State Democrats Poised to Rescind I-937

By Josh Feit, Wednesday, March 4, 2009 at 3:36 PM
View Comments

State Sen. Chris Marr (D-6, Spokane), the Democratic majority whip in Olympia, is sponsoring a bill that will gut the voter-approved renewable energy initiative, I-937. The bill has been fast tracked by leadership and is queued up for a floor vote by the end of this week.  The bill has six Democratic sponsors and six Republican sponsors. 

marr

Sen. Chris Marr (D-6, Spokane). Marring the people’s will?

I-937, passed by the voters in 2006 52-48, mandates that electric utilities get 15 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020. Hydro was not included on I-937′s list of kosher sources because the intent of the initiative was to develop new sources of green power. Hydro provides 70 percent of the region’s power already. (Additionally, dams are taboo in the environmental community.)

“The main intent was to diversify,” says Carrie Dolwick, policy associate for the Northwest Energy Coalition, an environmental group opposed to Marr’s bill. “We can’t just rely on one source, ” she adds, explaining that getting an A in math, but a C in everything else, would be an unacceptable report card for concerned parents.

Marr’s bill grandfathers in existing renewables, including hydro up to a 30 megawatt average, so some hydro electricity could count toward meeting the goal. The bill would also allow conservation measures to count toward the renewable goal, something that was prohibited by I-937. (I-937 had a separate conservation mandate.)

Finally, and what environmental advocates seem most peeved about is this: Rather than mandating that 15 percent of a utility’s generation load come from renewable sources, the percentage will be pegged to a utility’s load growth (load growth= increase in energy generation). So, for example, if a utility increases its output by 10 percent, it has to get 10 percent of its energy from renewable sources rather than the 15 target. And again, to environmentalists’ chagrin,  conservation efforts and existing sources of renewables— including some hydro power—can be counted toward the lower goal.  

“This bill, as it is [now],” says Dolwick, “has amended I-937 until it essentially rescinds the renewable energy standard.”

 
Most utilities’ energy loads grow by about 1.2 percent a year. That puts the target number lower than 15 percent by about 12 percent when 2020 comes around. Using the load growth standard in lieu of the the 15 percent standard, for example, would even decrease a faster-growth utility like Spokane-based Avista. The  load growth standard would shrink their requirement by 41 percent for the 2012 check in, according to the bill opponents’ numbers. 

“It could cut the renewables in half,” says Marc Krasnowsky, communications director for the NWEC. 

Several top Avista execs are on Marr’s contributors list—including President Scott Morris at $1,0000—bringing total contributions from Avista to the Spokane senator to near $6,000 during his 2006 election.

Sen. Marr says he believes if the voters who approved I-937 in 2006 were asked today what their intent was, they would say their intent was to “lower green house gas emissions, lower the dependence on carbon-based fuels, and promote renewables.”

And the follow-up question, Marr would ask? “Did they intend to promote just one technology [wind power]?” Marr answers, “No, I think they’d say they wanted a portfolio approach.” 

To that end, Marr strongly believes that conservation needs to be a part of the I-937 fix. “The greenest watt is no watt used,” he says. And so, Marr is pushing to “incent convservation.” 

Marr adds that after they run the numbers, if they find that tacking the mandate to load growth “significantly impairs the intent [of investing in renewables], I would certainly not be in support of that.”

He says the bill is not finished and he agrees with the advocates concern. Marr, however, sees himself as caught between the enviros—he points out that he’s been rated legislator of the year by the Washington Conservation Voters and that he cut ads for I-937 in 2006—and the utilities.  

Sen. Marr reframes the whole debate by pointing out that his bill raises the mandate on utilities from 15 percent to 21 percent, and so, putting that burden on the utilities means the utilities should get credit for other efforts that reduce their carbon footprint, like conservation and counting some hydro. (Of course, the green critics of the bill say the 21 percent mandate is irrelevant if the new standard is load growth.)

Marr also says that I-937 “has put smaller utilities in the position of getting rid of low-cost hydro for more expensive renewables,” which leads him to this point: “That creates sticker shock for low-income customers.” 

This is precisely the point Avista, which supports amending I-937, makes. Avista spokesman Hugh Imhof tells PubliCola that while Avista is meeting the I-937 targets now, as their load growth goes up, they will have to invest in more expensive wind power and push that price on their customers. Imhof says a new wind plant would cost $125 million. “We could save our customers $125 million,” he says, if the company didn’t have to build the wind plant and could count its small hydro plants toward the goal. “Hydro is renewable,” Imhof says. 

Avista gets about 53 percent of its power from hydro. 

Puget Sound Energy, however, is neutral on the bill. PSE spokesperson Andy Wappler says the Bellevue-based utility is far ahead of schedule. They are on track to be at 10 percent by 2013, he says.

6 Responses to State Democrats Poised to Rescind I-937

  1. Algernon says:

    “Marring the people’s will” is punny, but surely we’re hoping the California Supreme Court “Marrs the people’s will” with respect to Prop. 8.

  2. Mistamatic says:

    And when climate change affects our state’s rainfall/snowpack to the point where hydro power isn’t our main source anymore, what will their excuse be when it’s too late and they haven’t diversified? Oh, that’s right, there’s always nuclear. Ha.

  3. Frank Powers Jr. says:

    Wow. Sounds like all the old tired rhetoric those guys used to try and beat us with when we were signing petitions and getting out the vote in 2006. I’m amazed that the old chestnut about making utilities sell hydropower and then soaking their customers for more costly renewables is still around. Everyone should have been disabused of that idea long ago. There’s a whole bunch of stuff in law to make sure that won’t happen, like allowing utilities to buy pretty cheap renewable energy certificates to meet their quotas and other parts that let utilities off the hook if they’re not growing at all. If it hadn’t been that way, do you think the group that represents public utilities in the state, WAPUDA, would have supported I-937? And do you think low-income advocates around the state would have supported the initiative like they did if they thought it would hurt them? It’s all a lot of ignorance, lies told by businesses and the old divide and conquer. What a crock.

  4. Joan Lieberman-Brill says:

    Frank Powers Jr and Mistamatic seem to know what he’s talking about. Let’s send a message back to the state legislature not to mess with I-937.

  5. 2flit says:

    After having read over sb 5840 and looked at the changes to I-937 that this bill makes. It is apparent that we have a serious problem. If any hydro under 30 megawatts is considered a renewable resource then we better increase the portfolio standards for the utilities targets. Instead we are reducing them to the lower of the I-937 targets or an individual utilities growth rate.
    According to Senator Pridemore on the Senate Tech committee….. We would need to increase the portfolio standard to a 75% renewables if we are to include hydro in this mix.
    His point is that I-937 was drafted to set a particular portfolio standard for the specific renewables that this initiative addressed. We wanted the specific resources mentioned to attain the targets mandated by this legislation. If we are to add a new resource category by calling hydro a renewable then we should create a separate portfolio standard for this Hydro resource. The intent of I-937 was to address the resource group that it was directed toward and to mandate a certain percentage of these specific renewables in the resource mix. It we want to set standards for other resources and non-qualified conservation then we should draft new legislation that sets for the portfolio standards that we feel are appropriate for them.

    It may be true that Hydro is a renewable resource. It can be debated weather Hydro is environmentally benign. It can be debated whether Hydro that we installed in the 1800’s should be considered a renewable. BUT do not mix them up with the types of renewables that I-937 has specifically addressed.

    My advice is to kill this bill and introduce a new bill if you wish to set additional standards for other resources; whatever class you chose to put them in.

  6. Mistamatic says:

    And when climate change affects our state's rainfall/snowpack to the point where hydro power isn't our main source anymore, what will their excuse be when it's too late and they haven't diversified? Oh, that's right, there's always nuclear. Ha.

blog comments powered by Disqus