Lawmakers seek to water down state's clean energy law

SEATTLE (AP) - Ever since voters passed a law requiring the state's largest utilities to get more electricity from wind, solar and other renewable power, there's been no shortage of attempts to overhaul the rules.
This legislative session is no different. Several GOP-backed bills being considered would loosen restrictions, a possibility that has drawn criticism from Gov. Jay Inslee and opponents who say it would undercut the law aimed at spurring clean energy sources and reducing pollution.
The measures "actually reduce the effectiveness of our renewable energy standard and take us backward on energy rather than forward," Inslee said at a news conference last week.
The Energy Independence Act, which state voters passed as Initiative 937 in 2006, requires nearly a third of the state's utilities, those with at least 25,000 customers, to ramp up and get 15 percent of power from wind, solar, geothermal and certain woody biomass by 2020.
All 17 utilities that must follow the law met the first deadline in 2012 by getting 3 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources or buying equivalent credits. The companies also met or exceeded energy conservation targets required by the law.
But some lawmakers, utility companies and others say the law creates undue burdens for utilities and raises electricity rates on consumers.
"Every year we don't amend 937, the market become more distorted. Customers are starting to feel the pinch," said state Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale, head of the Senate Energy, Environment & Telecommunications committee.
Many utilities have enough power to meet consumer needs, but are forced to sell their cheap power to buy more expensive renewable power to comply with the law, said Ericksen, who has sponsored several 937-related bills.
One of the more controversial bills, Senate Bill 5431, would allow hydroelectric power to be counted as a renewable energy source; that bill hasn't been heard in committee yet.
Since most utilities in Washington already get the bulk of power from hydroelectric dams, it would essentially gut the law. The law excluded hydropower because backers wanted to spur development of new energy sources.
At a committee hearing Tuesday, Grays Harbor Public Utility District and others testified in support of Senate Bill 5648 that would allow utilities to bank energy they conserve above their targets and apply it to future conservation targets. It also says utilities that have enough power would not have to meet a 937 target.
"What's happening is that utilities are having to purchase credits that they can't even use to the tune of millions of dollars," said Sen. Sharon Brown, R-Kennewick, sponsor of SB5648, who referred to her bill as the "no buy before need."
Environmental groups oppose the bill, saying it would undermine the law. They say 937 has created jobs, brought billions of dollars in clean-energy investments, and stimulated local economies.
Changing the law would impact the "fundamental goals of the law, which is to stimulate the market for new development of renewable energy," said Nancy Hirsch, policy director for the NW Energy Coalition, which helped write 937.
Some utilities, such as Puget Sound Energy and Avista Corp., did not support the bill, noting they would be at a disadvantage because they already made long-term investments in wind and other renewable projects to comply with the law.
Business owners and others told lawmakers Tuesday that 937 has resulted in higher rates for consumers and created burdens for businesses.
"It can be argued that these are investments in the future, but the future doesn't do much good for someone who can't pay their electric bill today," said Tim Boyd with Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities.
But 937 supporters pointed out that a multitude of factors contribute to rate increases.
Another bill heard Tuesday, Senate Bill 5438, allows utilities that conserve more electricity than required by law to bank that excess and apply it toward meeting future targets. Officials from utilities such as Seattle City Light, Tacoma Power and Cowlitz Public Utility District spoke in favor of it.
This legislative session is no different. Several GOP-backed bills being considered would loosen restrictions, a possibility that has drawn criticism from Gov. Jay Inslee and opponents who say it would undercut the law aimed at spurring clean energy sources and reducing pollution.
The measures "actually reduce the effectiveness of our renewable energy standard and take us backward on energy rather than forward," Inslee said at a news conference last week.
The Energy Independence Act, which state voters passed as Initiative 937 in 2006, requires nearly a third of the state's utilities, those with at least 25,000 customers, to ramp up and get 15 percent of power from wind, solar, geothermal and certain woody biomass by 2020.
All 17 utilities that must follow the law met the first deadline in 2012 by getting 3 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources or buying equivalent credits. The companies also met or exceeded energy conservation targets required by the law.
But some lawmakers, utility companies and others say the law creates undue burdens for utilities and raises electricity rates on consumers.
"Every year we don't amend 937, the market become more distorted. Customers are starting to feel the pinch," said state Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale, head of the Senate Energy, Environment & Telecommunications committee.
Many utilities have enough power to meet consumer needs, but are forced to sell their cheap power to buy more expensive renewable power to comply with the law, said Ericksen, who has sponsored several 937-related bills.
One of the more controversial bills, Senate Bill 5431, would allow hydroelectric power to be counted as a renewable energy source; that bill hasn't been heard in committee yet.
Since most utilities in Washington already get the bulk of power from hydroelectric dams, it would essentially gut the law. The law excluded hydropower because backers wanted to spur development of new energy sources.
At a committee hearing Tuesday, Grays Harbor Public Utility District and others testified in support of Senate Bill 5648 that would allow utilities to bank energy they conserve above their targets and apply it to future conservation targets. It also says utilities that have enough power would not have to meet a 937 target.
"What's happening is that utilities are having to purchase credits that they can't even use to the tune of millions of dollars," said Sen. Sharon Brown, R-Kennewick, sponsor of SB5648, who referred to her bill as the "no buy before need."
Environmental groups oppose the bill, saying it would undermine the law. They say 937 has created jobs, brought billions of dollars in clean-energy investments, and stimulated local economies.
Changing the law would impact the "fundamental goals of the law, which is to stimulate the market for new development of renewable energy," said Nancy Hirsch, policy director for the NW Energy Coalition, which helped write 937.
Some utilities, such as Puget Sound Energy and Avista Corp., did not support the bill, noting they would be at a disadvantage because they already made long-term investments in wind and other renewable projects to comply with the law.
Business owners and others told lawmakers Tuesday that 937 has resulted in higher rates for consumers and created burdens for businesses.
"It can be argued that these are investments in the future, but the future doesn't do much good for someone who can't pay their electric bill today," said Tim Boyd with Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities.
But 937 supporters pointed out that a multitude of factors contribute to rate increases.
Another bill heard Tuesday, Senate Bill 5438, allows utilities that conserve more electricity than required by law to bank that excess and apply it toward meeting future targets. Officials from utilities such as Seattle City Light, Tacoma Power and Cowlitz Public Utility District spoke in favor of it.
GREEN JOBS ARE FULL OF CORRUPTION
"Swiss-Based Landis+Gyr Received Over $50 Million In Stimulus Contracts For Their Smart Grid Meters. Cathy Zoi, A Former Obama Energy Department Official, Held Over $250,000 Worth Of Stock In The Company As They Profited From Her Department's Policies. Zoi Had Previously Served As An Executive Director At Landis+Gyr Before Joining The Obama Administration."
@MonroeMad Oh, so now it's not the fault of the administration being too trusting, or the fault of the for-profit corporation overstating it's expectations, or the fault of the execs committing outright fraud and receiving a fat bonus for it... no, it is the fault of the JOBS!Â
Darn JOBS! If we could just get rid of the JOBS somehow, then everything would by hunky dory! Think of all we could save if we could just eliminate JOBS!Â
And GREEN! The color itself must be corrupt somehow! Money corrupts - money is green - it must be the GREEN! That's it! We've solved all the world's problems: just get rid of GREEN! ...and JOBS!
This law is like so many other laws that have been written before it. They need to take a common sense approach to these kinds of bills. NOT EVERYTHING has to be either/or. What the enviornmentalists need to realize is that right now there is no technology that will run much of this country without any coal and fossil fuels. If they can change this bill so that there's a reasonable approach to the consumer as things continue to change towards the new technologies that seems like a far more sensible thing to do. You can literally strangle this country to death economically if you refuse any kind of compromise at any level.Â
@Jatok This law was voted in by the people of this state. I can just hear your whining if the legislature was trying to pull this on your little god-man I-man's initiatives.
Apparently you believe ALL the laws that are written are carefully thought out. That just isn't the case with most them. Things are written into these laws and added to these laws that aren't always in the best interest of the people. I understand that this law was voted in by the people and that's fine. I don't have a problem with democracy as long as before you vote you read the entire law and make sure you know what it is you are voting for. Obviously you have a problem with I-man, sounds like a personal problem to me.
Let's get some more nuclear going! It's by far the most efficient source of electricity, and now most of the waste can be reused so we don't have to bury much. If only people would stop being giant p*ssies about it.
@Orangulo yeah right on. who cares that highly radioactive waste is leaking from a tank at hanford this very moment...
@tufa23Â Tanks are only temporary storage solutions. We have plenty of geologically stable empty-as-hell places we can bury vitrified (glassed and non liquid) nuclear waste in. The problem is nobody in the US wants to build new plants that can actually reuse a lot of the "spent" nuclear fuel. We could build a few plants that reduce the amount of waste produced by 95%. But no, people are scared sheep as always.
Getting power from Solar, and Wind from who? GOVERENMENT substities to Solar and Wind companys. SO we pay to build the generating source and then HAVE to buy the energy at a higher cost then the electric company from Hydroelectric. Gee how could it get more fair that that????? My energy costs (NOT counting gasoline) have gone up 10% since this bill passed. Screwed at both ends the way I see it. I am retired and can't afford much more without cutting medication, or food.
@Iarehere You need to get it through your head that government is how we are able to cooperate on major decisions and projects that affect ALL of us. Without government - or if you elect just not to participate in government - then major decisions affecting your own life will be left to SOMEONE ELSE who will necessarily have values and purposes that you may find objectionable.Â
Yes, we can just let the utilities generate power how they choose (cough-cough-gasp) but we may regret their decisions later and yet have no recourse.
@JLS1950Â @Iarehere Agree....if your government is not corrupt. Ours is. Obama handed money to political contributors in the green sector....
Solendra - bankrupt - bought solar cells from China
Fisker - sent jobs to Europe
Abengoa - jobs went to Spain
Just to name a few
@lakeview @MonroeMad @JLS1950 @Iarehere Oh, but we were going to get all that OIL for good old All-American HALLIBURTON! We KNEW is was American because our V.P. used to RUN IT! And we gave that good and patriotic firm first dibs on all those no-bid emergency support contracts to employ good AMERICAN workers overseas... like Jamie Leigh Jones... on her back!
Dubai? Halliburton moved to DUBAI???
@MonroeMad @JLS1950 @Iarehere Let me understand this... if I hire some hungry college guys to paint my house, and they water down the paint from my own garden hose, do a crappy job of cutting in on the trim, miss all the hard to reach spots, and then leave taking my big screen, computer and all my wife's jewelery with them... this is all somehow MY fault? You want ME arrested?
OBTW, the solar cells are pretty much only available from China anymore, because all the big, patriotic, made-in-USA, Republican-run and Republican-supporting manufacturers just shipped that entire process and technology to China some years ago.Â
Sorta just like IBM sold their entire PC business to China under the name Lenovo. But then even the Marine Corps is now dependent on Chinese-made computers, no matter what brand they buy: they are ALL made there. Now who are you going to blame for that???
@MonroeMad @lakeview @JLS1950 @Iarehere "and elsewhere".... baloney.
@lakeview @MonroeMad @JLS1950 @Iarehere I research well in Library of Congress and elsewhere.
Democrats and Republicans voted to go to war. The wars were both mismanaged and lasted way too long. Again both parties are to blame.
@MonroeMad @JLS1950 @Iarehere  Did you ever stop and think that you are simply being fed crap to regurgitate? Â
I wonder how green energy losses during Obama's admin compare to what we spent in Iraq for nothing...not to mention 5 thousand Americans killed over it.Â
What a surprise, within the first paragraph, I read the republicans are attempting to change a law requiring green or clean energy sources. As long as it does not involve coal or oil, it will never sit well with the republican party.
@northwestsurfer I lived in Norther California for a while and watch government funded wind farms go bankrupt over and over and each time the taxpayer picked up the tab. They could not recover the money in electricity sale in 1000 years of operating free.
This technology is for people who want to pad cronies with money from the government. Look at the $billions Obama paid out to campaign contributors in the green sector...most went under and we the people lost.
@MonroeMad And I've lived in both Nor and SoCal for many years. Have you driven from L.A. to Palm Springs before? Big wind farms out there doing quite well that generate lots of electricity.Â
@MonroeMad You! Yes YOU! There's a leaking tank of highly toxic radioactive waste over at Hanford and we need you to get down in the hole and figure it out... NOW! And by the way, don't worry a bit. It's the cleanest energy... probably....
@lakeview @MonroeMad Ya, but a DC generator is 100 year old technology. making it turn by inconsistent wind is a loser.
Nuclear reactors are now probably the cleanest energy. France supplies 80%% of their electricity with it and no problems.
@MonroeMad @lakeview And you can say the exact same thing for almost any public infrastructure. Â
Go look back in history at all of the things that we subsidized. Nuclear energy is a great example. THink about all of the technology and medical information that came from our investment in nuclear.Â
@lakeview @MonroeMad They will NEVER pay back what was spent to build and operate them.Â
Funny how the GOP insists on listening to "the voters" when it comes to tax-rollback initiatives sponsored by Tim I'm-An-Idiot, but they want to fight and overturn the will of the voters when that stated will conflicts with the "interests" of large for-profit corporations that want to eat our land, water and forests and leave their chemical "sewage", smog and greenhouse gasses for Joe Citizen to deal with.
@JLS1950 ...I have always believed that all laws should require a second vote, say 5 years after they take effect. Laws do not always end up doing what they are suppose to and some have drastic effects.  Reaffirming all laws would passed by congress or the people would be good for america.
@FED__UP@JLS1950Robert A. Heinlein, in his 1966 Sci-Fi novel, "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress", speculated on a "constitutional" provision limiting the number of discrete laws on the books to about 500. After the elected respresented filled in that number with enacted legislation, they could enact no more laws without first either repealing something or else combining two or more discrete laws into one more generalized law, thereby freeing up a slot for the rule of the moment.Â
I don't claim that is a really GOOD idea, but it does augur toward the idea that legislation should not just grow and accumulate without bounds.Â
On the other hand, when the people have spoken, it does seem that the GOP especially is pretty divided (based on the type of legislation so supported) whether to respect the will of the people or not. The GOP tests laws based on "What's in it for me and my rich buddies?"
@JLS1950 "For Profit" companies go broke without you buying their goods. Again small thinking by only addressing the symptom not the disease.
All corporations pay zero taxes. In reality you pay the tax when you but their goods. Raise the tax, raise the price. Reality check time.....
@MonroeMad @JLS1950 If certain for-profit corporations can only achieve their profits and pay their exorbitant executive salaries and bonuses by polluting the land that all the rest of us must live on and eke out our livings upon, then it may be that they best go broke and be gone sooner rather than later.
If you actually enjoy sucking the derrieres of these corporations and their execs and major stockholders in certain hope that you will eventually find nourishment... well good luck!
@MonroeMad @northwestsurfer @JLS1950 ...which is what happens when you allow a few people - whether Marxist of Capitalist or otherwise oligarchic - to make decisions independently and without public oversight, and to pursue agendas beneficial to themselves personally. This is why we created a participatory government OF AND BY THE PEOPLE. But some people insist on taking "their" ball and going home.
@northwestsurfer @MonroeMad @JLS1950 Well things went real well in the Marxist utopia of the Soviet Union, didn't it. They had the worst pollution ever until Marxist China topped them.
@MonroeMad @JLS1950 That will never happen in a capitalist economy, never. If one company goes down, another will take its place, and another CEO will rise up and receive pay that continues to amaze the rest of us.
@JLS1950Â @MonroeMad Like Senator Feinstien whose husband Richard Blum sits on the board of 2 China export banks?
OH YA. DEMOCRAT! That is ok then.
@MonroeMad @JLS1950 Fat cats never go unemployed if they can buy themselves a GOP Congressman or a Senator.
@JLS1950Â @MonroeMad Just don't buy their goods. If you have the majority's favor they go broke and the fat cats are unemployed. We have the power in the free market to destroy any company by not buying their goods.
Jobs went to China because of dirt cheap energy more than low wages. Why throw away billions on these scams like Obama did. Oh Ya , I forgot that there is plenty more where that came from ....your pockets.
Maybe this guy works for China.....hmmmm
@MonroeMad BTW: Actually, energy in China is NOT cheap: ALL energy in china must be subsidized by the government, and China is more dependent on oil from the Mideast even that we ever were. In fact, China maintains an army in ready to literally march on the Mideast if its fuel supply is ever really threatened - and so they are desperately seeking alternate sources such as American coal to offset what to them represents a terrible threat.
@MonroeMad Jobs have been going to china long before president obama was elected; this has been a phenomenon since your boy Bush was in office. Quit huffing gas dude/
@northwestsurfer @MonroeMad Actually Senator Diane Feinstein and her husband Richard Blum have greased the China phenomenon for 20 years. They have made billions on it.
Look it up...conflict of interest everywhere when she makes favorable law for her husband who is on the board of China export banks .
@MonroeMad Jobs went to China because of extremely low wages and a labor law environment that verges on chattel slavery. Chinese workers are NOT protected from severe environmental- and job-safety threats such as exposure to lead and asbestos fibers; they are NOT protected by child labor laws; they are NOT permitted to express dissident opinions in a political context. Tim I'm-An-Idiot and those like him would not last 5 minutes in the Chinese political climate: he would be arrested and would then quietly "disappear"... end of story. (The Chinese have no place for any "TEA Party" either - members would end up in a harbor somewhere themselves... glub-glub.)Â
If you yourself wish to live like the Chinese people, well and good: move to China. You might actually like it!
@JLS1950Â @MonroeMad Hogwash. China opens a new coal fired power plant nearly every week. They give the electricity almost free to factories. We are closing our coal fired plants and Ohio is rusting away.
@MonroeMad @Darn it! @JLS1950 Studies provided by groups supported by Monsanto. It's not just Round Up and it's not just seeds. All kinds of things are being genetically modified. Fish, animals in addition to seed. It's your choice what you eat.
@Darn it! @MonroeMad @JLS1950 Sorry to correct you, but Round-up does not get into the food. There are plenty of government studies that show that. I am sure some do, but not Round-up. The environmental whackies would have succeeded in getting it banned.
@MonroeMad @JLS1950 How do you feed clean food when you have Monsanto adding Round Up pesticide to seeds? That poison ends up in your food. Now Monsanto is paying big bucks fighting initiatives that would require food that has ingredients that have been genetically modified to be labeled as such. If they get their way you would never know if you were feeding your children poison.
@MonroeMad @Darn it! @JLS1950 China pollutes the air and their citizens suffer. Then the air currents bring the pollution over here and we suffer.Â
@northwestsurfer @MonroeMad @Darn it! @JLS1950 So why then did the Kyoto treaty penalize us and let China completely off the hook?
Al Gore wanted this signed badly, but the worst offenders had no restrictions.
@northwestsurfer @MonroeMad @JLS1950 I can. What do you want? Or you can just look it all up yourself.
@MonroeMad @Darn it! @JLS1950 Yeah, they actually do. China, particularly Beijing has the worst air quality in the world. Daily, it exceeds conditions that even define "hazardous" levels by the WHO and US Embassy. The only person who is stupid here is you.
@MonroeMad @JLS1950 Why dont you cite some facts to back up your rhetoric?
@MonroeMad @JLS1950 Yes, we CAN. But the people in the position to make that decision said "Oooo, but that would cut into my BONUS! I can't do THA-AT!"
So the rest of us find ourselves with intense desire to salute these "business leaders"... ONE FINGER AT A TIME!
@JLS1950 Good quote, but we can compete with superior technology and burn the coal, have the jobs, feed clean food to our children. We chose a different path due to extremist thinking on the environment.Â
I trust ecologists, environmentalists are political scum.
@MonroeMad@Darn it!@JLS1950Precisely the problem: just as there is only ONE "race", so also there is only ONE atmosphere, ONE world climate and ONE EARTH.Â
And when we try to feed our children, we find they are poisoned with melamine!Â
"And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; AND SHOULDST DESTROY THEM WHICH DESTROY THE EARTH." --Rev 11
Which side are yo angry with?
@JLS1950 @Darn it! @MonroeMad Agree, but the argument is where the jobs went and why. We can make coal clean but we let the environmental loonies chase the jobs away. Balance....feed your children first.
@Darn it! @MonroeMad @JLS1950 "When you visit American City, you will find it very pretty; just two things whenever you are there: don't drink the water and don't breathe the air!!!"
Now also being sung as "When you visit Chinese village..."
@Darn it! @MonroeMad @JLS1950 Ya like China breathes a different air?
We are really stupid here.
@MonroeMad @JLS1950 There is a reason we are closing our coal fired plants. Wait for it ........ air pollution.Â
@MonroeMad @JLS1950 We are closing our coal-fired plants because we found out that they are poisoning people and rapidly altering the climate in ways that may be fatal to our civilization if not our very race... and the companies which operated these plants did not deign to take the steps necessary to control those poisons and reduce the damage to our planet and our people. So they called it all "too expensive" and abandoned it, while investing in Chinese goods from a country that is now the largest exporter of industrial greenhouse gasses in the world.