Enviro Community Scales Back Priorities for 2010

Let’s not forget what’s becoming the annual exercise in trying to gut the state’s clean energy law, I-937. Utilities and allied special interests, and their wholey-owned Democratic legislators, still can’t stand the fact that Washington voters overturned their years of lying obstructionism by approving the clean energy initiative in 2006.

The environmental community apparently made “protecting the integrity” of I-937 a kind of fourth, as-needed priority for this year. We’ll need to watch what happens and be ready to defend Washington citizens’ clean energy commitments.

Let’s not forget what’s becoming the annual exercise in trying to gut the state’s clean energy law, I-937. Utilities and allied special interests, and their wholey-owned Democratic legislators, still can’t stand the fact that Washington voters overturned their years of lying obstructionism by approving the clean energy initiative in 2006.

The environmental community apparently made “protecting the integrity” of I-937 a kind of fourth, as-needed priority for this year. We’ll need to watch what happens and be ready to defend Washington citizens’ clean energy commitments.

I think that it is a good set of priorities. Part of me wishes that we were pushing this year on some of the grander ideas, and another part recognizes the political realities imposed by the budget situation and the short session.

I think that it is a good set of priorities. Part of me wishes that we were pushing this year on some of the grander ideas, and another part recognizes the political realities imposed by the budget situation and the short session.

The “Working for Clean Water Act” is nothing more than a funding source for municipalities costs associated with the Ecology mandated Municipal Stormwater Permits. Not saying I agree with it or not, just pointing out what it actually is. I don’t see it on the pre-filed bill list, unless there is a creative title to it.

HB2432 is to recognize hydro as a renewable energy which was not included in I-937. This not “gutting” I-937, but bringing what is included on the renewable energy list in line with what the rest of the world, except Washington, recognizes as renewable energy sources. This I-937 “omission” was clearly focused at dam removals and other ESA issues.

The “Working for Clean Water Act” is nothing more than a funding source for municipalities costs associated with the Ecology mandated Municipal Stormwater Permits. Not saying I agree with it or not, just pointing out what it actually is. I don’t see it on the pre-filed bill list, unless there is a creative title to it.

HB2432 is to recognize hydro as a renewable energy which was not included in I-937. This not “gutting” I-937, but bringing what is included on the renewable energy list in line with what the rest of the world, except Washington, recognizes as renewable energy sources. This I-937 “omission” was clearly focused at dam removals and other ESA issues.

@3, wouldn’t taking such a move (including hydro) pretty much make I-937 moot since the vast majority of our energy already comes from hydro? The voters new what they were voting for in I-937 and we northwesterners understand some of the negative effects of hydro, especially the effects on salmon populations.

@3, wouldn’t taking such a move (including hydro) pretty much make I-937 moot since the vast majority of our energy already comes from hydro? The voters new what they were voting for in I-937 and we northwesterners understand some of the negative effects of hydro, especially the effects on salmon populations.

#4 – Actually most of the voters I talked to did not realize that hydro was not included in I-937.
I-937 was sold as a way to wean ourselves off fossil fuels and reduce GHGs.

#4 – Actually most of the voters I talked to did not realize that hydro was not included in I-937.
I-937 was sold as a way to wean ourselves off fossil fuels and reduce GHGs.

tomas:

Anyone who was paying attention during the election of 2006 knows that hydro was not included. The ‘Yes’ campaign’s voter guide statement and TV ads talked about wind, solar and energy conservation. The ‘No’ campaign’s voter guide statement and radio ads hammered on the hyrdro issue. So, voters had every opportunity to understand what was included.

More importantly, the goal of I-937 was to promote conservation and the development of more non-hydro resources in order to diversify our renewable energy portfolio. Also, hyrdo is a maxed out resource, so the choice for the future is not whether we build more hydro or not. It’s whether we conserve more and build more wind, solar and geo-thermal vs. more GHG emitting resources like coal and natural gas. By passing I-937, voters chose the former. The whole hydro argument is nothing more than a red herring.

tomas:

Anyone who was paying attention during the election of 2006 knows that hydro was not included. The ‘Yes’ campaign’s voter guide statement and TV ads talked about wind, solar and energy conservation. The ‘No’ campaign’s voter guide statement and radio ads hammered on the hyrdro issue. So, voters had every opportunity to understand what was included.

More importantly, the goal of I-937 was to promote conservation and the development of more non-hydro resources in order to diversify our renewable energy portfolio. Also, hyrdo is a maxed out resource, so the choice for the future is not whether we build more hydro or not. It’s whether we conserve more and build more wind, solar and geo-thermal vs. more GHG emitting resources like coal and natural gas. By passing I-937, voters chose the former. The whole hydro argument is nothing more than a red herring.

Tomas has done a wonderful job of satirizing the utility/special interest perspective! That wonderful chestnut about everyone else recognizing the hydro is renewable, which everyone with a brain knows for certain is code for “we’ve got plenty of renewables, so let’s do the rest with coal.”

For anyone not in on Tomas’s joke, if we count the existing hydro (which is the FIRST resource defined as a renewable resource in I-937, btw), then the standards are met forever and utilities may continue to profit from polluting the the world with fossil fuels and nukes to meet increasing power demands.

Also, those of us who collected signatures to put I-937 on the ballot and worked to pass the clean energy initiative know there never was any question in voters’ minds about the need to expand to non-hydro resources to protect our asses from overreliance on a clearly dwindling resource. Tomas is making fun of folks who say voters didn’t know, since he’s remembering how the dirty energy proponents used the hydro argument in all their well-funded smear campaigns during the signature gathering and election run-up.

So I thank Tomas for giving me a good hearty laugh to start off the weekend! Well done my man.

Tomas has done a wonderful job of satirizing the utility/special interest perspective! That wonderful chestnut about everyone else recognizing the hydro is renewable, which everyone with a brain knows for certain is code for “we’ve got plenty of renewables, so let’s do the rest with coal.”

For anyone not in on Tomas’s joke, if we count the existing hydro (which is the FIRST resource defined as a renewable resource in I-937, btw), then the standards are met forever and utilities may continue to profit from polluting the the world with fossil fuels and nukes to meet increasing power demands.

Also, those of us who collected signatures to put I-937 on the ballot and worked to pass the clean energy initiative know there never was any question in voters’ minds about the need to expand to non-hydro resources to protect our asses from overreliance on a clearly dwindling resource. Tomas is making fun of folks who say voters didn’t know, since he’s remembering how the dirty energy proponents used the hydro argument in all their well-funded smear campaigns during the signature gathering and election run-up.

So I thank Tomas for giving me a good hearty laugh to start off the weekend! Well done my man.

Hydro efficiency improvements are eligible.

If the legislators want to include existing hydro, they should also raise the requirements for renewable energy as a % of retail sales to about 75% in 2020. This would give Wa. uncontestable bragging rights and still require most utilities to acquire more renewables rather than dirty coal or gas-powered electricity.

Wa’s current requirement of 15% by 2020 is among the lowest for states that have a standard.

I prefer salmon redds to red herrings.

Hydro efficiency improvements are eligible.

If the legislators want to include existing hydro, they should also raise the requirements for renewable energy as a % of retail sales to about 75% in 2020. This would give Wa. uncontestable bragging rights and still require most utilities to acquire more renewables rather than dirty coal or gas-powered electricity.

Wa’s current requirement of 15% by 2020 is among the lowest for states that have a standard.

I prefer salmon redds to red herrings.

the above dialogue is totally incomprehensible insider baseball stuff to an average follower of local politics.

Dear environmentalists: Pls. learn how to talk to real people. Be less wonky, ok?

Thanks.

Till you do, yes, you will have to focus on limited, achieveable goals instead of bigger goals.

the above dialogue is totally incomprehensible insider baseball stuff to an average follower of local politics.

Dear environmentalists: Pls. learn how to talk to real people. Be less wonky, ok?

Thanks.

Till you do, yes, you will have to focus on limited, achieveable goals instead of bigger goals.

OK, let’s make it simple: I-937, passed by popular vote after special interests blocked legislation for nearly a decade, requires the big utilities to use more new renewable energy and energy conservation in the future, rather than the polluting and climate-dosrupting coal and other fossil fuels they’d happily use if left to their own devices.

Virtually all those in the legislature trying to “amend” the peoples’ initiative — and most especially the top Senate Democrat — are doing so at the utilies’ behest. Period. There is no good reason to roll back I-937′s standards … no economic reason, no technical reason, no practical reason, no consumer protection reason, no financial recovery reason, no state budget reason, no wildlife protection reason, etc., etc., etc. … to be usurping the public call for clean resources.

Any rollback of I-937 standards this session will be because Democratic legislators are in bed with the public utilities district leaders and other vested interests, or have no spine.

There aren’t any shades here. Support clean energy over dirty power sources, or support dirty sources by weakening the peoples’ clean energy law. End of story.

Simple enough?

OK, let’s make it simple: I-937, passed by popular vote after special interests blocked legislation for nearly a decade, requires the big utilities to use more new renewable energy and energy conservation in the future, rather than the polluting and climate-dosrupting coal and other fossil fuels they’d happily use if left to their own devices.

Virtually all those in the legislature trying to “amend” the peoples’ initiative — and most especially the top Senate Democrat — are doing so at the utilies’ behest. Period. There is no good reason to roll back I-937′s standards … no economic reason, no technical reason, no practical reason, no consumer protection reason, no financial recovery reason, no state budget reason, no wildlife protection reason, etc., etc., etc. … to be usurping the public call for clean resources.

Any rollback of I-937 standards this session will be because Democratic legislators are in bed with the public utilities district leaders and other vested interests, or have no spine.

There aren’t any shades here. Support clean energy over dirty power sources, or support dirty sources by weakening the peoples’ clean energy law. End of story.

Simple enough?

try this — avoids needing inside knowledge like having to remember some initiative number from years ago, avoids having to know what I blah blah blah is, etc., maybe a bit wordy but trying to KISS on conceptual level:

The people passed a law that makes power utilities help stop climate change. The power companies use dirty coal and fouls the atmosphere and heats up the planet, just like wrapping it in a big dirty blanket. This is a big part of what causes climate change, andd that’s a bad thing. So, the people of our state passed a law making the dirty power companies clean up their act. The law we passed does this by making them use more renewable energy — clean things like __? ___ __?___ and __?___ [ahem, name them] and also good old fashioned conservation — instead of dirty coal.

But now the dirty coal using power companies are trying to undo what the people passed into law. They’re down there in Olympia getting republicans and even Democratic Senator So and So [ahem -- name him ! why not? Scared?] to change waht we the people said. They’re trying to be able to keep using dirty coal just like before. This will hurt our planet — and this steals our democracy, because it changes what we the people said we want!

So this year a bunch of us citizen activists are going to go down there to Olympia to fight for conservation and clean energy, and fight for what we the people told the dirty power companies to do.

We’re against dirty power and dirty politics. WE’re for clean energy and a clean and healthy planet.

Want to join in? E mail us at ________.

try this — avoids needing inside knowledge like having to remember some initiative number from years ago, avoids having to know what I blah blah blah is, etc., maybe a bit wordy but trying to KISS on conceptual level:

The people passed a law that makes power utilities help stop climate change. The power companies use dirty coal and fouls the atmosphere and heats up the planet, just like wrapping it in a big dirty blanket. This is a big part of what causes climate change, andd that’s a bad thing. So, the people of our state passed a law making the dirty power companies clean up their act. The law we passed does this by making them use more renewable energy — clean things like __? ___ __?___ and __?___ [ahem, name them] and also good old fashioned conservation — instead of dirty coal.

But now the dirty coal using power companies are trying to undo what the people passed into law. They’re down there in Olympia getting republicans and even Democratic Senator So and So [ahem -- name him ! why not? Scared?] to change waht we the people said. They’re trying to be able to keep using dirty coal just like before. This will hurt our planet — and this steals our democracy, because it changes what we the people said we want!

So this year a bunch of us citizen activists are going to go down there to Olympia to fight for conservation and clean energy, and fight for what we the people told the dirty power companies to do.

We’re against dirty power and dirty politics. WE’re for clean energy and a clean and healthy planet.

Want to join in? E mail us at ________.

I signed the initative, but I cam close to voting against because of the no hydro clause. The guy @8 is right. Make the law make sense and get rid of the absurd notion that hydro is not renewable,

And set the level up to the correct level to achieve the desired effect.

Or, just flat out pass a law making new coal outlawed to just to expensive to fly.

I signed the initative, but I cam close to voting against because of the no hydro clause. The guy @8 is right. Make the law make sense and get rid of the absurd notion that hydro is not renewable,

And set the level up to the correct level to achieve the desired effect.

Or, just flat out pass a law making new coal outlawed to just to expensive to fly.

hydro is bad for our little fishes

hydro is bad for our little fishes

can we get the BPA out of canned goods too? thanks.

can we get the BPA out of canned goods too? thanks.

Not in the least afraid to name the Democratic senator w2ho’s sleeping with the PUD Association. It’s Eva Braun — oops, sorry, Lisa
Brown, who works directly under Avista and Washington PUD Association flack Paulsen –to undermine all progressive environmental legislation. She is absolute scum. But she would make a perfect Republican gubernatorial candidate since she has NO morals.

Not in the least afraid to name the Democratic senator w2ho’s sleeping with the PUD Association. It’s Eva Braun — oops, sorry, Lisa
Brown, who works directly under Avista and Washington PUD Association flack Paulsen –to undermine all progressive environmental legislation. She is absolute scum. But she would make a perfect Republican gubernatorial candidate since she has NO morals.

You are all making one mistake.

Conservation is not included in 937.
Saving a kilowatt hour by insulating a poor person’s home does not count.
But one does get to give their money to the multinational windfarm corporations for electricity 3 times as expensive as hydro or conservation.

937 is monied special interests lining the pockets of corporations and letting the poor citizens of WA pay for it.

Renewable is good, heck great.
But can wind stand up to conservation.
No.
Let conservation be equal as a renewable as see where money best flows.

937 is flawed.
Really flawed for the consumers and the environment.
It needs to be fixed.

You are all making one mistake.

Conservation is not included in 937.
Saving a kilowatt hour by insulating a poor person’s home does not count.
But one does get to give their money to the multinational windfarm corporations for electricity 3 times as expensive as hydro or conservation.

937 is monied special interests lining the pockets of corporations and letting the poor citizens of WA pay for it.

Renewable is good, heck great.
But can wind stand up to conservation.
No.
Let conservation be equal as a renewable as see where money best flows.

937 is flawed.
Really flawed for the consumers and the environment.
It needs to be fixed.