Renewable Energy: SB 5840
The Renewable Energy Law, I-937, Must Be Improved!
SB 5840
We can move to renewable energy sources but I-937 as currently codified, (1) disadvantages Washington employers, (2) undermines state climate change goals, and (3) will result in unnecessary job losses.
Even those who endorsed I-937, like the Washington PUD Association, support responsible changes in the statute now!
We must break our dependence on foreign oil and reduce green house gases. However, we must do it in a thoughtful and deliberative manner that does not leave our state exposed to another Enron, our businesses downsizing due to uncertainty, or our citizens with unnecessarily excessive utility rates.
1. Initiative 937 as currently codified gives an unfair renewable energy advantage to utilities and consumers in other states. The current state laws permit California utilities to build renewable energy facilities at optimum sites in Washington State (which they are doing on a large scale), all of Montana, and other Western Electricity Coordinating Council states. Meanwhile Washington law provides no acceptance for Washington utilities competing for many of the optimum sites and energy credits outside the Columbia River basin. Washington utilities will also be required to drop hydro power for other more expensive renewables, in effect subsidizing utilities in other states. California and Oregon laws are more rationale on a number of other points and will make their utilities far less subject to the added costs of penalties.
2. The law is inconsistent with the State and Regional approach to greenhouse gas reduction, even discouraging conservation in some cases. The current law will require Washington utilities to drop hydropower, and most hydropower improvements, in lieu of facilities which cost more in greenhouse gases to construct. The law even disincentives conservation where such energy savings take a utility below the annual goal and thereby still require the purchase of offsetting credits. The inconsistencies in incentives, geographic regions, and credits between the I-937 statute and Governor’s Climate Change Bill, will unnecessarily complicate achievement of both stated goals. The potential for market manipulation is also significantly expanded.
3. Unless changed I-937 will place at risk the Northwest’s greatest competitive advantage, low cost clean energy, and will create unnecessary job losses, further exacerbating the economic crisis. Washington State has is not located along the major consumer or transportation corridors of the nation. But for her world class ports and low cost, clean energy, Washington would never have become a major industrial state. Now major employers face great uncertainty as to future energy sources and utility rates. Even without adjusting for the competitive disadvantages, inconsistencies and complexity, I-937 has been projected by the Washington Research Council REMI model to cost Washington State 2,100 to 5,100 jobs in 2016. The impact could be far worse if the employer uncertainties surrounding I-937 and the Climate Change legislation are not addressed!
4. Each of the above issues can be addressed without compromising the goal of moving to renewable resources.
To read the Bill or detailed Bill Report for SB 5840 see links here.
Voters Favor Amending I-937
“In 2006, Washington voters passed Initiative 937, which requires electric utilities to get 15% of their power from new non-hydro power sources, such as wind and solar, by the year 2020. Would you favor or oppose amending I-937, so that hydro power is considered renewable energy?”
Moore Information 2009
For the opposition perspective go to the Renewable Northwest Project.
To read the Bill or detailed Bill Report for SB 5840 see the Legislative Bill Page.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Subscribe to this feed
