Proposed Spokane energy ordinance would impose large costs while doing little for the environment
Key Findings
- A proposal to mandate 100 percent renewable energy for Spokane residents by 2030 is based on faulty assumptions and would do little for the environment at a high cost.
- The proposal would require 10 percent of renewables to be generated locally, which would add millions to the cost of electricity in Spokane.
- To meet the local-production goals, Spokane would have to build a new biomass plant (like the one they currently have) every other year for a decade.
- The proposed ordinance also promises significant new spending to offset the increased energy costs but says nothing about the tax increases necessary to fund those promises.
- If rooftop solar were used to meet just one-quarter of Spokane’s community-based energy, it would amount to 137 times as much solar generation as currently exists in Washington state.
- Using the approach offered by the ordinance, Spokane would waste about 95 percent of the money dedicated to reducing CO2 emissions.
Members of the Spokane City Council are considering a new climate ordinance that would require Spokane residents to use 100 percent renewable energy in the city by 2030. The proposed ordinance would also require that at least ten percent of the electricity used by residents be produced within the city or in the local area.
The proposed ordinance would be extremely costly, promises huge new infrastructure costs without saying how taxpayers will fund them, and wastes vast amounts of money on projects that do little to help the environment.
The ordinance is also filled with errors and vague claims. Below, I review the various “Whereas” clauses to identify the many problems in the text.
“Whereas, local, regional, and global economies are transitioning to low-carbon energy sources.”
Washington state has the lowest carbon intensity for energy in the nation – 34 percent lower than the national average – thanks to our hydro and nuclear energy. Ironically, this initiative would ban or discourage those non-carbon energy sources. This clause indicates the ordinance is not about reducing carbon emissions. It is about imposing a particular political ideology and will end up harming the environment.
“Whereas, the future of the fossil fuel industry is questionable…”
This statement is completely inaccurate. The International Energy Agency predicts demand for coal, oil, and natural gas will actually increase by 10 percent worldwide by 2030. The claim the sponsors make in the ordinance appears to be invented, without any effort to determine whether it is true or not. This is a pattern revealed in the drafting of the ordinance – its proposed energy policy is based on a series of false or unsubstantiated claims.
