Was Washington State’s natural gas ban ultimately planned?

The passage of Initiatives 2117 and 2066 next month could have public policy implications related to the state’s efforts to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, Ecology officials said at a recent meeting of the Washington Climate Partnership.

For supporters of I-2066, which prohibits state and local governments from banning natural gas, the admission is a tacit admission that the state ultimately planned to do just that.

This year, the Commerce Department released its Priority Climate Action Plan (PCAP), funded by a $3 million grant and designed to “create a feasible, equitable, and comprehensive plan to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.” The plan also aims to help organizations in Washington state apply for federal climate change reduction grants to fund efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Commerce Climate Pollution Reduction Grants Program Manager Deanna Geisler said at the Washington Climate Partnership meeting Oct. 28 that “while this plan is more focused on state and regional climate action, we are interested in identifying common themes in local plans to determine measures that will make local climate action plans easier to implement.”

“We have many climate plans in state and local government, but there has not been a comprehensive plan covering all sectors of Washington’s economy since 2008,” she added.

Jeremy Hargreaves of Evolved Energy Research told the meeting that “there are two big problems at a high level in Washington. We don’t have a lot of emissions from electricity, but we’re trying to get to 45% below 1990 levels by 2030 – not that far into the future now. And decarbonizing electricity won’t get us there, so we need to decarbonize other things too.”

“What we’ve seen in the past is that we need to do a little more and start decarbonizing fuels, and that’s a challenge for Washington in the near future as we need to meet our 2030 emissions target,” he added.

To achieve greenhouse gas emissions reductions of 95% below 1990 levels, “we need to not only decarbonize all energy use in the state’s electricity, transportation, residential, commercial and industrial sectors, even our CO2 industrial processes.”

While PCAP and other greenhouse gas planners considered various measures to achieve these goals, questions were raised during the meeting about how I-2117, which repeals the state’s Climate Commitment Act, and I- 2066 will affect these measures.

Environmental Climate Pollution Grant Planning Manager Riley Allison told the meeting that “one of the things we need to figure out is, ‘Do we have the authority to implement these measures?’ These two initiatives will of course affect our powers to implement specific measures, so we will wait and see. Of course, this may have an impact on where there may be additional gaps that need to be filled in the Comprehensive Climate Action Plan.”

Center Square officials reached out to Ellison for clarification on which measures would be impacted by which initiatives. In an emailed response, Jordyn Bauerlein of the Climate Pollution Reduction Program wrote that “as an agency, we do not take a position on ballot measures. However, it’s worth noting that Washington has legal limits on greenhouse gas emissions—we are ultimately required to cut emissions by 95% by 2050. Thus, in the absence of caps and investments, other regulatory instruments and new climate laws, these restrictions will need to be respected. “

She also wrote that “The Comprehensive Climate Action Plan (CCAP) must still reflect our state’s current and proposed policies and actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Environmental Protection Agency, which funds this work, requires us to determine whether government agencies have the necessary authority to implement greenhouse gas emission reduction measures under CCAP.”

While neither Ellison nor Bauerlein specifically mentioned a natural gas ban as one of the carbon reduction measures that would be affected, the Washington Building Industry Association wrote in an email that “when DEP admits they won’t be able to do certain If (I)-2066 is passed, they will almost admit that they are actively taking steps to ban gas appliances from our homes.

“It’s true, we know this because that’s what the state is doing in a number of different places, whether it’s at Ecology, the State Building Code Board, the Public Utilities and Transportation Commission and/or at certain levels of local government. I-2066 leaves energy choices in the hands of consumers, not governments.”

Other organizations that have considered moving away from natural gas to achieve net-zero emissions goals include the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency.

In its plan, PSCAA noted recent efforts by government agencies to transition away from natural gas: “The majority of new buildings are expected to select electric-powered appliances due to the reduced costs associated with this construction method. Even buildings that choose natural gas will see significant reductions in natural gas consumption and therefore greenhouse gas emissions compared to previous building codes due to increased efficiency requirements.”

However, the PSCAA plan also notes that “the combustion of natural gas for heating of buildings does not have a noticeable or identifiable impact on the criteria and concentrations of toxic pollutants in our region. Instead, any benefit would be primarily defined as a reduction in overall emissions.”