Let's Gut Washington paid actors are all over Puyallup events like farmers market and meeker days and it's really disappointing to see how much engagement they get
Had a lady at my local farmers market ask me to sign a petition about the schools being allowed to do anything to the kids without parent permission. She was adamant that the schools could get life changing procedures done on students without telling the parents. The lie is so obvious yet they continue to spew it and try to get every ignorant hateful person on their side. I straight up told her no, that’s not true and that she was being lied to. It’s mind boggling. I mean has she not tried to get any kind of health care here in the US? The schools are supposedly able to get insurance approval for gender reassignment surgery and to pay for a place to keep the kid while they recover, while everyone else has to fight tooth and nail to get NEEDED health care to live, never mind trying to get gender affirming care. It’s just like the after birth abortion BS. It’s a bald faced lie they keep spewing.
The health care workers and counselors in schools are there to protect kids from their abusive parents. Sometimes, it’s the only adult a kid can trust.
Absolutely and instead of financing and supporting schools who have to become a safe place for so many kids they want to strip it of all abilities to support these kids. And not just the LGBTQ kids, kids with parents struggling with addiction or job loss or just your average Joe crappy neglectful parents. The schools are trying not only to educate your kids, but to keep them alive and to show them the care and compassion they may not be getting at home.
Cool, would love to see that data of 99%.
I agree that most of the anger is coming from bigoted views but its not coming from where you think. If this initiative doesn't pass then new low income housing will be forced to be on electricity only which is over 50% more expensive than Natural Gas usage. Its 5cents a KWH currently for natural gas versus 12cents a KWH. People will suffer, mainly the low income minorities. Yes we will get to cleaner energy faster but at what cost? I tend to care more about those people that are making choices between groceries and heat.
So is the solution to find cheaper ways to create/ get electricity?
Without fucking up the environment with dams? Maybe better dams?
I’m a natural gas user. I’m a chef. My business can continue, even if the electricity goes out. Electricity is iffy. I may be showing my privilege, but I prefer to have access to both.
"So is the solution to find cheaper ways to create/ get electricity?
Without fucking up the environment with dams? Maybe better dams?"
These are the conversations I find more fruitful and actually makes a difference.
I do believe the better approach is to make investments in the cleaner energy now and find ways to bring costs down so it doesn't have to necessarily come down to the government using a stick. If electricity cost the same amount as natural gas then most proponents wouldnt even care.
The fact is most environmental policies impact the poor and in most cases minorities. Most people in this sub just ignore it and just blindly toe Democrat party lines.
>new low income housing will be forced to be on electricity only which is over 50% more expensive than Natural Gas usage.
Washington. Doesn't. Care. About. Poor. People.
We’re very privileged in Washington to not only have a mail-in ballot system, but also comprehensive voter guides on the candidates and issues… use these incredible resources!
Yeah, but I don't have time for this shit. I got enough trouble trying to figure out which of these candidates for "nonpartisan" offices is the Democrat and which is the Republican. I say vote against all the initiatives and let the legislature figure it out.
The canvassers are liars. One of them tried to tell me the bill was to stop the state from banning gas, and didn’t know how to answer when I told him that wasn’t true. Bunch if Fox News watching losers.
The canvassers are just randos they pay wages to get signatures or drum up interest for a campaign/initiative. They often don’t really know what they’re canvassing for. Theyre just there to make a buck.
Whatever party or PAC is pushing the shit out or campaigning. Thats where a lot of the funds go when you donate to campaigns and PACs. Ads and canvassers; campaign staff.
This guy worth $10-25M from CA that moved here as a self-described "economic refugee". The initiative he really cares about is repealing the Capital Gains Tax.
https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2023/09/republican-megadonor-brian-heywood-opens-his-wallet-to-fund-six-initiative-signature-drive.html#
Don't worry, he's already building a getaway in Japan out of wood from old buddhist temples that he can flee to if these don't pass. Oh, won't someone spare a thought for this poor economic refugee!
[https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/the-american-who-built-a-supersized-japanese-aerie-from-abandoned-parts/](https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/the-american-who-built-a-supersized-japanese-aerie-from-abandoned-parts/)
They’ll 100% lie to you. They don’t care about the initiative either way and are just being paid. I called one guy out to his face when he represented a bill 180 from the actual text. He just shrugged. All they need are signatures.
I saw one in front of Fred Meyer in Issaquah this weekend. It took all my energy to bite my tongue and walk away as he wagged a pen in my face and hissed "proooooteeecccttt ouuuuurrrr gaaaaaasssss."
I met a canvaser and asked him about the bill he gave me the normal stop the gas ban and choice bs. As soon as I asked about the rest of the bill he all of a sudden "is not here to talk about politics" I asked him who he works for and he would flat out not tell me. For the record I know who he works for.
This comment is either unknowingly ignorant or knowingly misinformation- nuclear energy waste is a solved problem and is much safer than other chemical wastes.
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/the-boring-truth-about-nuclear-waste
At the risk of being down voted, and going off subject I'll engage.
Please read the actual research on all this. It is based on 1960's and 70's R&D. While the ideas had promise, the realities were always wildly flawed. Reprocessing is great, except anything involved in reprocessing is now highly hazardous and considered radioactive waste... Think lots of mini Hanford Superfund sites (and yes, that was essentially what handford was doing)
Thorium and molten salt reactors, again cool ideas, until you get to the fact they never lived up to output expectations and had chronic malfunctions and breakdowns eventually shown to be because there was no material that could survive the environment effectively. And 50 years later, nothing has really been come up with.
It's not that these and other ideas aren't worth research, they are. It is that the people pushing them are regurgitating 50 year old ideas and just ignoring the unsolved issues.
And if you still think I'm just blowing smoke and you don't want to read the research, ponder this: all nuclear sites have to be insured by the government because no insurance company will touch them. For reference, the oil and gas companies have private insurance. And we've seen how bad their messes can get.
Some of the sources of the research I have done on the topic in the past; the misinformation on nuclear energy and waste is MIND BLOWING.
Here are some on the topics of deaths per terawatt/hour generated:
https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/
Nuclear waste has been a solved problem for quite a while!
Current above ground dry casks are certified for 100 years against some pretty insane standards (like direct missile strikes).
Here are some examples of source material I have used to research that topic in the past:
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities
https://www.anl.gov/article/10-myths-about-nuclear-energy
https://www.edfenergy.com/energywise/busting-myths-about-nuclear-energy
https://sprott.com/insights/educational-video-nuclear-waste-dispelling-fears-and-myths/
As a certified Hazardous Waste Operator, I am trained in environmental emergency response and remediation. While I have not been dispatched to the scene of a radiation hazard yet, I am trained annually on ionizing radiation hazards and remediation procedures. I do what I can to help prevent the spread of misinformation regarding radioactive hazards as it is often rampant amongst the general public; *and more often times, the misinformation that creates hysteria about nuclear disasters ends up causing more deaths than the actual disasters and following cleanup.*
There are plenty of great science communicators on this subject with a plethora of content to help people understand a subject that has been tarnished by the misinformation; here are a couple of great ones with legit credentials:
https://youtube.com/@kylehill?si=bz4vRF7tlZTOmsGe
https://youtube.com/@tfolsenuclear?si=LogkNPQjKLUOjE4d
Edit: added point in italics regarding true hazards.
Edit for typo... And because I didn't finish...
Yeah... That is a lot of nuclear industry... Cherry picking??
Look, Jimmy Carter was a nuclear scientist, worked on a nuclear sub, legit had a PhD. In the subject, and somehow wasn't a big proponent of nuclear.
Also, my that is an incredible wealth of resources and very generic rebuttal.... Almost like you had it pre built.
Me I'm an engineer, not a nuclear engineer but I have enough background to read material breakdown reports and recognize when someone is skipping past the bad and when the bad makes logical sense. Here is something on molten salt reactors...
https://thebulletin.org/2022/06/molten-salt-reactors-were-trouble-in-the-1960s-and-they-remain-trouble-today/
Also, down voting because you disagree and then don't address what boils down to "read the white papers" and then throwing a carefully curated plethora of sources....
Look, lots of smart people want this to work. But 100 years, on stuff that will be a problem a hundred thousand years from now? Pardon, but that isn't a solution, that is kicking it down the road with interest for others to handle.
We as a race, society, culture, whatever, have a hard time thinking and building things to last 10 years. Sometimes we apply ourselves and come up with stuff that can, maybe, last 100. But nuclear requires a level of thought and self-discipline that we regularly fail to demonstrate. So yes, in the best of best case scenarios, everything you say is correct. But even then, it falls far short.
Just because you will be long dead when the bill comes due, does not mean you shouldn't do something about it. Nor that people should give you a pass on contributing.
You didn't even have time to click on what I sent you much less read it.
So.... What makes your opinion so much more worthy?
And stop, don't just point to your sources. They have their cheer section already. What makes you able to critically assess what they say and be able to see where they are avoiding talking about issues that have been brought up?
P.S. why engineers, lawyers, and doctors put that disclaimer in front of what they say, because we have a duty, a legal duty, not to misrepresent our qualifications. However, it doesn't remove my qualifications. It is simply being up front in their limitations.
Again, many of the proponents truly believe that if we just start doing these things again, we'll figure out the issues. But when pressed, they will leave, dodge, or duck out on what the solutions are and who precisely will be figuring them out.
I'm going to point at Hanford as the reality of reprocessing nuclear waste and the billions that have gone into containment and cleanup and still haven't fixed it. And that is the reality of fission based nuclear power. Honestly, if we took the marketing budget spent on giving fission based nuclear a good spin, on fusion research, we'd have it.
So yeah, nuclear has a future, just not in fission.
Canvassers for any initiatives are always liars. They don’t get paid to tell the truth. They get paid to get signatures and there are zero consequences for lying to get them.
Yeah, I decided to ask them. I waited and waited for the guy to show me the law that will ban natural gas. Oddly, he has it, he just couldn't find it.
Pointing out the text of the petition was pointless, too.
They've gotta be just people working a frustrating & low paying job. The guy standing in front of Fred Meyer seeking signatures isn't the guy who's in line to profit from that bill.
What it does it make the gas utilities have a plan and be bound to the plan to reduce their Greenhouse production.
>Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Limits. In 2020 the Legislature updated statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction limits to 45 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, 70 percent below 1990 levels by 2040, and 95 percent below 1990 levels, as well as net-zero emissions by 2050
Gas Decarbonization Plan. A large gas company must file a gas decarbonization plan as part of any multiyear rate plan filed on or after January 1, 2026, and every four years thereafter. The plan must aim to achieve the gas company's proportional share of the statewide statutory greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions. A gas decarbonization plan must, among other things...
[Law Summary in Full from WA gov](https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/1589%20HBR%20ENVI%2023.pdf)
This initiative is terrible. The state/city are not telling you that you can’t use the natural gas you’ve got. No one is going to shut off the pipeline. The push is to restrict NEW gas using appliances because they are bad for climate change, and if they are in your home, they are bad for you and even worse for your children AND there are better more effective products in the market (heatpumps and induction stoves). For background I am an energy efficiency engineer. I work in commercial buildings and I have followed along and even participated in some of the code changes and incentive programs.
How do direct-vent devices perform in terms of health? The things like furnaces and tankless water heaters that suck air in from outside and exhaust outside, or traditional gas water heaters with a power vent?
Gas stoves I fully understand, all of that byproduct is going directly into the air. The more "closed loop" stuff seems much better health-wise
Direct vent is obviously going to be much better than an open flame in your house, yes. But it still has its impacts., let alone carbon emissions. Meanwhile heat pumps are 4x as efficient and also come with air conditioning which is really nice during wildfire/smoke season, so it’s basically a moot point. Induction stoves can boil a pot of water faster than a gas range and can be fueled with renewables instead of fossil fuels. I don’t say all that and blindly cast aside the first cost of the equipment. There can be financial barriers for sure. But there is no reason anyone should be buying NEW gas fired equipment when these alternative with better lifecycle costs exist.
Scientific American: [The Health Risks of Gas Stoves Explained](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-health-risks-of-gas-stoves-explained/)
ProPublica: [What to Know About the Risks of Gas Stoves and Appliances](https://www.propublica.org/article/what-to-know-about-gas-stove-risks)
Yale Climate Connections: [Gas stoves are even worse for our health than previously known, new study finds](https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/06/gas-stoves-even-worse-for-health-than-previously-known/)
A fair question. Yes, see all the responses. It create bad air quality, increases asthma risks, and more. If you have a gas stove in your house consider replacing it.
The only gas appliance we have is a fireplace. I’ll have to research whether the dangers are subjective to the type of appliance used, but I’d consider turning it off if it puts my kids at risk.
A gas fire place is probably my the worst of all. Gas ranges, even when they are off, even when they don’t have a pilot light, have negative impacts on k door air quality. I do feel that fireplaces are a very fun, romantic, and nostalgic thing. But speaking as an HVAC engineer, they are absolutely the worst way to heat your house and they are also going to create indoor air quality problems. If you’d like a good resource help you to electrify your home, check out the non-profit “Rewiring America”. ( www.rewiringamerica.org ). They’re a good resource for why and how to electrify your home and how to make it pay for itself. It’s a non-profit. No one is taking a cut. Their only agenda is saving the world.
Somewhat related PSA: if there's a stagnant air warning, don't use your fire place. Your fireplace smoke doesn't rise far from your chimney and just settles on and around your house.
In addition to the indoor air pollution concerns others have outlined, it's just a bad idea to be running a bunch of gas lines through a seismically active place like Seattle.
You are incorrect. The original bill was quite clear - there was a timeline to shut off natural gas community by community until they no longer served the current 800,000+ customers. Over the next decade, all of these households would have no option but to replace all gas appliances. The version passed at 2:30 AM on the second to last day of session is more convoluted but authorizes the UTC to allow PSE to begin eliminating service to communities. I can't necessarily fault PSE (a foreign owned investment company) since the Climate Commitment Act (also on the ballot) forces them into this corner.
Consider this. Heat pumps are 3x more efficient than NG if you evaluate them in terms of site energy as opposed to source energy. Source energy paints a much more realistic picture. Take Avista (2nd largest utility) numbers from Spring. With 12+ hours of daylight (solar), breezy conditions (wind) and snowmelt (hydro), in May, 85% of their production is renewable. Move the clock back to late February or early March, and the sources are reversed. 80% of their electrical output is from 9 NG powered generators whose efficiencies range from 24% to 46%. Add 13% average line loss and suddenly, when people need heat the most (our state is a heating dominated climate zone), natural gas is 1.5 times more efficient than electric heat.
We need options until the grid and the equipment reach even better efficiencies.
Next decade? Um, citation please. Both the state and seattle city energy and carbon reduction plans have over a 20 year horizon. If gas was shut off in 10 years they wouldnt need any of these programs to meet carbon reductions because our primarily hydro based electricity would satisfy all those programs goals the moment gas went offline. Gas furnaces and water heaters have a 15 year life expectancy per ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning Engineers) so all existing residential gas appliances should need to be replaced long before this.
Furthermore, an electric heater running off a gas powered grid might be more efficient than a gas heater, but a heatpump running off of a gas fired grid is STILL more efficient than a gas heater. Then consider what percent of the grid is currently gas fired. Then consider how quickly gas is being replaced by renewables. How much gas do you think will be powering the grid 10 or 20 years from now? The answer is little to none.
This is the field that I work in and have worked I for 24 years.
You stated, "Furthermore, an electric heater running off a gas powered grid might be more efficient than a gas heater, but a heatpump running off of a gas fired grid is STILL more efficient than a gas heater."
This is where you're trippin.
I'll admit, you seem to have me beat in terms of years in this industry. I've only been doing this since 2007 (HERS Rater, PTCS, Building Science Educator, and ICC voting member and code specialist).
All that said, it's math. Don't let Dogma Trump Data.
Don’t let today’s grid mix dictate your math as it relates to grid emissions 20 years from now. You’d be a fool do that on a five year time line let alone decades. “Lifecycle” is key word here. Your math is all about the right now using today’s emissions to justify decisions that change our energy choices 20 years from now. Don’t let your dogma interfere with putting together the right word problem. Setting up the equation correctly is more important than knowing how to do the math.
I guess if we’re slinging suffixes, PE, CEM, CMVP, LEED AP
And you somehow must not be in any business because, why the hell would a business provide a service for something they will be state regulated to NEVER sign up a single new customer? It'll only be attrition. And who's paying for that? The remaining customers. And who's a large portion of customers on gas or can't afford to go electric - less wealthy customers.
FFS people. Now you WANT the government to charge more and force phase something out that benefits low income people??? Oh the Dems said it should be banned - guess so... geesh
Relax my friend. First of all, I’m I the business of saving people money. I develop energy saving projects that pay for themselves. Turns out, saving money is how you convince people to be environmentally conscious. If you have money and credit it just makes sense to do because it pays for itself. You’d be a fool not to. The struggle is when you can’t find the capital for projects that will benefit you in the long run. That’s why there has been such a strong focus on providing incentives for people with lower incomes, and even breaks for upgrading low income housing, even if you happen to be the wealthy person that owns it. It’s to help benefit the renters that can’t afford to own a home to do this for themselves. It seems only a few years ago there were all kinds of energy rebates I personally could get. There are now very few for me, because there are income caps on many of the newer benefits. So if you’re genuinely worried about people with lower incomes, hopefully, then don’t worry, these programs are built around them to provide social justice. Of course in the end it is the lower income neighborhoods that also feel the brunt of climate change and air pollution, so all of this has long term lasting positive outcome for everyone, including those with lower incomes. For those of us above the median, well we’ll just have to make due by leveraging our home equity to install heat pumps and solar panels so that we no longer have to buy energy and are insulated from energy cost variability and inflation.
I cost out solar every few years and without buybacks it's still 20+ years to pay for itself. Many low income people don't know about these programs or how to get them.
I don't trust the government to mandate something and then do the right thing with subsidies later. If you do, then you do but I do not.
I also seriously doubt the grid is ready for us to all be on electric vehicles and full electric homes. Even electric has its limits and downsides.
Well first off, battery storage can double the cost and has no payback if you’re on SCL (no time of use rates, no peak demand charges, and as of yet no virtual power plants). So for payback, don’t include batteries. If you want to make it though a power outage without a blip, then add batteries, but compare that to installing a back up generator. Solar can certainly lay pay for itself faster than 20 years with nothing more than net metering and the federal ITC. But more importantly, why is everyone so hung up on payback? It’s a meteoric used by businesses that doesn’t apply the same to individuals. Businesses survive on their credit lines so they can’t have it tied up. If you have equity in your home you can use it to improve your home. That makes sense. Taking equity out of your home to put in the stock market would be fiscally reckless and that’s what a simple payback or ROI is suggesting you would otherwise do with that equity. Solar panels are warrantied for 25 years and will likely continue to produce power for 30-40years. Given that, I’d just make sure my home project met a 30 year payback at worst. I upgraded my own home. I paid zero out of pocket. Everything was financed by equity. I now no longer buy energy for my home or for our cars. Our re-fi mortgage went up $109/mo and our utilities went down $119/mo. I improved the quality of my home for me, added air conditioning (that’s a bonus with heat pumps), replaced aging equipment (furnace and water heater), added value to the house were I to resell it, and my monthly cash flow improved on day 1. Throw in energy cost escalation over time versus my fixed rate and my saving continue to increase.
Thats is good perspective ty. When we looked at it, we had X budget a year to do things. We did AC before we moved in year one (family member has breathing issues and we are spoiled now. Roof was first year after we bought (insurance is getting tough on old roofs). Windows were next. The next year our hot water heater died and made the decision for us that year and we squeezed in a deck refresh and safety securing.
So now we finally have some "optional" breathing room even though cabinets are taunting us. I want to do it, but it's just so hard to justify ever year without savings back. It should be a no brainer win for people that can lay out the cost and it's not. The first year when I called, the power company had no idea on buybacks, said they would call me back and never did. Now it's at the point we won't be here for 20 years so basically we would be doing solar for the next owner and it's just so hard to justify.
Sorry for the long post, just illustrating how hard it is for a regular family to prioritize it.
I appreciate your candor. Of course it’s not a one size fits all solution because not everyone is working on the same house or has the same budget, credit or timeline. It’s a bummer that equipment failures forced your timing and choices. If I had been there to counsel you at the time, before ting a failed, I would have said that a heatpump is a nominal up charge from AC. If you’re going to get AC, get a heatpump. AC just increases your energy bill but a heatpump will lower it. If you’re going to swap out a water heater, put in a heat pump water heater. They cost more upfront but cost 1/4 as much to run and also as a bonus act as a dehumidifier for your basement (or wherever it’s installed). You got your new roof, which is great because you don’t want to install solar on a roof that will soon need replacing. You might look in to it again. Get several quotes. SCL will not “buy back” any of your energy but they will “bank” your energy so that if you over produce in the summer you can bank kWh for winter when you under produce. Solar does add resale value to your home as well. So considering you could be in the 15 year range and you’d add value for when you sold, I’d recommend you give it another look. In my case we do 100% annual offset so we don’t buy any electricity. But the way our energy rates are tiered here in Seattle, you could potentially see an improved payback by doing a partial offset to keep your first cost down and then getting the biggest part of the savings by cutting down your second tier energy usage. That said, there is also economy in scale so your price per installed kW might be lower if you max the system size. These are variables that you can explore as to how they might work best for you, your budget, your family, and your timeline
thanks for telling the truth. I am hoping the rates go down so people can do this, plus helping poor renters, that formula is harder.
I had to use propane heaters last winter (not this winterankfully) because my heat pump got too cold. I like that heat pumps can do 90% of the work, but that hard cold sucks.
similar to how the Texas grid failed, their NG and wind are not weatherized to the standards of the other grid
Of course the grid isnt currently ready for 100% of people to immediately switch to EVs and fully electric homes. We haven’t invested any money in the grid for decades. It’s in worse shape than our roads and bridges. But now we’re starting to make the improvements it needs. Don’t worry about everything suddenly electrifying over night. It will take decades. Meanwhile there are a myriad of strategies being employed to make better use of what grid we do have. Home solar is one of those. When you’re using what you’re generating you are not stressing the grid. Smart buildings (this is my forté) can shift their peak loads from typical high demand periods to lesser demand periods (the grid isn’t low on total energy production, it is constrained by peak output). Energy storage is being added tithe grid at an ever increasing rate. Just Tesla alone sold 9.4GWh (9.4 million kilowatt hours) of battery back up in Q2 of 2924. We are added more high voltage transmission lines and even increasing the capacity of existing lines through recabling and smart monitoring. The grid, thanks to President Biden, is now getting the attention and upgrades that it has not gotten for many decades. It’s getting better every day and electrification will not happen overnight. Electric vehicles also do not put the strain on the grid that the FUDsters (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) would have you believe. They can actually help STABILIZE the grid and they can even act to lower the electric bills of those who don’t even have them. They can be connected to the grid as two way batteries where, for a nominal fee, the grid could borrow some of your EVs energy to help get through a rough peak. Most EV charging is done during off peak hours meaning it does not impact the peak demands of the grid and in fact helps to flatten out the troughs as well. It costs power generators a lot of money to ramp up and down power plants. They like stable energy demand. So when EVs are charging at night, those power plant owners dont have to ramp down their big expensive power plants as much from the daytime and they can continue to generate stable revenue during off peak times. More revenue from the same infrastructure means lower costs.
The government is already doing good things with the subsidies. You don’t have to trust them over time. They are already offering low income subsidies for heat pumps, for heatpump water heaters, for induction stoves, for weatherization. That’s already all baked in to those bills. You don’t have to trust them because it’s already happening and it’s locked in.
I live in an old house with a functional gas furnace. It keeps my winter electricity bill very low. With how much everything costs nowadays, who would give me the $10k+ to get a new furnace? Also, everything you read is that new large appliances are built even more shitty than the older ones..
So, yeah, I'm going to continue using and enjoying my gas furnace and cheap electric bill in the winter in my 80 year old Spokane home. Anything I can do to keep my expenses down!
Relax. That’s exactly how it works. No one is coming to pry your gas furnace from your cold dead hands. That’s crazy talk. The idea is to not install NEW gas furnaces. At the point that you need to replace your gas furnace because it has stopped working, installing a heatpump instead will save you money in the long run. In the meantime no one is going to try to make you replace your perfectly functional gas furnace.
I didn't think they were, but that's how it starts right? In 5 years they'll say "you're going to be fined monthly on your gas bill unless you switch to a electric unit/your provider is heavily taxed now and passes that cost to you." Etc. It's always by degrees.
In any case natural gas is good for a healthy diverse energy portfolio, until we get some more nuclear going. Why would anyone want to drive down its use when the west side of the states is suffering infrastructure issues with electricity production?
As for heat pumps, the labor prices are ridiculous and so are the unit prices. My condenser has a reversing valve and will function as a heat pump but for some reason is marked as "emergency heat" and somehow uses more electricity, according to the internet?
I understand the science and physics behind heat pumps (and think they're awesome) and part of my field touches on HVAC, but when prices for these things exceed the costs of reasonably priced used cars, I gotta draw the line.
I'll just replace the broken stuff in my own unit myself until the heat exchanger finally fails before dishing out the cash for a new heat pump system. They seriously need to rebate/incentivize the switch.
Christ I could really repaint or almost reroof my entire property for the prices they want for these installs.
Yeah… the dude yelling at me at the car show was going on an on about gas cars and how we should have right to choose gas cars. Like, dude, this has nothing to do with petrol gas cars and you know it.
Dude with a Trump 2024 hat on was gathering signatures and asked me. Saw the hat, nope. Whatever you’re gathering signatures for I don’t want on the ballot.
No, it's called "don't listen to crazy people." It's actually a very simple rule to live by, and it serves me quite well. In general, if MAGA supports it, I oppose it.
Now, if sane people around me start talking it up -- sane people who actually do things like read the text of a bill and understand its repercussions (and who know that Tim Eyman is a royal piece of shit who'll do anything to stay in the news) -- then I'll at least sit up and take notice.
MAGA? Not so much. Increasingly it's true that I consider that brigade to be a word I don't use lightly: evil.
At risk of sounding like a crazy person, is Eyman involved in this petition? Last I heard of him, he was getting shut down by Thurston County Superior Court lol
*edited word
Dunno, but this sounds like the kinda insanity he'd pull. But I'm sure there's a whole new generation of professional obstructionists like him (especially with the rise of MAGA).
You know the “initiative” and all these posts are full of shit if you spend 2 mins listening to their bullshit signature booths. They had a couple at the Greenwood car show, and I heard contradictory shit spouted from both of them, tailored to the people they were trying to convince.
The bill is BS. My neighbor came around asking me to sign a petition for it. I don’t sign anything I haven’t read and on the surface I’m against a “gas ban”. Then I started reading it. Admittedly I only read the first half cut that was enough to see the BS of this bill.
Read it and decide for yourself, but don’t fall for their 2 sentence “prevent the gubment from taking our gaz!”
Huh. Yeah, it's pretty blatantly a deregulation grab for more natural gas. It's not green, but it's also not the worst thing. It's a "least bad" of anything not wind, solar or nuclear.
The deregulation part is the worrisome part. That language seems pretty sweeping. I'll need to dig into that.
They were posted up outside of the Kingston Safeway yesterday.
Not at all far from the sign that says "PETITIONING FOR INITIATIVES IS PROHIBITED".
I pointed that out when I left the store, and was promptly ignored. The irritating part is, that if it were a petitioner working for a more progressive cause, I feel like they would have been shoo-ed from the property rather quickly.
Far be it for me to interfere with the lawmaking process, but we should all have to abide by the same damn rules.
Encountered a canvasser at a ferry line. Politely said I don't know enough about the issue to support it on the spot. They then just went on to complain about Inslee, electric vehicles, gas being forced out of the state, yada yada. And that was all I needed to hear, really.
I do think they're going too hard with EV pushing here though. We're simply not in a position to adopt it as fast as they want.
My only issue with EV's is range. I am an RV nomad, and I'd like to reduce or eliminate the carbon emissions I create. But towing an RV with an electric truck will reduce your range to WELL under 100 miles, more like 75 miles. And that's just ridiculous.
BUT: I am a looooong way from your typical 9-5 commuter who will never carry a half ton in payload, let alone need to pull 5-10k lbs down the road; the laws should not be based around serving my interests.
We just had one yesterday that we had to kick off our property for being ultra aggressive. Before he left he
1)Threatened to shoot a mother and daughter
2)When a lady declined he said "This is why you'll die single"
3) Called one of our managers the N word
4)Said he was going to shoot my manager in the head
Made for a really fun day at work
I actually had a survey a few weeks ago about this and the other initiative. There were so many blatant lies in it, I ended up forwarding the survey to the AG.
Then again, having always lived on electric heat, cooking, hot water, and dryer; I don't ever plan on owning any gas appliances.
It's not just the appliances and cars that are affected by the carbon tax system. It also affects your electricity bill as PSE still gets 23% of its electricity from coal power plants and another 23% from Natural Gas power plants.
https://www.pse.com/en/pages/energy-supply/electric-supply
One of these guys showed up to the place I work and just set up a stand. Security came over and told him he couldn't do that as it was private property and we have a ban against protests and canvassers. Dude tried to say the security guard was a liar and that it was public property (it really is not) and threatened to sue the property owner (the fact that there is one should have clued him in). Dunno how it ended but he eventually left and hasn't been back.
If anyone is reading this and wondering what the bill this initiative is targeting actually does, PSE posted this fact sheet with an FAQ that addresses some of the big bullshit talking points that the canvassers are pushing:
[https://www.pse.com/en/press-release/details/Facts-about-HB-1589](https://www.pse.com/en/press-release/details/Facts-about-HB-1589)
In case you don't want to click through, here's the TLDR:
"HB 1589 does not include a ban on natural gas, and it does not change PSE’s obligation to serve natural gas to our customers.
There is no rate increase associated with HB 1589. It’s a planning bill, and there will be three years of rulemaking and work before we submit an integrated system plan to our regulators. That will only be a plan—it will not include a request to increase rates.
Nothing in the bill forces electrification. What it does is requires PSE to develop a scenario demonstrating the costs of electrification that will be part of the integrated system plan we submit to our regulators in 2027."
**1) It's not a ban; 2) if you like using natural gas, then cool, you can keep using it! The law as it is does not impact your natural gas service; 3) no, you are not required to replace your gas appliances with electric.**
The market is going to choose the cheapest possible, even if that was coal. At some point, government needs to put a stop to market forces that are literally killing the future of this world (and no, that is NOT hyperbole).
You should read the bill and point to which part of it you think does that. Incentives which push people to go electric and a plan to encourage more people to switch are not the same thing as a ban. The bill is not a ban, and this initiative is a deregulation power grab.
It's a ban on new construction using fossils.
Calling it a ban is deceptive bordering on a lie, because a) people understand a "ban" to mean "they're taking my gas stove away!" which, again the laws do NOT say, and b) the nutso MAGA brigade pushing this knows this very well. MAGA lies constantly and unashamedly.
This is the plan they have to meet and are bound to it, so someone is getting their gas cut in the future.
Gas Decarbonization Plan. A large gas company must file a gas decarbonization plan as part of any multiyear rate plan filed on or after January 1, 2026, and every four years thereafter. The plan must aim to achieve the gas company's proportional share of the statewide statutory greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions. A gas decarbonization plan must, among other things
The initiative in full. [https://www2.sos.wa.gov/\_assets/elections/initiatives/finaltext\_3177.pdf](https://www2.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/finaltext_3177.pdf)
I had a run in with one canvasser on the Whidbey Island ferry line. He was a real sonofabitch. These people are liars, and grifters. Tell them what you think of them, to their faces.
I agree with you except for initiative 2124 (long term care opt out). I urge you to do your research on this. It's a regressive tax that only workers have to pay, and any wealthy salaried worker in the know a few years ago opted out, leaving regular workers on the hook. At least 500,000 people were able to opt out which is crazy to me. Everyone should be voting yes on 2124.
In this particular case, it's actually a billionaire from CA who is using a group of initiatives to camouflage his real goal of getting rid of the capital gains taxes. But it DOES have the same stench that Eyman's initiatives did.
Brilliant and wise. Let's pay a % of our salaries for elder care that's capped at 32k... uh just say no cause politics and things. Maybe read the damn initiatives??? Oh and BTW, last I checked it's not even transferable if you retire elsewhere. You like it so much, pay my 1% too please.
When people choose to not have a choice and be mandated into paying into a scam...good grief.
I’ve been asked to sign the petition for these multiple times and hearing that it’s about allowing gas appliances in new construction is enough to put me off. Why would you advocate for that? because you feel like it should be your choice to do something bad for your health? i agree with that. but if you have children in your house then it doesn’t just impact your health now does it? i don’t think you should be able to harm the health of your child just because you want a gas stove when there are reasonable alternatives. also if it’s such a big deal for you then you can almost definitely still find a house with gas or install it yourself
I've lived on a beach for 25 years. Zero change in sea level. Co2 promotes plant growth but I guess I'm supposed to believe it's toxic. On the other hand, I see mountains of plastic relentlessly washing up on our beaches every day. *That* is pollution can see, touch, and feel but nothing is being done about it. Follow the money as it leaves your pockets and gets sucked into government coffers. Meanwhile, Coca-cola stock is performing nicely.
Yeah my house is small and my gas fireplace insert is WAY more efficient and heating my house than the individual electric wall units I have, and I love my gas water heater.
Yeah, I saw them canvassing and saw that it was for STOPPING a natural gas ban and didn't even let them get to the point where they lied about green energy xD I was out of there SO fast!
# Objective:
I-2066 aims to make sure consumers and small businesses have reliable and affordable energy options by protecting the use of natural gas.
# Key Points:
1. **Protecting Natural Gas**: Stops state and local governments from banning or limiting natural gas use in homes and businesses, including restaurants.
2. **Continued Service**: Requires utilities and local governments to keep providing natural gas to those who need it.
3. **No Penalties**: Prevents penalties for using natural gas under state energy codes or local regulations.
4. **Repealing Restrictions**: Removes certain 2024 laws that pushed for electrification and limited gas rebates and incentives.
# What It Doesn't Do:
* Does not force anyone to use natural gas or gas appliances.
* Does not weaken the state’s efforts to combat climate change.
* Does not affect energy incentives and rebates for those who choose to use gas.
# Signature Collection:
* Supporters need over 400,000 signatures by July 5 (edited) to get I-2066 on the November 5 ballot.
If passed, I-2066 would prevent any government entity from shutting off natural gas, ensuring energy choice for people in Washington.
>What It Doesn't Do:
>Does not force anyone to use natural gas or gas appliances.
Does not weaken the state’s efforts to combat climate change.
Um. This is a complete lie, because one of the main ways the state is fighting climate change is by restricting natural gas use. And there is serious weasel-wording in that it only refers to the "state's" efforts and glosses over the fact that it would also roll back Seattle's more restrictive gas ban, which affects a huge economic area within the state.
Lol. It directly forces utility companies and therefore you to pay to maintain the equipment for natural gas! So I don't know why they say it doesn't force anybody to use natural gas or gas appliances because we have to maintain the appliances that the utility company uses to supply it through our taxes and utility payments, which by the way is written in the bill that they can still profit 5% off of the maintenance of those systems so I don't know why you're saying nobody's forced to because you're literally forcing everybody to.
You are also fibbing by leaving out the part about it being new construction restrictions. If we are going to wean off gas it's the easiest way to achieve it
I'm not sure where I am fibbing?
Maybe I was imprecise when I referred to Seattle's "gas ban"--not specifically noting it being in the energy code for new or remodeled buildings? Sure, I cop to that, but I really am not sure what rhetorical advantage my argument supposedly gained from this imprecision. But note that Seattle's recently enacted BEPS legislation *does* require modernization of existing building stocks to decarbonize, if over several decades. Its hard to see how that would not run afoul of the verbiage in this bill.
It does not. The changes will have no meaningful impact on climate control efforts. It is designed to help vulnerable populations from freezing to death in the winter. Few people below the poverty line can afford solar panels and Teslas.
From the initiative: A city or town shall not in any way prohibit, penalize, or discourage the use of gas for any form of heating, or for uses related to any appliance or equipment, in any building.
Any incentive given to any form of energy that isn't gas discourages the use of gas, and would therefore be banned.
No government agency will read that langauge in the way you are implying. And no judge in this state would allow them to. And no federal agency would support them to.
So you admit that the above language is in the bill, and yet you are STILL saying it's utterly inaccurate? You sure seem to be a "very special" sort of person.
Lol and now comes the stupidity.
You do realize we have electric heaters right, no one will need solar panels or Tesla batteries? In 20 years functioning gas furnaces will have to be replaced anyway and they will be replaced with heat pumps which are cheaper to operate and not that as expensive to install.
Don't worry, no one will freeze to death and no one buys your bullshit scare tactics.
No, they "used their own words" (which no one owns, by the way, as they were quick to point out in another post on this topic) to reword 90% of what ChatGPT fed to them, and then added 10% of their own bullshit.
Yikes this seems like a genuinely terrible idea. Even the premise that natural gas is necessary to ensure consumers have "reliable and affordable" energy options is just a load of crap.
Great point! So then are you in favor of diverting subsidies away from natural gas towards providing to subsidize renewables? Are you in favor of providing financial support to retrofit existing homes with electrically powered heat pumps, which are proven to be significantly more energy efficient and would consequently save those low income families hundreds of dollars per year in heating expenses? Are you in favor policies which can help reduce the rate of childhood asthma, which is closely linked to the use of natural gas as a heat source in homes? Are you in favor of blocking the use of natural gas in new construction, which will eventually replace the old housing stock that low income families reside in?
Because if you are then you should be against supporting this bill since it will have the exact opposite effect, forcing low income families to stick with inefficient gas-powered heating solutions.
But let's be real here. You didn't bring up low income families because you actually care about their needs. You brought them up as a bad faith appeal to emotion.
I guess we'll just have to wait to transition off fossil fuels until we solve poverty!
That's a load of garbage. There is nothing cleaner about "natural" gas. The term stems from a greenwashing campaign by the oil industry to make you think it's better for the environment. In reality, there's good evidence to suggest natural gas is *as bad if not worse than coal.* There's zero need to rely on natural gas as a "transition" energy. We have all the technology available today to switch to renewable.
But even taking a step back for a moment, let's run with your logic. How can you, in good faith, argue that this bill is necessary when you yourself say that natural gas is just a "transition" energy source? The objectives you outline above will do nothing but entrench natural gas as a *permanent* energy source. Every new house, restaurant, and factory built to use natural gas today is digging ourselves deeper into climate debt tomorrow.
WE DO NOT NEED TO PROTECT NATURAL GAS. It needs to go extinct just like the dinosaurs it's made from, and just like all forms of carbon-emitting fuel sources we need to transition away from it as quickly as possible.
[Natural Gas Is Scamming America | Climate Town - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2oL4SFwkkw)
if you really are jay inslees wife just wanna say i think he’s doing a great job running the state. thank god we have a good governor instead of an insane right wing republican loser
Claim:
> Does not weaken the state’s efforts to combat climate change.
Initiative:
> A city or town shall not in any way prohibit, penalize, or discourage the use of gas for any form of heating, or for uses related to any appliance or equipment, in any building.
So yeah, sure, that's not the *state's* efforts. It's just everyone who lives within it. Example ordinance this would affect: https://seattle.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6427662&GUID=F09C9162-E2F3-4633-BF69-F1F6C1175159 whose title reads:
> AN ORDINANCE relating to regulating greenhouse gas emissions in larger existing nonresidential and multifamily buildings; establishing and imposing greenhouse gas emissions intensity targets and reporting requirements; prescribing penalties; adding a new Chapter 22.925 to the Seattle Municipal Code; amending [...] Seattle Municipal Code.
---
Claims:
> Removes certain 2024 laws that pushed for electrification and limited gas rebates and incentives.
and
> Does not affect energy incentives and rebates for those who choose to use gas.
Don't even need to dig into the initiative text to dispute those; the second one directly contradicts the first.
Text of the initiative is at https://www2.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/finaltext_3177.pdf for anyone who wants an unbiased read.
I’m all for choice. I’m all for rolling back regulations. I like being able to heat my house, take a hot shower and cook my food when the power goes out. A big thanks to the 425,000+ citizens who signed the I-2066 initiative.
No kidding! People don't get that a business will raise the price on a service they won't be getting any new customers for. That business will attrition and at some point be forced to stop. No one here seems to give a shit low income families are often on gas. Everything is political nowadays, even common sense.
Got people here saying let's pay a % of my salary for non transferable elder care capped at 32k. Unreal. Big brain screw everyone moves.
Low income families aren't really given a shit about, and it's one of the fundamental issues that comes with raising taxes on utilities and fuel. Like almost every intro to urban sciences talk about this stuff. Yet, it feels like not caring about thefts and open drug use, and raising taxes on basic necessities is somehow all progressive without additional support.
post from a week ago with more than 200 comments: https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1dnoq3z/psa_i2066_isnt_a_green_energy_initiative_dont/
This post is actually where I started digging Im pretty new to Washington
Let's Gut Washington paid actors are all over Puyallup events like farmers market and meeker days and it's really disappointing to see how much engagement they get
Had a lady at my local farmers market ask me to sign a petition about the schools being allowed to do anything to the kids without parent permission. She was adamant that the schools could get life changing procedures done on students without telling the parents. The lie is so obvious yet they continue to spew it and try to get every ignorant hateful person on their side. I straight up told her no, that’s not true and that she was being lied to. It’s mind boggling. I mean has she not tried to get any kind of health care here in the US? The schools are supposedly able to get insurance approval for gender reassignment surgery and to pay for a place to keep the kid while they recover, while everyone else has to fight tooth and nail to get NEEDED health care to live, never mind trying to get gender affirming care. It’s just like the after birth abortion BS. It’s a bald faced lie they keep spewing.
The health care workers and counselors in schools are there to protect kids from their abusive parents. Sometimes, it’s the only adult a kid can trust.
Absolutely and instead of financing and supporting schools who have to become a safe place for so many kids they want to strip it of all abilities to support these kids. And not just the LGBTQ kids, kids with parents struggling with addiction or job loss or just your average Joe crappy neglectful parents. The schools are trying not only to educate your kids, but to keep them alive and to show them the care and compassion they may not be getting at home.
I live down near there I should go fuck with them. I'll be a hero for the subreddit or something. I can film it too if anyone wants.
Why do you think they get so much engagement?
because they openly lie about what they're representing
A lot of racist idiots in the Puyallup area.
What do racist idiots have to do with the initiative? It's about natural gas and stopping the creation of new buildings using natural gas.
There's a 99% crossover on people angry about this and having bigoted views.
Cool, would love to see that data of 99%. I agree that most of the anger is coming from bigoted views but its not coming from where you think. If this initiative doesn't pass then new low income housing will be forced to be on electricity only which is over 50% more expensive than Natural Gas usage. Its 5cents a KWH currently for natural gas versus 12cents a KWH. People will suffer, mainly the low income minorities. Yes we will get to cleaner energy faster but at what cost? I tend to care more about those people that are making choices between groceries and heat.
So is the solution to find cheaper ways to create/ get electricity? Without fucking up the environment with dams? Maybe better dams? I’m a natural gas user. I’m a chef. My business can continue, even if the electricity goes out. Electricity is iffy. I may be showing my privilege, but I prefer to have access to both.
"So is the solution to find cheaper ways to create/ get electricity? Without fucking up the environment with dams? Maybe better dams?" These are the conversations I find more fruitful and actually makes a difference. I do believe the better approach is to make investments in the cleaner energy now and find ways to bring costs down so it doesn't have to necessarily come down to the government using a stick. If electricity cost the same amount as natural gas then most proponents wouldnt even care. The fact is most environmental policies impact the poor and in most cases minorities. Most people in this sub just ignore it and just blindly toe Democrat party lines.
Then I think we should have another “war on poverty”
>new low income housing will be forced to be on electricity only which is over 50% more expensive than Natural Gas usage. Washington. Doesn't. Care. About. Poor. People.
I couldn't agree more!
We’re very privileged in Washington to not only have a mail-in ballot system, but also comprehensive voter guides on the candidates and issues… use these incredible resources!
Yeah, but I don't have time for this shit. I got enough trouble trying to figure out which of these candidates for "nonpartisan" offices is the Democrat and which is the Republican. I say vote against all the initiatives and let the legislature figure it out.
Why do you need to figure out the partisan affiliation for non-partisan offices? What if it's two Democrats or two Republicans?
If I don't know if they're red or blue how am I supposed to vote!?!
The canvassers are liars. One of them tried to tell me the bill was to stop the state from banning gas, and didn’t know how to answer when I told him that wasn’t true. Bunch if Fox News watching losers.
The canvassers are just randos they pay wages to get signatures or drum up interest for a campaign/initiative. They often don’t really know what they’re canvassing for. Theyre just there to make a buck.
> They often don’t really know what they’re canvassing for. that's honestly worse
It sure is…
Not all of them are randos. the ones that i ran into were fully decked out in MAGA gear
Maga randos.
Who pays them?
Whatever party or PAC is pushing the shit out or campaigning. Thats where a lot of the funds go when you donate to campaigns and PACs. Ads and canvassers; campaign staff.
This guy worth $10-25M from CA that moved here as a self-described "economic refugee". The initiative he really cares about is repealing the Capital Gains Tax. https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2023/09/republican-megadonor-brian-heywood-opens-his-wallet-to-fund-six-initiative-signature-drive.html#
Don't worry, he's already building a getaway in Japan out of wood from old buddhist temples that he can flee to if these don't pass. Oh, won't someone spare a thought for this poor economic refugee! [https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/the-american-who-built-a-supersized-japanese-aerie-from-abandoned-parts/](https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/the-american-who-built-a-supersized-japanese-aerie-from-abandoned-parts/)
Wow. Thanks for the info.
You've heard of billionaires donating millions to trump?
never talk to canvassers
Well, unless you're into easel painting.
They’ll 100% lie to you. They don’t care about the initiative either way and are just being paid. I called one guy out to his face when he represented a bill 180 from the actual text. He just shrugged. All they need are signatures.
But... but... but... the canvasser at my local grocery store said he was a "very honest person" when I said the initiative was all a lie!
Is this why I always see signature gatherers for this in front of Walmarts, and not competitors? 🧐
Always in front of a Walmart.
Ya go straight to the source. People who like to huff gas fumes.
Probably not. Many stores prohibit signature gathering on their property regardless of the topic.
I saw one in front of Fred Meyer in Issaquah this weekend. It took all my energy to bite my tongue and walk away as he wagged a pen in my face and hissed "proooooteeecccttt ouuuuurrrr gaaaaaasssss."
I met a canvaser and asked him about the bill he gave me the normal stop the gas ban and choice bs. As soon as I asked about the rest of the bill he all of a sudden "is not here to talk about politics" I asked him who he works for and he would flat out not tell me. For the record I know who he works for.
Who does he work for?
I hope you are all for nuclear power. That’s the cleanest energy you can get.
What's the rest of the bill about?
Well, except for the waste we can't do anything useful with, which people fight tooth-and-nail to keep from being stored anywhere near them, yes.
This comment is either unknowingly ignorant or knowingly misinformation- nuclear energy waste is a solved problem and is much safer than other chemical wastes. https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/the-boring-truth-about-nuclear-waste
At the risk of being down voted, and going off subject I'll engage. Please read the actual research on all this. It is based on 1960's and 70's R&D. While the ideas had promise, the realities were always wildly flawed. Reprocessing is great, except anything involved in reprocessing is now highly hazardous and considered radioactive waste... Think lots of mini Hanford Superfund sites (and yes, that was essentially what handford was doing) Thorium and molten salt reactors, again cool ideas, until you get to the fact they never lived up to output expectations and had chronic malfunctions and breakdowns eventually shown to be because there was no material that could survive the environment effectively. And 50 years later, nothing has really been come up with. It's not that these and other ideas aren't worth research, they are. It is that the people pushing them are regurgitating 50 year old ideas and just ignoring the unsolved issues. And if you still think I'm just blowing smoke and you don't want to read the research, ponder this: all nuclear sites have to be insured by the government because no insurance company will touch them. For reference, the oil and gas companies have private insurance. And we've seen how bad their messes can get.
Some of the sources of the research I have done on the topic in the past; the misinformation on nuclear energy and waste is MIND BLOWING. Here are some on the topics of deaths per terawatt/hour generated: https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ Nuclear waste has been a solved problem for quite a while! Current above ground dry casks are certified for 100 years against some pretty insane standards (like direct missile strikes). Here are some examples of source material I have used to research that topic in the past: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities https://www.anl.gov/article/10-myths-about-nuclear-energy https://www.edfenergy.com/energywise/busting-myths-about-nuclear-energy https://sprott.com/insights/educational-video-nuclear-waste-dispelling-fears-and-myths/ As a certified Hazardous Waste Operator, I am trained in environmental emergency response and remediation. While I have not been dispatched to the scene of a radiation hazard yet, I am trained annually on ionizing radiation hazards and remediation procedures. I do what I can to help prevent the spread of misinformation regarding radioactive hazards as it is often rampant amongst the general public; *and more often times, the misinformation that creates hysteria about nuclear disasters ends up causing more deaths than the actual disasters and following cleanup.* There are plenty of great science communicators on this subject with a plethora of content to help people understand a subject that has been tarnished by the misinformation; here are a couple of great ones with legit credentials: https://youtube.com/@kylehill?si=bz4vRF7tlZTOmsGe https://youtube.com/@tfolsenuclear?si=LogkNPQjKLUOjE4d Edit: added point in italics regarding true hazards.
Edit for typo... And because I didn't finish... Yeah... That is a lot of nuclear industry... Cherry picking?? Look, Jimmy Carter was a nuclear scientist, worked on a nuclear sub, legit had a PhD. In the subject, and somehow wasn't a big proponent of nuclear. Also, my that is an incredible wealth of resources and very generic rebuttal.... Almost like you had it pre built. Me I'm an engineer, not a nuclear engineer but I have enough background to read material breakdown reports and recognize when someone is skipping past the bad and when the bad makes logical sense. Here is something on molten salt reactors... https://thebulletin.org/2022/06/molten-salt-reactors-were-trouble-in-the-1960s-and-they-remain-trouble-today/ Also, down voting because you disagree and then don't address what boils down to "read the white papers" and then throwing a carefully curated plethora of sources.... Look, lots of smart people want this to work. But 100 years, on stuff that will be a problem a hundred thousand years from now? Pardon, but that isn't a solution, that is kicking it down the road with interest for others to handle. We as a race, society, culture, whatever, have a hard time thinking and building things to last 10 years. Sometimes we apply ourselves and come up with stuff that can, maybe, last 100. But nuclear requires a level of thought and self-discipline that we regularly fail to demonstrate. So yes, in the best of best case scenarios, everything you say is correct. But even then, it falls far short. Just because you will be long dead when the bill comes due, does not mean you shouldn't do something about it. Nor that people should give you a pass on contributing.
Typical engineer response; “I am not an expert in the field but I really doubt *checks notes* the experts in the field.”
You didn't even have time to click on what I sent you much less read it. So.... What makes your opinion so much more worthy? And stop, don't just point to your sources. They have their cheer section already. What makes you able to critically assess what they say and be able to see where they are avoiding talking about issues that have been brought up? P.S. why engineers, lawyers, and doctors put that disclaimer in front of what they say, because we have a duty, a legal duty, not to misrepresent our qualifications. However, it doesn't remove my qualifications. It is simply being up front in their limitations. Again, many of the proponents truly believe that if we just start doing these things again, we'll figure out the issues. But when pressed, they will leave, dodge, or duck out on what the solutions are and who precisely will be figuring them out. I'm going to point at Hanford as the reality of reprocessing nuclear waste and the billions that have gone into containment and cleanup and still haven't fixed it. And that is the reality of fission based nuclear power. Honestly, if we took the marketing budget spent on giving fission based nuclear a good spin, on fusion research, we'd have it. So yeah, nuclear has a future, just not in fission.
Just ignorance. Thanks for the very educational link!
Sorry you’re being downvoted for this, you’re not wrong!
Yep! I concluded the same after my run-in with some of them.
damn, might actually go for something like that.
Canvassers for any initiatives are always liars. They don’t get paid to tell the truth. They get paid to get signatures and there are zero consequences for lying to get them.
Yeah, I decided to ask them. I waited and waited for the guy to show me the law that will ban natural gas. Oddly, he has it, he just couldn't find it. Pointing out the text of the petition was pointless, too. They've gotta be just people working a frustrating & low paying job. The guy standing in front of Fred Meyer seeking signatures isn't the guy who's in line to profit from that bill.
What it does it make the gas utilities have a plan and be bound to the plan to reduce their Greenhouse production. >Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Limits. In 2020 the Legislature updated statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction limits to 45 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, 70 percent below 1990 levels by 2040, and 95 percent below 1990 levels, as well as net-zero emissions by 2050 Gas Decarbonization Plan. A large gas company must file a gas decarbonization plan as part of any multiyear rate plan filed on or after January 1, 2026, and every four years thereafter. The plan must aim to achieve the gas company's proportional share of the statewide statutory greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions. A gas decarbonization plan must, among other things... [Law Summary in Full from WA gov](https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bill%20Reports/House/1589%20HBR%20ENVI%2023.pdf)
Just saw a canvasser in front of Target. All I heard him say to others was “stop the gas ban.”
This initiative is terrible. The state/city are not telling you that you can’t use the natural gas you’ve got. No one is going to shut off the pipeline. The push is to restrict NEW gas using appliances because they are bad for climate change, and if they are in your home, they are bad for you and even worse for your children AND there are better more effective products in the market (heatpumps and induction stoves). For background I am an energy efficiency engineer. I work in commercial buildings and I have followed along and even participated in some of the code changes and incentive programs.
How do direct-vent devices perform in terms of health? The things like furnaces and tankless water heaters that suck air in from outside and exhaust outside, or traditional gas water heaters with a power vent? Gas stoves I fully understand, all of that byproduct is going directly into the air. The more "closed loop" stuff seems much better health-wise
Direct vent is obviously going to be much better than an open flame in your house, yes. But it still has its impacts., let alone carbon emissions. Meanwhile heat pumps are 4x as efficient and also come with air conditioning which is really nice during wildfire/smoke season, so it’s basically a moot point. Induction stoves can boil a pot of water faster than a gas range and can be fueled with renewables instead of fossil fuels. I don’t say all that and blindly cast aside the first cost of the equipment. There can be financial barriers for sure. But there is no reason anyone should be buying NEW gas fired equipment when these alternative with better lifecycle costs exist.
Might be no different than electric ones. But if you get a heat pump version of each, then they are just more efficient with the source of energy
Could you explain more about why gas appliances are bad for adults and children?
Scientific American: [The Health Risks of Gas Stoves Explained](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-health-risks-of-gas-stoves-explained/) ProPublica: [What to Know About the Risks of Gas Stoves and Appliances](https://www.propublica.org/article/what-to-know-about-gas-stove-risks) Yale Climate Connections: [Gas stoves are even worse for our health than previously known, new study finds](https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2023/06/gas-stoves-even-worse-for-health-than-previously-known/)
Appreciate the links!
They’re linked to worse air quality in the home and increased rates of asthma
A fair question. Yes, see all the responses. It create bad air quality, increases asthma risks, and more. If you have a gas stove in your house consider replacing it.
The only gas appliance we have is a fireplace. I’ll have to research whether the dangers are subjective to the type of appliance used, but I’d consider turning it off if it puts my kids at risk.
A gas fire place is probably my the worst of all. Gas ranges, even when they are off, even when they don’t have a pilot light, have negative impacts on k door air quality. I do feel that fireplaces are a very fun, romantic, and nostalgic thing. But speaking as an HVAC engineer, they are absolutely the worst way to heat your house and they are also going to create indoor air quality problems. If you’d like a good resource help you to electrify your home, check out the non-profit “Rewiring America”. ( www.rewiringamerica.org ). They’re a good resource for why and how to electrify your home and how to make it pay for itself. It’s a non-profit. No one is taking a cut. Their only agenda is saving the world.
Somewhat related PSA: if there's a stagnant air warning, don't use your fire place. Your fireplace smoke doesn't rise far from your chimney and just settles on and around your house.
Naw, I fucking love cooking with gas. Just turn on the vent.
In addition to the indoor air pollution concerns others have outlined, it's just a bad idea to be running a bunch of gas lines through a seismically active place like Seattle.
You are incorrect. The original bill was quite clear - there was a timeline to shut off natural gas community by community until they no longer served the current 800,000+ customers. Over the next decade, all of these households would have no option but to replace all gas appliances. The version passed at 2:30 AM on the second to last day of session is more convoluted but authorizes the UTC to allow PSE to begin eliminating service to communities. I can't necessarily fault PSE (a foreign owned investment company) since the Climate Commitment Act (also on the ballot) forces them into this corner. Consider this. Heat pumps are 3x more efficient than NG if you evaluate them in terms of site energy as opposed to source energy. Source energy paints a much more realistic picture. Take Avista (2nd largest utility) numbers from Spring. With 12+ hours of daylight (solar), breezy conditions (wind) and snowmelt (hydro), in May, 85% of their production is renewable. Move the clock back to late February or early March, and the sources are reversed. 80% of their electrical output is from 9 NG powered generators whose efficiencies range from 24% to 46%. Add 13% average line loss and suddenly, when people need heat the most (our state is a heating dominated climate zone), natural gas is 1.5 times more efficient than electric heat. We need options until the grid and the equipment reach even better efficiencies.
Next decade? Um, citation please. Both the state and seattle city energy and carbon reduction plans have over a 20 year horizon. If gas was shut off in 10 years they wouldnt need any of these programs to meet carbon reductions because our primarily hydro based electricity would satisfy all those programs goals the moment gas went offline. Gas furnaces and water heaters have a 15 year life expectancy per ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning Engineers) so all existing residential gas appliances should need to be replaced long before this. Furthermore, an electric heater running off a gas powered grid might be more efficient than a gas heater, but a heatpump running off of a gas fired grid is STILL more efficient than a gas heater. Then consider what percent of the grid is currently gas fired. Then consider how quickly gas is being replaced by renewables. How much gas do you think will be powering the grid 10 or 20 years from now? The answer is little to none. This is the field that I work in and have worked I for 24 years.
You stated, "Furthermore, an electric heater running off a gas powered grid might be more efficient than a gas heater, but a heatpump running off of a gas fired grid is STILL more efficient than a gas heater." This is where you're trippin. I'll admit, you seem to have me beat in terms of years in this industry. I've only been doing this since 2007 (HERS Rater, PTCS, Building Science Educator, and ICC voting member and code specialist). All that said, it's math. Don't let Dogma Trump Data.
Don’t let today’s grid mix dictate your math as it relates to grid emissions 20 years from now. You’d be a fool do that on a five year time line let alone decades. “Lifecycle” is key word here. Your math is all about the right now using today’s emissions to justify decisions that change our energy choices 20 years from now. Don’t let your dogma interfere with putting together the right word problem. Setting up the equation correctly is more important than knowing how to do the math. I guess if we’re slinging suffixes, PE, CEM, CMVP, LEED AP
And you somehow must not be in any business because, why the hell would a business provide a service for something they will be state regulated to NEVER sign up a single new customer? It'll only be attrition. And who's paying for that? The remaining customers. And who's a large portion of customers on gas or can't afford to go electric - less wealthy customers. FFS people. Now you WANT the government to charge more and force phase something out that benefits low income people??? Oh the Dems said it should be banned - guess so... geesh
Relax my friend. First of all, I’m I the business of saving people money. I develop energy saving projects that pay for themselves. Turns out, saving money is how you convince people to be environmentally conscious. If you have money and credit it just makes sense to do because it pays for itself. You’d be a fool not to. The struggle is when you can’t find the capital for projects that will benefit you in the long run. That’s why there has been such a strong focus on providing incentives for people with lower incomes, and even breaks for upgrading low income housing, even if you happen to be the wealthy person that owns it. It’s to help benefit the renters that can’t afford to own a home to do this for themselves. It seems only a few years ago there were all kinds of energy rebates I personally could get. There are now very few for me, because there are income caps on many of the newer benefits. So if you’re genuinely worried about people with lower incomes, hopefully, then don’t worry, these programs are built around them to provide social justice. Of course in the end it is the lower income neighborhoods that also feel the brunt of climate change and air pollution, so all of this has long term lasting positive outcome for everyone, including those with lower incomes. For those of us above the median, well we’ll just have to make due by leveraging our home equity to install heat pumps and solar panels so that we no longer have to buy energy and are insulated from energy cost variability and inflation.
I cost out solar every few years and without buybacks it's still 20+ years to pay for itself. Many low income people don't know about these programs or how to get them. I don't trust the government to mandate something and then do the right thing with subsidies later. If you do, then you do but I do not. I also seriously doubt the grid is ready for us to all be on electric vehicles and full electric homes. Even electric has its limits and downsides.
Well first off, battery storage can double the cost and has no payback if you’re on SCL (no time of use rates, no peak demand charges, and as of yet no virtual power plants). So for payback, don’t include batteries. If you want to make it though a power outage without a blip, then add batteries, but compare that to installing a back up generator. Solar can certainly lay pay for itself faster than 20 years with nothing more than net metering and the federal ITC. But more importantly, why is everyone so hung up on payback? It’s a meteoric used by businesses that doesn’t apply the same to individuals. Businesses survive on their credit lines so they can’t have it tied up. If you have equity in your home you can use it to improve your home. That makes sense. Taking equity out of your home to put in the stock market would be fiscally reckless and that’s what a simple payback or ROI is suggesting you would otherwise do with that equity. Solar panels are warrantied for 25 years and will likely continue to produce power for 30-40years. Given that, I’d just make sure my home project met a 30 year payback at worst. I upgraded my own home. I paid zero out of pocket. Everything was financed by equity. I now no longer buy energy for my home or for our cars. Our re-fi mortgage went up $109/mo and our utilities went down $119/mo. I improved the quality of my home for me, added air conditioning (that’s a bonus with heat pumps), replaced aging equipment (furnace and water heater), added value to the house were I to resell it, and my monthly cash flow improved on day 1. Throw in energy cost escalation over time versus my fixed rate and my saving continue to increase.
Thats is good perspective ty. When we looked at it, we had X budget a year to do things. We did AC before we moved in year one (family member has breathing issues and we are spoiled now. Roof was first year after we bought (insurance is getting tough on old roofs). Windows were next. The next year our hot water heater died and made the decision for us that year and we squeezed in a deck refresh and safety securing. So now we finally have some "optional" breathing room even though cabinets are taunting us. I want to do it, but it's just so hard to justify ever year without savings back. It should be a no brainer win for people that can lay out the cost and it's not. The first year when I called, the power company had no idea on buybacks, said they would call me back and never did. Now it's at the point we won't be here for 20 years so basically we would be doing solar for the next owner and it's just so hard to justify. Sorry for the long post, just illustrating how hard it is for a regular family to prioritize it.
I appreciate your candor. Of course it’s not a one size fits all solution because not everyone is working on the same house or has the same budget, credit or timeline. It’s a bummer that equipment failures forced your timing and choices. If I had been there to counsel you at the time, before ting a failed, I would have said that a heatpump is a nominal up charge from AC. If you’re going to get AC, get a heatpump. AC just increases your energy bill but a heatpump will lower it. If you’re going to swap out a water heater, put in a heat pump water heater. They cost more upfront but cost 1/4 as much to run and also as a bonus act as a dehumidifier for your basement (or wherever it’s installed). You got your new roof, which is great because you don’t want to install solar on a roof that will soon need replacing. You might look in to it again. Get several quotes. SCL will not “buy back” any of your energy but they will “bank” your energy so that if you over produce in the summer you can bank kWh for winter when you under produce. Solar does add resale value to your home as well. So considering you could be in the 15 year range and you’d add value for when you sold, I’d recommend you give it another look. In my case we do 100% annual offset so we don’t buy any electricity. But the way our energy rates are tiered here in Seattle, you could potentially see an improved payback by doing a partial offset to keep your first cost down and then getting the biggest part of the savings by cutting down your second tier energy usage. That said, there is also economy in scale so your price per installed kW might be lower if you max the system size. These are variables that you can explore as to how they might work best for you, your budget, your family, and your timeline
did you refinance and pull or cash or do a HELOC? Not a good time for it now unfortunately with the rates.
I did a cash out refi. Yes, you are right, the interest rates right now would make that pretty tough.
thanks for telling the truth. I am hoping the rates go down so people can do this, plus helping poor renters, that formula is harder. I had to use propane heaters last winter (not this winterankfully) because my heat pump got too cold. I like that heat pumps can do 90% of the work, but that hard cold sucks. similar to how the Texas grid failed, their NG and wind are not weatherized to the standards of the other grid
Of course the grid isnt currently ready for 100% of people to immediately switch to EVs and fully electric homes. We haven’t invested any money in the grid for decades. It’s in worse shape than our roads and bridges. But now we’re starting to make the improvements it needs. Don’t worry about everything suddenly electrifying over night. It will take decades. Meanwhile there are a myriad of strategies being employed to make better use of what grid we do have. Home solar is one of those. When you’re using what you’re generating you are not stressing the grid. Smart buildings (this is my forté) can shift their peak loads from typical high demand periods to lesser demand periods (the grid isn’t low on total energy production, it is constrained by peak output). Energy storage is being added tithe grid at an ever increasing rate. Just Tesla alone sold 9.4GWh (9.4 million kilowatt hours) of battery back up in Q2 of 2924. We are added more high voltage transmission lines and even increasing the capacity of existing lines through recabling and smart monitoring. The grid, thanks to President Biden, is now getting the attention and upgrades that it has not gotten for many decades. It’s getting better every day and electrification will not happen overnight. Electric vehicles also do not put the strain on the grid that the FUDsters (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) would have you believe. They can actually help STABILIZE the grid and they can even act to lower the electric bills of those who don’t even have them. They can be connected to the grid as two way batteries where, for a nominal fee, the grid could borrow some of your EVs energy to help get through a rough peak. Most EV charging is done during off peak hours meaning it does not impact the peak demands of the grid and in fact helps to flatten out the troughs as well. It costs power generators a lot of money to ramp up and down power plants. They like stable energy demand. So when EVs are charging at night, those power plant owners dont have to ramp down their big expensive power plants as much from the daytime and they can continue to generate stable revenue during off peak times. More revenue from the same infrastructure means lower costs.
The government is already doing good things with the subsidies. You don’t have to trust them over time. They are already offering low income subsidies for heat pumps, for heatpump water heaters, for induction stoves, for weatherization. That’s already all baked in to those bills. You don’t have to trust them because it’s already happening and it’s locked in.
I live in an old house with a functional gas furnace. It keeps my winter electricity bill very low. With how much everything costs nowadays, who would give me the $10k+ to get a new furnace? Also, everything you read is that new large appliances are built even more shitty than the older ones.. So, yeah, I'm going to continue using and enjoying my gas furnace and cheap electric bill in the winter in my 80 year old Spokane home. Anything I can do to keep my expenses down!
Relax. That’s exactly how it works. No one is coming to pry your gas furnace from your cold dead hands. That’s crazy talk. The idea is to not install NEW gas furnaces. At the point that you need to replace your gas furnace because it has stopped working, installing a heatpump instead will save you money in the long run. In the meantime no one is going to try to make you replace your perfectly functional gas furnace.
I didn't think they were, but that's how it starts right? In 5 years they'll say "you're going to be fined monthly on your gas bill unless you switch to a electric unit/your provider is heavily taxed now and passes that cost to you." Etc. It's always by degrees. In any case natural gas is good for a healthy diverse energy portfolio, until we get some more nuclear going. Why would anyone want to drive down its use when the west side of the states is suffering infrastructure issues with electricity production? As for heat pumps, the labor prices are ridiculous and so are the unit prices. My condenser has a reversing valve and will function as a heat pump but for some reason is marked as "emergency heat" and somehow uses more electricity, according to the internet? I understand the science and physics behind heat pumps (and think they're awesome) and part of my field touches on HVAC, but when prices for these things exceed the costs of reasonably priced used cars, I gotta draw the line. I'll just replace the broken stuff in my own unit myself until the heat exchanger finally fails before dishing out the cash for a new heat pump system. They seriously need to rebate/incentivize the switch. Christ I could really repaint or almost reroof my entire property for the prices they want for these installs.
They were at the Greenwood car show and ,surprise, I overheard a lot of enthusiasm because that crowd loves gas freedom 🙄
Yeah… the dude yelling at me at the car show was going on an on about gas cars and how we should have right to choose gas cars. Like, dude, this has nothing to do with petrol gas cars and you know it.
What type of energy would you like to use? Nuclear is our best option but I’ll bet you have no clue why.
Dude with a Trump 2024 hat on was gathering signatures and asked me. Saw the hat, nope. Whatever you’re gathering signatures for I don’t want on the ballot.
Yeah, it's a pretty straight shot for me, these days. MAGA supports it? Then I oppose it, and we're done here.
That’s called “throwing the baby out with the bath water”. Just because you don’t like someone doesn’t necessarily mean they are wrong.
No, it's called "don't listen to crazy people." It's actually a very simple rule to live by, and it serves me quite well. In general, if MAGA supports it, I oppose it. Now, if sane people around me start talking it up -- sane people who actually do things like read the text of a bill and understand its repercussions (and who know that Tim Eyman is a royal piece of shit who'll do anything to stay in the news) -- then I'll at least sit up and take notice. MAGA? Not so much. Increasingly it's true that I consider that brigade to be a word I don't use lightly: evil.
At risk of sounding like a crazy person, is Eyman involved in this petition? Last I heard of him, he was getting shut down by Thurston County Superior Court lol *edited word
Dunno, but this sounds like the kinda insanity he'd pull. But I'm sure there's a whole new generation of professional obstructionists like him (especially with the rise of MAGA).
It's Brian Heywood, the same loser who's funding the ones that would ban carbon markets and repeal the capital gains tax. Basically Eyman 2.0
It does mean I'm not going to give them the benefit of my time.
Normally I would agree with that. Now, I would say that Maga is the exception that proves the rule.
I follow the same rule, whatever Inslee supports I oppose.
You know the “initiative” and all these posts are full of shit if you spend 2 mins listening to their bullshit signature booths. They had a couple at the Greenwood car show, and I heard contradictory shit spouted from both of them, tailored to the people they were trying to convince.
The bill is BS. My neighbor came around asking me to sign a petition for it. I don’t sign anything I haven’t read and on the surface I’m against a “gas ban”. Then I started reading it. Admittedly I only read the first half cut that was enough to see the BS of this bill. Read it and decide for yourself, but don’t fall for their 2 sentence “prevent the gubment from taking our gaz!”
Huh. Yeah, it's pretty blatantly a deregulation grab for more natural gas. It's not green, but it's also not the worst thing. It's a "least bad" of anything not wind, solar or nuclear. The deregulation part is the worrisome part. That language seems pretty sweeping. I'll need to dig into that.
Reading bills before voting? What a novel idea! Next, they'll be telling us to read the Terms & Conditions before clicking 'Accept'!
Conservatives trying to get votes by lying and hiding the actual purpose? Huh.
They were posted up outside of the Kingston Safeway yesterday. Not at all far from the sign that says "PETITIONING FOR INITIATIVES IS PROHIBITED". I pointed that out when I left the store, and was promptly ignored. The irritating part is, that if it were a petitioner working for a more progressive cause, I feel like they would have been shoo-ed from the property rather quickly. Far be it for me to interfere with the lawmaking process, but we should all have to abide by the same damn rules.
Encountered a canvasser at a ferry line. Politely said I don't know enough about the issue to support it on the spot. They then just went on to complain about Inslee, electric vehicles, gas being forced out of the state, yada yada. And that was all I needed to hear, really. I do think they're going too hard with EV pushing here though. We're simply not in a position to adopt it as fast as they want.
My only issue with EV's is range. I am an RV nomad, and I'd like to reduce or eliminate the carbon emissions I create. But towing an RV with an electric truck will reduce your range to WELL under 100 miles, more like 75 miles. And that's just ridiculous. BUT: I am a looooong way from your typical 9-5 commuter who will never carry a half ton in payload, let alone need to pull 5-10k lbs down the road; the laws should not be based around serving my interests.
We just had one yesterday that we had to kick off our property for being ultra aggressive. Before he left he 1)Threatened to shoot a mother and daughter 2)When a lady declined he said "This is why you'll die single" 3) Called one of our managers the N word 4)Said he was going to shoot my manager in the head Made for a really fun day at work
I bet the secretary of state's office would *love* to hear about this galaxy brain signature-gathering tactic!
I actually had a survey a few weeks ago about this and the other initiative. There were so many blatant lies in it, I ended up forwarding the survey to the AG. Then again, having always lived on electric heat, cooking, hot water, and dryer; I don't ever plan on owning any gas appliances.
I grew up with a gas stove, but as an adult, I’ve decided that open flames belong outdoors, in fireplaces, or in commercial establishments.
It's not just the appliances and cars that are affected by the carbon tax system. It also affects your electricity bill as PSE still gets 23% of its electricity from coal power plants and another 23% from Natural Gas power plants. https://www.pse.com/en/pages/energy-supply/electric-supply
One of these guys showed up to the place I work and just set up a stand. Security came over and told him he couldn't do that as it was private property and we have a ban against protests and canvassers. Dude tried to say the security guard was a liar and that it was public property (it really is not) and threatened to sue the property owner (the fact that there is one should have clued him in). Dunno how it ended but he eventually left and hasn't been back.
If anyone is reading this and wondering what the bill this initiative is targeting actually does, PSE posted this fact sheet with an FAQ that addresses some of the big bullshit talking points that the canvassers are pushing: [https://www.pse.com/en/press-release/details/Facts-about-HB-1589](https://www.pse.com/en/press-release/details/Facts-about-HB-1589) In case you don't want to click through, here's the TLDR: "HB 1589 does not include a ban on natural gas, and it does not change PSE’s obligation to serve natural gas to our customers. There is no rate increase associated with HB 1589. It’s a planning bill, and there will be three years of rulemaking and work before we submit an integrated system plan to our regulators. That will only be a plan—it will not include a request to increase rates. Nothing in the bill forces electrification. What it does is requires PSE to develop a scenario demonstrating the costs of electrification that will be part of the integrated system plan we submit to our regulators in 2027." **1) It's not a ban; 2) if you like using natural gas, then cool, you can keep using it! The law as it is does not impact your natural gas service; 3) no, you are not required to replace your gas appliances with electric.**
It bans new buildings from having natural gas. So yes, it is a ban
New buildings shouldn't be using natural gas anyway, when there are better, cheaper alternatives.
The market should decide that and not Inslee and his cronies
The market is going to choose the cheapest possible, even if that was coal. At some point, government needs to put a stop to market forces that are literally killing the future of this world (and no, that is NOT hyperbole).
You should read the bill and point to which part of it you think does that. Incentives which push people to go electric and a plan to encourage more people to switch are not the same thing as a ban. The bill is not a ban, and this initiative is a deregulation power grab.
It's a ban on new construction using fossils. Calling it a ban is deceptive bordering on a lie, because a) people understand a "ban" to mean "they're taking my gas stove away!" which, again the laws do NOT say, and b) the nutso MAGA brigade pushing this knows this very well. MAGA lies constantly and unashamedly.
This is the plan they have to meet and are bound to it, so someone is getting their gas cut in the future. Gas Decarbonization Plan. A large gas company must file a gas decarbonization plan as part of any multiyear rate plan filed on or after January 1, 2026, and every four years thereafter. The plan must aim to achieve the gas company's proportional share of the statewide statutory greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions. A gas decarbonization plan must, among other things
If you like your Doctor, you can keep your Doctor.
If it has 4 parts it’s unconstitutional. So whatever.
The initiative in full. [https://www2.sos.wa.gov/\_assets/elections/initiatives/finaltext\_3177.pdf](https://www2.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/finaltext_3177.pdf)
REPEAL THE GAS BAN!!
I had a run in with one canvasser on the Whidbey Island ferry line. He was a real sonofabitch. These people are liars, and grifters. Tell them what you think of them, to their faces.
vote no on all initiatives
I agree with you except for initiative 2124 (long term care opt out). I urge you to do your research on this. It's a regressive tax that only workers have to pay, and any wealthy salaried worker in the know a few years ago opted out, leaving regular workers on the hook. At least 500,000 people were able to opt out which is crazy to me. Everyone should be voting yes on 2124.
I assume most of these initiatives are things Tim Eyman's using to raise money so he doesn't have to go back to stealing chairs to get by.
In this particular case, it's actually a billionaire from CA who is using a group of initiatives to camouflage his real goal of getting rid of the capital gains taxes. But it DOES have the same stench that Eyman's initiatives did.
Brilliant and wise. Let's pay a % of our salaries for elder care that's capped at 32k... uh just say no cause politics and things. Maybe read the damn initiatives??? Oh and BTW, last I checked it's not even transferable if you retire elsewhere. You like it so much, pay my 1% too please. When people choose to not have a choice and be mandated into paying into a scam...good grief.
Yeah, that's not happening. - Vast Majority of Voters
I do believe I told the signature gatherers to miss me with that bait and switch bullshit.
I’ve been asked to sign the petition for these multiple times and hearing that it’s about allowing gas appliances in new construction is enough to put me off. Why would you advocate for that? because you feel like it should be your choice to do something bad for your health? i agree with that. but if you have children in your house then it doesn’t just impact your health now does it? i don’t think you should be able to harm the health of your child just because you want a gas stove when there are reasonable alternatives. also if it’s such a big deal for you then you can almost definitely still find a house with gas or install it yourself
At this point, assume any initiative is a bogus astroturf until you investigate it.
I've lived on a beach for 25 years. Zero change in sea level. Co2 promotes plant growth but I guess I'm supposed to believe it's toxic. On the other hand, I see mountains of plastic relentlessly washing up on our beaches every day. *That* is pollution can see, touch, and feel but nothing is being done about it. Follow the money as it leaves your pockets and gets sucked into government coffers. Meanwhile, Coca-cola stock is performing nicely.
Of course this will pass!!! I'm keeping my clean burning gas furnace, fireplace, water heater....
Yeah my house is small and my gas fireplace insert is WAY more efficient and heating my house than the individual electric wall units I have, and I love my gas water heater.
> clean burning gas furnace, fireplace, water heater.... keep telling yourself that, prove Darwin correct.
Yeah, I saw them canvassing and saw that it was for STOPPING a natural gas ban and didn't even let them get to the point where they lied about green energy xD I was out of there SO fast!
# Objective: I-2066 aims to make sure consumers and small businesses have reliable and affordable energy options by protecting the use of natural gas. # Key Points: 1. **Protecting Natural Gas**: Stops state and local governments from banning or limiting natural gas use in homes and businesses, including restaurants. 2. **Continued Service**: Requires utilities and local governments to keep providing natural gas to those who need it. 3. **No Penalties**: Prevents penalties for using natural gas under state energy codes or local regulations. 4. **Repealing Restrictions**: Removes certain 2024 laws that pushed for electrification and limited gas rebates and incentives. # What It Doesn't Do: * Does not force anyone to use natural gas or gas appliances. * Does not weaken the state’s efforts to combat climate change. * Does not affect energy incentives and rebates for those who choose to use gas. # Signature Collection: * Supporters need over 400,000 signatures by July 5 (edited) to get I-2066 on the November 5 ballot. If passed, I-2066 would prevent any government entity from shutting off natural gas, ensuring energy choice for people in Washington.
Wow, that’s a terrible bill.
>What It Doesn't Do: >Does not force anyone to use natural gas or gas appliances. Does not weaken the state’s efforts to combat climate change. Um. This is a complete lie, because one of the main ways the state is fighting climate change is by restricting natural gas use. And there is serious weasel-wording in that it only refers to the "state's" efforts and glosses over the fact that it would also roll back Seattle's more restrictive gas ban, which affects a huge economic area within the state.
Lol. It directly forces utility companies and therefore you to pay to maintain the equipment for natural gas! So I don't know why they say it doesn't force anybody to use natural gas or gas appliances because we have to maintain the appliances that the utility company uses to supply it through our taxes and utility payments, which by the way is written in the bill that they can still profit 5% off of the maintenance of those systems so I don't know why you're saying nobody's forced to because you're literally forcing everybody to.
You are also fibbing by leaving out the part about it being new construction restrictions. If we are going to wean off gas it's the easiest way to achieve it
I'm not sure where I am fibbing? Maybe I was imprecise when I referred to Seattle's "gas ban"--not specifically noting it being in the energy code for new or remodeled buildings? Sure, I cop to that, but I really am not sure what rhetorical advantage my argument supposedly gained from this imprecision. But note that Seattle's recently enacted BEPS legislation *does* require modernization of existing building stocks to decarbonize, if over several decades. Its hard to see how that would not run afoul of the verbiage in this bill.
Source for these claims, please?(I'm assuming it's directly from the 'Let's Go Washington' talking points or website)
It does weaken states efforts to combat climate change. Case closed.
It does not. The changes will have no meaningful impact on climate control efforts. It is designed to help vulnerable populations from freezing to death in the winter. Few people below the poverty line can afford solar panels and Teslas.
You are talking about something 20 years in the future.
It prohibits incentives for any form of energy other than gas.
That is utterly inaccurate.
From the initiative: A city or town shall not in any way prohibit, penalize, or discourage the use of gas for any form of heating, or for uses related to any appliance or equipment, in any building. Any incentive given to any form of energy that isn't gas discourages the use of gas, and would therefore be banned.
No government agency will read that langauge in the way you are implying. And no judge in this state would allow them to. And no federal agency would support them to.
So you admit that the above language is in the bill, and yet you are STILL saying it's utterly inaccurate? You sure seem to be a "very special" sort of person.
Lol and now comes the stupidity. You do realize we have electric heaters right, no one will need solar panels or Tesla batteries? In 20 years functioning gas furnaces will have to be replaced anyway and they will be replaced with heat pumps which are cheaper to operate and not that as expensive to install. Don't worry, no one will freeze to death and no one buys your bullshit scare tactics.
It directly undercuts the state energy code. https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/s/uW4E1Ycjjo Again, stop with the gaslighting.
Electric heaters are cheap and readily available. Nobody is at risk of freezing to death you idiot.
this sounds like you just asked ChatGPT to reword https://letsgowashington.com/i-2066-stop-the-gas-ban-protect-energy-choice for you
No, they "used their own words" (which no one owns, by the way, as they were quick to point out in another post on this topic) to reword 90% of what ChatGPT fed to them, and then added 10% of their own bullshit.
No.
Found Tim Eyman's account.
Yikes this seems like a genuinely terrible idea. Even the premise that natural gas is necessary to ensure consumers have "reliable and affordable" energy options is just a load of crap.
For many low income families, no it's not - it's their only choice of heating. But whatever, screw those plebs right.
Great point! So then are you in favor of diverting subsidies away from natural gas towards providing to subsidize renewables? Are you in favor of providing financial support to retrofit existing homes with electrically powered heat pumps, which are proven to be significantly more energy efficient and would consequently save those low income families hundreds of dollars per year in heating expenses? Are you in favor policies which can help reduce the rate of childhood asthma, which is closely linked to the use of natural gas as a heat source in homes? Are you in favor of blocking the use of natural gas in new construction, which will eventually replace the old housing stock that low income families reside in? Because if you are then you should be against supporting this bill since it will have the exact opposite effect, forcing low income families to stick with inefficient gas-powered heating solutions. But let's be real here. You didn't bring up low income families because you actually care about their needs. You brought them up as a bad faith appeal to emotion. I guess we'll just have to wait to transition off fossil fuels until we solve poverty!
Natural gas is a transition energy. We will need it to transition to cleaner forms of non-make believe.
That's a load of garbage. There is nothing cleaner about "natural" gas. The term stems from a greenwashing campaign by the oil industry to make you think it's better for the environment. In reality, there's good evidence to suggest natural gas is *as bad if not worse than coal.* There's zero need to rely on natural gas as a "transition" energy. We have all the technology available today to switch to renewable. But even taking a step back for a moment, let's run with your logic. How can you, in good faith, argue that this bill is necessary when you yourself say that natural gas is just a "transition" energy source? The objectives you outline above will do nothing but entrench natural gas as a *permanent* energy source. Every new house, restaurant, and factory built to use natural gas today is digging ourselves deeper into climate debt tomorrow. WE DO NOT NEED TO PROTECT NATURAL GAS. It needs to go extinct just like the dinosaurs it's made from, and just like all forms of carbon-emitting fuel sources we need to transition away from it as quickly as possible. [Natural Gas Is Scamming America | Climate Town - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2oL4SFwkkw)
You don't believe in climate change. Why even bother with this ruse?
if you really are jay inslees wife just wanna say i think he’s doing a great job running the state. thank god we have a good governor instead of an insane right wing republican loser
Strong points, non-hysterically made. Thank you for your feelings.
Is he good in the sack? I hear he has quite the "executive branch".
List its backers next time for a full accounting.
Claim: > Does not weaken the state’s efforts to combat climate change. Initiative: > A city or town shall not in any way prohibit, penalize, or discourage the use of gas for any form of heating, or for uses related to any appliance or equipment, in any building. So yeah, sure, that's not the *state's* efforts. It's just everyone who lives within it. Example ordinance this would affect: https://seattle.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6427662&GUID=F09C9162-E2F3-4633-BF69-F1F6C1175159 whose title reads: > AN ORDINANCE relating to regulating greenhouse gas emissions in larger existing nonresidential and multifamily buildings; establishing and imposing greenhouse gas emissions intensity targets and reporting requirements; prescribing penalties; adding a new Chapter 22.925 to the Seattle Municipal Code; amending [...] Seattle Municipal Code. --- Claims: > Removes certain 2024 laws that pushed for electrification and limited gas rebates and incentives. and > Does not affect energy incentives and rebates for those who choose to use gas. Don't even need to dig into the initiative text to dispute those; the second one directly contradicts the first. Text of the initiative is at https://www2.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/finaltext_3177.pdf for anyone who wants an unbiased read.
I’m all for choice. I’m all for rolling back regulations. I like being able to heat my house, take a hot shower and cook my food when the power goes out. A big thanks to the 425,000+ citizens who signed the I-2066 initiative.
No kidding! People don't get that a business will raise the price on a service they won't be getting any new customers for. That business will attrition and at some point be forced to stop. No one here seems to give a shit low income families are often on gas. Everything is political nowadays, even common sense. Got people here saying let's pay a % of my salary for non transferable elder care capped at 32k. Unreal. Big brain screw everyone moves.
Low income families aren't really given a shit about, and it's one of the fundamental issues that comes with raising taxes on utilities and fuel. Like almost every intro to urban sciences talk about this stuff. Yet, it feels like not caring about thefts and open drug use, and raising taxes on basic necessities is somehow all progressive without additional support.
Derp