By SPENCER PAULEY | THE CENTER SQUARE
The City of Seattle is expecting rates for City Light customers to rise 5.4% next year due to increasing demand, extreme weather, and impacts of low-water flow on hydroelectric generation capacity, even as the state continues to push for a total transition to clean energy.
A 5.4% increase is about $4.88 more a month for a typical residential bill or $1.95 more a month for a typical residential Utility Discount Program [subsidies for poor people] bill.
According to Seattle City Light CEO Dawn Lindell, retail demand from building electrification is growing three times faster than projected in 2022, and transportation electrification demand has increased 70% above 2022 estimates.
“In a matter of years, demand will outpace energy savings from efficiency,” Lindell said at a Seattle City Light Strategic Plan update.
During a presentation to the Seattle Sustainability, City Light, Arts & Culture Committee on Friday, Seattle City Light officials revealed that the estimated grand total of needed resources in 2022 was 696 megawatts over 20 years. This year, the grand total of needed resources over the next 20 years is 2,563 MW. That is a 268% increase in estimated resources.
City Light’s admission of electrical capacity not reaching the demand exemplifies the obstacles facing Washington as it works to transition its counties and cities to clean energy.
In March, Gov. Jay Inslee signed House Bill 1589, which is a “planning bill” that consolidates Puget Sound Energy’s strategy for both electrical and natural gas in the future.
The State Department of Commerce also published its Energy Strategy in 2021, which was designed to provide a roadmap for meeting the state’s need for affordable and reliable energy supplies and outline a path to a clean, inclusive energy economy by 2050.
Washington Department of Commerce Energy Policy Office Director Glenn Blackmon said that the state’s energy strategy does anticipate the need for significant investments by electric utilities as the state transitions from fossil fuels to clean energy sources.
“The strategy also identifies the need to make sure overburdened communities and low-income customers are not harmed by this transition,” Blackmon told The Center Square in an email. “Energy transition investments will yield long-term benefits, both economic and environmental. For example, investments in the electric distribution system and battery charging stations will enable consumers to save money by switching from gasoline to electric vehicles.”
Blackmon noted that state agencies do not regulate the rates of Seattle City Light or other electric utilities operated by local jurisdictions.
The state Legislature created the Clean Energy Fund in 2013 Legislature for projects that revolve around the development and deployment of clean energy technologies, save energy, lower energy costs, and reduce harmful air emissions. The Legislature has provided $231 million in biennial appropriations to the CEF.
Proponents are working to place Initiative 2066 on the November ballot, which would bar cities and counties from prohibiting, penalizing or discouraging “the use of gas for any form of heating, or for uses related to any appliance or equipment, in any building.”
The Seattle Sustainability, City Light, Arts & Culture Committee is expected to vote on the approval of the City Light Strategic Plan Update on Aug. 2. It would then go to the full city council for a final vote with the expectation to raise rates for City Light customers.
And just how does the arts and culture comity have anything to do with electricity??? Incredible how we have fallen. Is our country 50% candy asses. It appears so. Chinese will love it easy to control slaves.
Watch out Anchorage this could be you next.
Let the lefts ideas cost you more to live every day.
I have not seen one area where my living costs have gone down with this administration and their change the world policy’s.
First mistake is allowing liberals to call solar and wind clean energy. Solar and wind come with a very high cost to environment to build and maintain; including mining, transportation, maintenance and disposal. Study after study shows many wind turbines don’t pay for the investment until close to the 14th year of service. Premature failures of components is a huge problem. Most components can’t be recycled and are filling landfills. Solar farms are negatively impacting weather patterns when reflected energy super heats air causing wind storms and lightning.
Green new deal and build back better only benefits elite and hurts we the people. We must all say NO to solar and wind which are damaging our environment and bankrupting taxpayers/ratepayers/we the people.
Secret Service denied security to Trump for two years, with no issues. He gets security and they fail? That is all that continues to come concerning failures prior and during the assination attempt.
Don’t forget about all those electric cars, trucks, and semi the they’re going to introduce in the coming years that are going to need electrical energy to charge their batteries. I don’t think the infrastructures strong enough to accommodate their growth.
It’s obvious they need to breach dams in order to nudge the public towards clean energy.
Better start building more Nuke Power Plants.
Electric cars have been shown to have a larger carbon footprint than gasoline cars. See Tedtalk here ‘https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1E8SQde5rk. That said, there are multitudes of opinions and reports arguing both sides of the issue. There is so much false narrative. For example, what does it mean to “believe in climate change?” A reasonable answer is, since climate has always been changing it makes sense to believe in it, whatever that means. As a corollary, trees exist so apparently we also “believe in” them as well. The more pertinent question is, how sensitive is climate to man’s influence thereon? This is a difficult question considering CO2 is only .04% of the atmosphere. Professors, Lindzen, Happer and Choi all true accomplished atmospheric scientists as opposed to the so-called “98% of all scientists,” have proven carbon content is a derivative of average temperature–not vice versa. The topic is highly politicized, highly profitable, riddled with corruption, and it is anything but settled.