A paid signature gatherer for Initiative 2066 outside a local store would have said anything to persuade me to sign. I’d read about the initiative, which touted energy choice, and about the money behind the paid signature gathers and the misleading campaign, so I knew not to sign.
But what he said sounded good to many other people. Unfortunately, these misleading tactics worked and this initiative is on the ballot. The net effect if it passes will be higher energy costs for consumers, a rollback of popular energy efficiency programs, less local control for cities and counties that want to act on climate change, and endless, expensive court battles.
More people are considering energy efficiency upgrades in their homes to reduce their utility bills. This trend is partially because of policies like the federal and state grants that reduce the cost of a wide range of energy efficiency and weatherization upgrades, especially for low- and moderate-income households.
Some people are replacing gas furnaces with electric heat pumps, because they prefer one appliance which heats, cools and filters smoke from wildfires using less than a third of the energy of a typical gas furnace. Puget Sound Energy (PSE) reports gas use was down 7% for its residential and 3% for its commercial customers last year. This trend is great news for indoor air quality and great news for the climate.
While conversions from gas to electricity provide the owner with long-term savings, the upfront cost can be a barrier. And while there are several great programs to help homeowners with these costs, sometimes other structural limitations like physical space limit conversion. Even if half of our electricity is still generated by fossil fuels, with an electric heat pump we use significantly less energy to achieve the same heating outcome, with half the emissions compared to burning gas.
Our electric grid will get cleaner as PSE stops using coal next year and adds more renewable energy. But if too many people switch away from gas too quickly, the remaining gas customers will be left holding the bag of an expensive and aging system and their prices will skyrocket. After two years of consideration and modification, our state passed legislation last session to protect ratepayers who continue to use gas by keeping prices down with a planned and organized transition. This is what the paid signature gatherer told me was a “gas ban,” but it’s not, it’s actually smart planning.
This initiative would also undermine the state building code council. Energy efficiency advances and building codes have resulted in a 30–40% drop in building energy use across the U.S. since 2000. New construction materials and efficient “Energy Star” appliances save money on energy bills year after year. Consumers who are stuck with less efficient homes lose money every winter.
Regardless if I-2066 passes or not, you will still have an energy choice for your home. State building codes do not remove the option of using gas appliances in new buildings, building retrofits or remodels. Our energy efficiency standards are measured by the energy use of the home or building as a whole.
Builders have many options to use both gas and electric appliances to achieve this standard, such as higher quality windows or insulation, to name a few. To me, that’s a fair standard. Without these codes, some builders are willing to cut corners and use lower-quality materials or inefficient appliances, and let the family that moves in deal with the higher energy costs.
I-2066 also undermines local community decision-making. Whatcom County and Bellingham are taking steps to upgrade buildings to make them more energy-efficient and resilient to climate disasters. Disasters such as heat waves, floods, extended power outages, landslides and wildfires.
The sweeping and unspecific language in I-2066 prohibits cities and counties from taking these kinds of steps. The language is so broad that some are worried it might undermine the state’s Clean Air Act, and even current fire codes and safety standards that address the explosion risks in buildings with gas appliances.
The thing that is most certain about I-2066 is that it will end up in court. In addition to the sweeping but unspecific language that we can only guess how a court will interpret; the initiative also seems to clearly violate the single-subject rule our state constitution imposes on initiatives. Voters should know what they are being asked to vote on, and they shouldn’t have unrelated things packaged together and be asked to give a single answer. With provisions changing state law, agency rules, and city and county decisions, I-2066 fails that test.
The impact of I-2066 would be increased energy costs for consumers, more pollution, more property damage from extreme weather events and much more expensive litigation. Let’s vote NO on I-2066.
Ellyn Murphy is a hydrologist who spent her career at the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory conducting research at the nexus of energy and environmental issues. As a volunteer, she helped write the Whatcom County Climate Action Plan.
Misleading information is plentiful on natural gas initiative — here are some facts
A ‘yes’ vote would mean increased energy costs, pollution, litigation
A paid signature gatherer for Initiative 2066 outside a local store would have said anything to persuade me to sign. I’d read about the initiative, which touted energy choice, and about the money behind the paid signature gathers and the misleading campaign, so I knew not to sign.
But what he said sounded good to many other people. Unfortunately, these misleading tactics worked and this initiative is on the ballot. The net effect if it passes will be higher energy costs for consumers, a rollback of popular energy efficiency programs, less local control for cities and counties that want to act on climate change, and endless, expensive court battles.
More people are considering energy efficiency upgrades in their homes to reduce their utility bills. This trend is partially because of policies like the federal and state grants that reduce the cost of a wide range of energy efficiency and weatherization upgrades, especially for low- and moderate-income households.
Some people are replacing gas furnaces with electric heat pumps, because they prefer one appliance which heats, cools and filters smoke from wildfires using less than a third of the energy of a typical gas furnace. Puget Sound Energy (PSE) reports gas use was down 7% for its residential and 3% for its commercial customers last year. This trend is great news for indoor air quality and great news for the climate.
While conversions from gas to electricity provide the owner with long-term savings, the upfront cost can be a barrier. And while there are several great programs to help homeowners with these costs, sometimes other structural limitations like physical space limit conversion. Even if half of our electricity is still generated by fossil fuels, with an electric heat pump we use significantly less energy to achieve the same heating outcome, with half the emissions compared to burning gas.
Our electric grid will get cleaner as PSE stops using coal next year and adds more renewable energy. But if too many people switch away from gas too quickly, the remaining gas customers will be left holding the bag of an expensive and aging system and their prices will skyrocket. After two years of consideration and modification, our state passed legislation last session to protect ratepayers who continue to use gas by keeping prices down with a planned and organized transition. This is what the paid signature gatherer told me was a “gas ban,” but it’s not, it’s actually smart planning.
This initiative would also undermine the state building code council. Energy efficiency advances and building codes have resulted in a 30–40% drop in building energy use across the U.S. since 2000. New construction materials and efficient “Energy Star” appliances save money on energy bills year after year. Consumers who are stuck with less efficient homes lose money every winter.
Regardless if I-2066 passes or not, you will still have an energy choice for your home. State building codes do not remove the option of using gas appliances in new buildings, building retrofits or remodels. Our energy efficiency standards are measured by the energy use of the home or building as a whole.
Builders have many options to use both gas and electric appliances to achieve this standard, such as higher quality windows or insulation, to name a few. To me, that’s a fair standard. Without these codes, some builders are willing to cut corners and use lower-quality materials or inefficient appliances, and let the family that moves in deal with the higher energy costs.
I-2066 also undermines local community decision-making. Whatcom County and Bellingham are taking steps to upgrade buildings to make them more energy-efficient and resilient to climate disasters. Disasters such as heat waves, floods, extended power outages, landslides and wildfires.
The sweeping and unspecific language in I-2066 prohibits cities and counties from taking these kinds of steps. The language is so broad that some are worried it might undermine the state’s Clean Air Act, and even current fire codes and safety standards that address the explosion risks in buildings with gas appliances.
The thing that is most certain about I-2066 is that it will end up in court. In addition to the sweeping but unspecific language that we can only guess how a court will interpret; the initiative also seems to clearly violate the single-subject rule our state constitution imposes on initiatives. Voters should know what they are being asked to vote on, and they shouldn’t have unrelated things packaged together and be asked to give a single answer. With provisions changing state law, agency rules, and city and county decisions, I-2066 fails that test.
The impact of I-2066 would be increased energy costs for consumers, more pollution, more property damage from extreme weather events and much more expensive litigation. Let’s vote NO on I-2066.
Ellyn Murphy is a hydrologist who spent her career at the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory conducting research at the nexus of energy and environmental issues. As a volunteer, she helped write the Whatcom County Climate Action Plan.
Latest stories
State budget cuts take center stage at Mount Vernon town hall
These single seniors believe ‘one of the secrets to long life is having fun’
Could a cross-border handshake keep old love alive through a tariff war nobody wanted?
Have a news tip?
Email newstips@cascadiadaily.com or Call/Text 360-922-3092
Subscribe to our free newsletters