Last week, PubliCola continued reporting on some news we broke in January: The state legislature is poised to undo I-937, the 2006 initiative approved by voters to promote renewable energy. I-937 required utilities to get 15 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.
We interviewed the bill’s sponsor at length, the Democrats’ Majority Whip, Sen. Chris Marr (D-6, Spokane), for our story.
Another major proponent of the bill to undo I-937 is state Senate Majority Leader Sen. Lisa Brown (D-3, Spokane). Sen. Brown got her say on the issue today: The Seattle Times, which came out strongly against the initiative in 2006, gave Brown space to write a guest editorial defending the legislation.
She writes:
SB 5840 would allow utilities some flexibility in meeting the renewable-energy standard when costs for renewable energy are high. Utilities would, in effect, be allowed to substitute meeting conservation targets in place of meeting renewable-energy use targets. This still allows utilities to meet I-937′s overall emissions goals…
This sounds reasonable, but it needs to be put in context and corrected.
First, the initiative itself already made provisions so utilities could cope with the costs of meeting the renewable goals, allowing some utilities to meet lower standards. There was, in fact, a price cap for utilities that were struggling to meet the goal. (And as we pointed out in our story, utilities like Bellevue-based Puget Sound Energy are not having any trouble meeting the standard.)
Second, Brown is revisiting arguments that conservatives (and the Seattle Times) made in 2006—and lost. Conservation is not supposed to be counted toward the renewable goal. In fact, I-937 set out a separate conservation goal. The intent of I-937 was to increase the state’s reliance on renewable energy sources.
I’m not sure if U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee (D-1, WA)—the biggest advocate of I-937—will get to write a guest editorial in the Seattle Times as well.
While we wait for Inslee to get his say in the Seattle Times, here’s what he told PubliCola last week about the legislature’s move to undo I-937.
Tweet
Josh, just wanted to note that The Seattle Times wrote about the I-937 bill on March 2. Here’s a link to the story: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008801080_greenenergy02m.html
Cheers,
Richard Wagoner
Assistant metro editor
The Seattle Times
Richard,
PubliCola first wrote about the bill on January 29.
http://publicola.net/?p=652
Best,
Josh Feit
P.S. We also wrote about the bill on March 2. Here’s a link to that story.
http://publicola.net/?p=2578
My understanding is that any bill which includes a budgetary aspect is not moving forward.
Which Senator has the testicular fortitude to attach an amendment giving companies that meet the original requirements of I-937 additional tax cuts and effectively kill the bill?
Will the real environmentalist(s) please stand up?
Well, here we have the allegedly “liberal” Senate leader from Spokane, who’s no doubt planning to use her green creds to woo I-5 voters to her upcoming gubernatorial bid, massively and blithely selling out to her masters at Avista and other big businesses in the state. I’m sure those folks will be happy to provide her and her bag man Chris Marr with plenty of the only green they seem to care about.
Forget it Lisa. At this point, I’d vote for anyone but you for governor. No other self-respecting environmentalist or clean-energy supporter or believer in developing new economy jobs should vote for you, either.
You and Dave are showing exactly why I-937 had to go to a vote of the people. The alliance of big business, big utilities and gutless politicians was impossible to break. But the people exerted their will, despite a huge misinformation/scare campaign partly funded by your Avista buddies.
You are not going to break us.
Josh, did you deliberately avoid the metonymic use of Olympia in your headline?
Emmett,
I thought about that, wasn’t sure if I was or wasn’t with this one.
Well, I appreciate you feeling around and trying (at least it seems) to find a way to refer to Olympia in the non-metonymic sense. I really like “in Olympia” btw.
Josh, just wanted to note that The Seattle Times wrote about the I-937 bill on March 2. Here's a link to the story: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews...
Cheers,
Richard Wagoner
Assistant metro editor
The Seattle Times