(The Center Square) – The passage of Initiatives 2117 and 2066 next month could have implications for public policies related to statewide efforts to achieve zero carbon emissions by 2050, Department of Ecology officials said at a recent at a recent Washington Climate Partnership meeting.
For proponents of I-2066, which would prohibit a ban on natural gas by state and local governments, the admission is a tacit acknowledgement that the state eventually planned to do just that.
This year the Department of Commerce released its Priority Climate Action Plan (PCAP), funded through a $3 million grant and intended to “create an implementable, equitable, and comprehensive plan to get to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.” The plan is also intended to help entities in Washington state apply for federal Climate Pollution Reduction Grants to fund greenhouse gas reduction efforts.
Commerce’s Climate Pollution Reduction Grant Program Manager Dina Geiszler said at the Washington Climate Partnership’s Oct. 28 meeting that “while this plan is more focused on statewide and regional climate actions, we are interested in identifying common themes across local plans to identify measures that will make local climate action plans easier to implement.”
“We have lots of climate plans across the state and local governments, but there hasn’t been a comprehensive plan that covers all sectors of the economy for Washington since 2008,” she added.
Jeremy Hargreaves with Evolved Energy Research told attendees at the meeting that “at a high level, there are two big challenges in Washington. We don’t have a lot of emissions from electricity, but we’re trying to achieve this 45% below 1990 levels by 2030 – that is not so far in the future now. And decarbonizing electricity doesn’t get us there, so we need to decarbonize other things.”
“What we’ve seen in the past is we need to do a little bit more than that and start to decarbonize fuels, and that’s a challenge for Washington in the near term, achieving that 2030 emissions target,” he added.
To achieve the 95% greenhouse gas emission reduction below 1990 levels, “we not only need to decarbonize all of the energy use in the state electricity, transportation, RCI [Residential, Commercial, and Industrial], even our industrial process CO2.”
While the PCAP and other greenhouse gas emission effort planners have contemplated various measures to achieve those goals, questions were raised during the meeting regarding how I-2117, which would repeal the state Climate Commitment Act, and I-2066 would impact those measures.
Ecology Climate Pollution Reduction Grants Planning Lead Rylie Ellison told the meeting attendees that “one of the things we’re required to identify is ‘Do we have authority to implement the measures?’ Those two initiatives will, of course, impact our authority to implement specific measures, so we will wait to see. Of course, that could affect where there might be additional gaps to fill for the Comprehensive Climate Action Plan.”
The Center Square reached out to Ellison for clarification as to what measures would be affected by which initiatives. In an email reply, Climate Pollution Reduction Program Jordyn Bauerlein wrote that “as an agency, we don’t take positions on ballot measures. It’s worth noting, however, that Washington has legal limits on greenhouse gas emissions – ultimately, we’re required to reduce emissions by 95% by 2050. So, in the absence of Cap-and-Invest, other regulatory tools and new climate laws would be necessary to meet those limits. “
She also wrote that “the Comprehensive Climate Action Plan (CCAP) would still need to reflect our state’s current and proposed greenhouse gas reduction policies and measures. We’re required by the Environmental Protection Agency, which funds this work, to identify whether state agencies have the necessary authority to implement the greenhouse gas reduction measures in the CCAP.”
While neither Ellison nor Bauerlein specifically mentioned a natural gas ban as among measures to reduce carbon emissions that would be impacted, the Building Industry Association of Washington wrote in an email that “when the Department of Ecology acknowledges they wouldn’t be able to do certain measures if (I)-2066 passes, they are all but admitting they are actively taking steps to ban the use of gas appliances in our homes.
“That is accurate, we know that because that’s what the state is doing in a number of different venues, be it at Ecology, the State Building Code Council, the Utilities and Transportation Commission and/or at certain local government levels. I-2066 leaves energy choice in the hands of consumers not government.”
Other entities that have examined shifting away from natural gas to achieve zero emission goals include the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency.
In its plan, PSCAA noted recent efforts by state agencies to transition from natural gas: “It is anticipated that most new building will select electric-fueled appliances due to the reduced expense of this construction method. Even buildings that opt for natural gas will have a significant reduction in their natural gas consumption, and therefore GHG emissions, compared to prior building code due to the increased efficiency requirements.”
However, the PSCAA plan also noted that “natural gas combustion for building heat does not have a detectable or uniquely identifiable impact on criteria and toxics pollutant concentrations in our region. Instead, any benefit would primarily be identifiable as reductions in the overall emissions inventory.”
