Current News

/

ArcaMax

State's new law involving PSE aspires to set a course for the future

Amanda Zhou, The Seattle Times on

Published in News & Features

"Natural gas is abundant and relatively cheap so if you remove that, you've got to replace that power source which will be electric and those electric generating facilities are more costly than the natural gas system," Sen. Drew MacEwen, R-Shelton, said.

Some energy economists have argued electrification does not make homes more vulnerable to blackouts and gas infrastructure is just as vulnerable to extreme weather events — like during the winter storm that paralyzed Texas's grid in 2021.

McCloy said people opposed to the bill are conflating rising energy prices with the state's climate goals, and the legislation simply allows the utility to start planning its transition to renewables — as required by law — to minimize price shocks.

Supporters of the legislation have also emphasized natural gas would never have been turned off overnight for customers and electrifying a neighborhood would involve extensive community outreach paired with rebates and regulatory oversight.

While there are no rate increases explicitly tied to the new law, PSE has said it is working quickly to meet the state's requirement to be greenhouse gas neutral by 2030.

 

"I don't think we know how much it's going to cost to comply with CETA and CCA. CETA has us building a lot of new renewables in a short time. That's not going to be free," Steuerwalt said of Washington's climate laws.

PSE is currently proposing rate increases of about 17% and 20% over two years for residential electric and gas customers, respectively. Proposed rates are typically higher than what the commission and the utility ultimately agree upon.

Some environmental and advocacy groups have also criticized the law for being too generous to PSE. Sierra Club organizer Dylan Plummer said he is concerned the bill will lead to "significant" rate increases without requiring the utility to retire gas infrastructure — but ultimately believes the law to be a "net benefit."

"To be clear, there is a cost to decarbonizing," said Nguyen. "There is a cost to transitioning. There is a big cost of not doing anything either. It cost the state billions of dollars in climate mitigation by dealing with wildfires and health concerns. It costs us money with the current infrastructure."


©2024 The Seattle Times. Visit seattletimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Comments

blog comments powered by Disqus