Slashdot Mirror
Washington State Commits To Running Entirely On Clean Energy By 2045 (gizmodo.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: On Thursday, the Washington state legislature officially passed one of the most ambitious clean energy bills in the nation. Washington is now committed to making the state's electricity supply carbon neutral by 2030 and 100 percent carbon-free by 2045. The bill makes the fourth state to commit to 100 percent clean energy and adds a feather to the cap of Governor Jay Inslee who requested the bill be introduced. Inslee is running as a climate candidate for president that can get things done in the District if elected, and this bill is a very tangible accomplishment he can now point to.
The bill previously passed the state senate 28-19. After passing the house 56-42 on Thursday, the legislation goes back to the senate for a final vote. Once signed into law, Washington will join, Hawaii, California, and New Mexico as the fourth state committed to 100 percent clean energy. Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico have also made similar commitment as well as more than 90 cities, according to tracking by the Sierra Club. The bill shuts the door on coal, saying it "is the policy of the state to eliminate coal-fired electricity." By calling for energy to come from carbon-free sources by 2045, it leaves the door open for nuclear power. [...] In addition to committing to cutting emissions, the bill is also designed to ensure the transition to renewables and any bumps in energy prices aren't shouldered by the poor. The bill calls says utilities "must make funding available for energy assistance to low-income households."
The bill previously passed the state senate 28-19. After passing the house 56-42 on Thursday, the legislation goes back to the senate for a final vote. Once signed into law, Washington will join, Hawaii, California, and New Mexico as the fourth state committed to 100 percent clean energy. Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico have also made similar commitment as well as more than 90 cities, according to tracking by the Sierra Club. The bill shuts the door on coal, saying it "is the policy of the state to eliminate coal-fired electricity." By calling for energy to come from carbon-free sources by 2045, it leaves the door open for nuclear power. [...] In addition to committing to cutting emissions, the bill is also designed to ensure the transition to renewables and any bumps in energy prices aren't shouldered by the poor. The bill calls says utilities "must make funding available for energy assistance to low-income households."
https://www.investopedia.com/t...
Largest default in municipal bond history. I guess either memories or short or it was profitable enough for some people that a new generation wants to try again.
...
this is the year for the Linux Desktop!
flying cars by 2015!
free tibet!
make america great again!
goooo saints!
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
I can finally get better than shotgunned 128K ISDN in Seattle.
A commitment to run on clean energy by a given date that doesn't require breaking the laws of physics. This also appears to give enough time to adapt without bankrupting household and companies alike. This is long term enough thinking that the politicians proposing it can't get political benefit within a few election cycles? This appears to be at least somewhat feasible.
What the hell happened?
It isn't that hard. We're already in the 85%+ range as it is because most of our state's power is hydro-electric.
For example, here is the info on Tacoma: https://www.mytpu.org/about-tp...
If you don't support fission you don't support clean energy.
Our state legislature is planning to fuel us 100% by the smell of their own farts.
Ahh, the San Francisco way!
If that doesn't work, you can run off of smugness.
It's not really that heavy a lift, Washington State has a number of counties which already generate high levels of renewable energy, it's more a matter of phasing out dying coal energy from nearby states. If you look at the entire West Coast, you'll see that, at present, CA OR WA BC are all aiming for 100 percent RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard) energy, and since we all have interties, there's a surplus of green energy sloshing around somewhere.
At this rate, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Arizona, and Mexico will soon be part of people doing things, rather than coming up with excuses for why they use expensive power from non-renewables.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
You may be announcing this a bit prematurely.
Not really. It is a common tactic. Announce something that people will say "great idea", even if it doesn't stand a chance of passing. If it passes, no harm. If it doesn't pass, then make a big commotion about how it was shot down by [insert party here]. Win, win!
It is no longer renewable, but clean. That is the smart way. It is foolish to commit just to wind/solar with storage. We need an.energy matrix. We also need to quit adding natural gas power plants. Last year, we went up a couple of %, and that was due in large part to nat gas electricity.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Soon enough to make it appear that they are doing something about a problem, but still far out enough in the future to make it someone else's problem. Perfect!
As is usually the case, promises are made but those who make promises never get to be held accountable.
There, fixed that headline for you.
"Inslee is running as a climate candidate for president that can get things done in the District if elected, and this bill is a very tangible accomplishment he can now point to." It'll be tangible when (or rather, if) it succeeds by 2045; right now, it's a pledge and nothing more. So is Inslee planning on running for president in the 2048 election? (I'm also not clear what the District has to do with it; that's the *other* Washington.)
Probably nonsense? "Washington State Commits To Running Entirely On Clean Energy By 2045"
I'm guessing: Maybe no one in the WA state government has an understanding of energy technology.
Other issues that show a lack of understanding:
1) In many places, Seattle doesn't have modern internet connections, as the parent comment indicates. One story: Seattle's low-income residents are 5-7 times more likely to be without internet (March 5, 2019)
2) Washington State hasn't fixed the problems with traffic in Seattle. Fixing traffic congestion 'impossible,' says Washington transportation chief. (July 26, 2018)
3) The Washington State laws are, in many cases, very poorly written. Three terrible initiatives in Washington State this year, plus a good one. (Oct. 18, 2018)
Washington states electricity source is already over 85% renewable so the remaining 15% could be achieved with mostly wind power. Maybe some Geothermal.
Watch your utility rates SKYROCKET!
What does it actually mean to commit in this situation? Is it any more than saying that they think its a good idea? (I think its a good idea, but don't know how a bill now enforces things in the future)
It's like this. Lawmakers make laws. New laws automagicly supersede older laws.
Soooo, as soon as a future legislature decides this law doesn't make sense (for whatever reason - they are anti-solar, they are pro-nuclear, they're getting kickbacks from Big Coal, whatever), it vanishes in a puff of new law.
Net effect: it looks good on the Governor's Presidential bid, gives the Washington State pols something to tell their constituents about next election, and doesn't commit either the Governor or the legislators to do a damn thing....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
2) Washington State hasn't fixed the problems with traffic in Seattle.
Yeah it’s amazing how the rest of the US and the rest of the world have solved their traffic problems, leaving Seattle as the only place which has to deal with bad traffic.
#DeleteChrome