Washington State Commits To Running Entirely On Clean Energy By 2045 (gizmodo.com) 82
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."
Washington State Has A Great History On Power (Score:2)
https://www.investopedia.com/t... [investopedia.com]
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Yep, and... (Score:3)
...
this is the year for the Linux Desktop!
flying cars by 2015!
free tibet!
make america great again!
goooo saints!
Re: (Score:2)
I had a dream (Score:1)
I can finally get better than shotgunned 128K ISDN in Seattle.
WA State government understands energy technology? (Score:2)
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 [seattlepi.com] (March 5, 2019)
2) Washington State hasn't fixed the problems with traffic i
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Baffling (Score:2)
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?
Re:Baffling (Score:4, Insightful)
Boomer logic. "Oil is fine for us, let's stick our kids with solar."
Re: Baffling (Score:1)
Don't blame boomers. It's those damn millennials that are pushing the dream of economies running on unicorn farts and pony smiles. You can blame the boomers for snickering at their foolishness and patronizing them for votes though. They won't be around to care anymore when the millennials finally wake up, start looking around and realize their standard of living sucks.
Re: (Score:1)
As a gen-xer I'm somewhat annoyed with this plan. I'll still be here (God willing) but too old to do anything about it. I say if it don't work we'll burn millennials to keep warm and generate electricity.
Re: (Score:2)
Boomer Logic: The Environment will be fine until I go tits up, fuck the kids.
Re:Baffling (Score:5, Insightful)
It's long term enough thinking that the politicians proposing it won't be around to take the blame when it doesn't happen. They are committing the next generation to pull it off, not themselves. So they DO get political benefit without actually doing anything.
Re: (Score:3)
It's long term enough thinking that the politicians proposing it won't be around to take the blame when it doesn't happen. They are committing the next generation to pull it off, not themselves. So they DO get political benefit without actually doing anything.
Exactly right
Not hard (Score:5, Informative)
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... [mytpu.org]
Re:Not hard (Score:5, Insightful)
Was going to post something to this effect; it's virtually meaningless green-standing.
Next up, Idaho commits to cutting potato imports to 0 by 2055. "This spuds for you!"
Re: (Score:1)
New law: Any action taken to reduce emissions will be dismissed as either insincere or unrealistic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>"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."
Which illustrates why doing such things (like most things) at the State level makes sense. Each State is different- has different resources, issues, problems. It spurs competition, encourages experimentation, allows faster reaction, focuses on issues that matter to those in that area, and allows more freedom. I have to remind people about the concept of the United States all the time (an
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
85% is just hydro, which percentage wise has actually decreased overall thanks to wind and solar. All renewable combined is significantly higher percentage, and is higher than the last time I checked the reports a few years ago. Washington has massive wind farms on the east side of the mountains, plus a huge push for energy conservation. Most everything is already in place, their statement is more of just a formality of what is already happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Scotland is aiming for 200% renewable energy in the next few years. 100% for themselves and the same again to export.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lets see how well the governors commitment fits with tearing down the Snake River hydroelectric dams.
better start licensing those nukes (Score:1, Informative)
If you don't support fission you don't support clean energy.
Re:better start licensing those nukes (Score:4, Interesting)
If you don't support fission you don't support clean energy.
This is WA. They're already running 85% Hydro Electric, and have significant capabilities to add wind in the south-eastern part of the state. The hydro system actually has the capacity to power the entire state, but can't as it would be using the water unsustainably. Add in Wind/Solar, and you can use the Hydro as a large battery, buffering the output from these more intermittent sources. When the wind is blowing, the sun shining, you spin down the hydro plants, and let the water store up. When the wind goes calm and the skies are cloudy, you run the Hydro hard, and draw down on your reservoirs.
This isn't rocket science.
Re: (Score:1)
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!
Tax and take.... (Score:1)
1- raise $17m
2- AND maintain minimum speeds on the other lanes at a minimum of 45 MPH
The result raised $31M and brought the other lanes (on the I405) to a complete crawl, yet, unshockingly, the state refuses to undue the debacle it created (even after it fired the engineer who designed it). More and more roads are being tolled as the State hands out more gimmies to homeless, mentally ill, d
Some counties already do this (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because a lot of people moved to our state. They also moved to Texas (lots of wind energy and solar) and Oregon (also 100 percent RPS).
Some of the states are getting smart. (Score:4, Insightful)
I love it when a state does something like this! (Score:2)
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!
So, no flights to Seatle (Score:1)
Washington Committs to Abandoning Target by 2045 (Score:4, Funny)
There, fixed that headline for you.
campaign promise (Score:3)
"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.)
Not a hard reach (Score:2)
Washington states electricity source is already over 85% renewable so the remaining 15% could be achieved with mostly wind power. Maybe some Geothermal.
Suck it Wa! There go your BILLS (Score:2)
What happens if they don't meet their "commitment" (Score:3)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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 the