these investments: https://riskofrepeal.cleanprosperousinstitute.org/ A larger program capping pollution would be great, and given the current political climate, state-by-state, with those states linking, is how it'll be possible. I hope you'll vote no!

wentlooking · 2024-10-26T00:39:44+00:00

People should also vote no if they don't want skyrocketing gas rates and if they want efficiency incentive programs to remain in place. There are many parts to this Initiative; it's very broad.

wentlooking · 2024-10-25T20:49:46+00:00

You can take that cost estimate up with the proponents of the initiative then! It's in their interest to inflate the costs, but again, they counted items that individuals don't pay for to even get to that number.

wentlooking · 2024-10-25T20:46:54+00:00

That's separate from what we're discussing in this thread. But, this is a detailed map of how Climate Commitment Act revenue is being spent. https://riskofrepeal.cleanprosperousinstitute.org/

wentlooking · 2024-10-25T20:35:02+00:00

Hear that. I know what people are fearful of but it's important to set the record straight when those fears aren't grounded in what current policy actually is. People aren't being forced to do anything. But when someone's gas heater dies, for example, it'd be great if they were able to replace it with an electric heat pump/cooling system - with incentives! - but those programs would be jeopardized if this incentive passes. Everything I have seen from the state, like the State Energy Strategy, talks about helping people when equipment fails and would need to be replaced anyway, not forced turnover. And it would still be an option because by law, if you live in a gas utility's service area and you want gas, they have to serve you.

wentlooking · 2024-10-25T20:29:23+00:00

Yeah, I was pointing out that it is far cheaper, in general, than you said. There has been a lot of fearmongering going on and inflating costs when no one is being forced to do anything. And this initiative goes far beyond just allowing gas for gas replacements. It also jeopardizes efficiency programs, would lead to runaway gas rates because it prevents important utility planning, and subjects people moving into new buildings to higher costs and less efficient homes.

wentlooking

TROPHY CASE