Climate Commitment Act Accountability

The Sunday Seattle Times Opinion page, Editorial “Make Washington’s Landmark Climate Act More Accountable” urged lawmakers to “speed up the reporting of climate emissions data so all Washingtonians can see whether the CCA is—or isn’t—producing results”. That “if the data demonstrate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, it will reinforce that the billions of dollars are effectively fighting climate change”.

It's unclear why the Seattle Times editors expect “lawmakers” to report on climate emissions that would seem to be under the purview of Washington’s Department of Ecology.  Whoever’s responsible, there’s ample reason to question the benefit of the CCA's reduction of CO2 emissions on global warming.

First, there’s evidence that increasing CO2 in atmosphere is the result of increasing warming from the Sun not the cause.  That ice core data indicated warming from the Sun increased ocean temperatures and CO2 outgassing to atmosphere.  That subsequent reductions in global temperatures from less radiation from Sun were followed, not led, by more ocean absorption of CO2 and less in atmosphere.

That Washington’s CO2 emissions make up only 1.56% of the countries.  That the United States make up 11.2% of the worlds. Thus, any benefits from reducing emissions are limited to reducing the states 0.117% of the total.  They don’t require allowances from those burning natural gas where they live or work or gas or diesel in their vehicles that make up nearly 70% of the state’s total CO2 “pollution".

That any potential climate benefits from the CCA reducing Washington’s CO2 emission will be dwarfed by China plans to add 25% more to its 30% of planet’s CO2 emissions by 2030.  Especially since the jet stream will route those emissions over Washington

The bottom line is if the Seattle Times wants to speed up reporting the emissions reduction from CCA to provide “Accountability” regarding fighting climate change. It's not likely it will "reinforce that the billions of dollars are effectively fighting climate change”.

Sound Transit’s Real “Emergency”

The Saturday Seattle Times reported CEO Goran Sparrman’s former employer HNTB is being paid $1.5M to help solve frequent light rail stalls. Presumably the result of a Thursday front page headline, “As light rail prepares to expand, its leader declares “existence of an emergency”. That the 92% of planned trips took place with 85% on time were less than Sound Transit’s target, 98.5% of trips and 90% of time.

While any improvement in trip-number and on-time performance is worth pursuing, it’s hardly an emergency and pales in comparison with Sound Transit’s real problem.  An inept CEO and a transit board of directors that lack even a modicum of public transit system competence, despite the more than $200,000 annual compensation they receive for serving. (The Seattle Times charitably called them "non-specialists")

They’ve demonstrated more interest in transit-oriented development and providing affordable housing than in reducing the area’s roadway congestion. They’ve never acknowledged the area already had transit service with bus routes throughout the entire Sound Transit Service area from Snohomish Community Transit (CT), King County Metro (KCM), and Pierce County Transit (PT). 

The three county transit systems provide the -500 series bus routes for Sound Transits ST Express and could have been increased to meet traffic growth. Adding 40 CT and KCM bus routes an hour could have added the 8800 boardings-per-hour capacity available with 4-car light rail trains.  Funds used extending tracks could have provided additional parking and local bus routes to ST Express stations as well as additional bus routes as needed.

Instead, Sound Transit continues with implementing a light rail “spine” from Tacoma to Everett and across I-90 to Redmond for 4-car trains that will never have the capacity needed to reduce peak-hour multilane freeway congestion.  That during off-peak hours the cost of operating a 4-car train will dwarf that of a bus.  

Sound Transit exacerbates the lack-of-capacity problem by using the 4-car trains to replace transit buses into the city.  A “Fantasy-Land” decision that reduces transit capacity into the city, nothing to reduce freeway congestion, and the transferred bus riders reduce access for existing Line 1 riders.  

The article cites the 100,000 daily riders in October. Yet the four Lynnwood Link Extension Stations added 7009 boarders, a fraction of the the 24,400 to 35,000 predicted. Nearly all of whom were former Snohomish Community Transit 400 bus riders: doing nothing to reduce I-5 congestion. The claim, “another 6000 are using the Eastside’s local Line 2” is belied by Sound Transit Ridership report only 3425 weekday boardings for the 8 stations in November, indicating only 1712.5  riders.

The 2024 debut riderships exposed another Sound Transit “emergency”.  Their failure to recognize that providing commuter access to light rail stations doesn’t assure they’ll ride light rail trains. That only a small fraction of the 80,000 living within a mile of Lynnwood stations and 70,000 within a  mile of Starter Line stations chose light rail for their commute.  An “emergency” concern for ridership on all the “spine” extensions.

The Sound Transit failure to recognize access to light rail trains doesn’t assure ridership is another concern for the Ballard-to-SODO and West Seattle-to-SODO light rail extensions. Both assume current and future commuters will choose to use light rail into and out of Seattle rather than the more convenient bus service already available throughout the service area.  Recognizing that reality could save the more than $12B and $7B for the two light rail extensions. 

That need to avoid that funding surely qualifies as an “emergency”.

Washington's Leader-in-State-Level Climate Policy

The January 22^nd Seattle Times Climate Lab article “Climate policy rollbacks from Trump won’t alter the state’s landmark laws” heralds the state continuing to be a “leader in state-level climate policy”.  That Washington’s 2019 “Clean Energy Transformation Act” required ending coal power generation in 2025 and fossil-fueled generator electricity by 2045. 

It resulted in the 2021 “Climate Commitment Act” requiring polluters buy ever-increasing carbon allowances as an incentive to reduce the emissions.  That the state’s work to reduce carbon pollution “to buttress communities and infrastructure against the effects of climate change will continue”.

The designation “leader in state-level climate policy” suggest other states will follow.  Yet coal consumption in states elsewhere fuels 49% of their electric power generation.  That China, who already emits more than 30% of the planets CO2, is adding 100 coal powered plants this year. That it will be “difficult” to “buttress the state” against the jet-stream carrying those emissions”.

Any climate benefit from the “states landmark laws” is limited to Washington only emitting 1.2% of the country’s 11% of planets, or ~0.12% of the total emissions.  Even that reduction overstates any potential benefits. The need to buy allowances will raise the costs for those buying electrical power.  Those using electricity to heat where they live or work, cook their food, or charge their EV.  Also, those using gas or diesel will pay more for the allowances refiners buy to provide the fuel.

 However, they don’t require allowances from those burning natural gas where they live or work or gas or diesel in their vehicles. They make up nearly 70% of the state’s total CO2 “pollution”.  Limiting any climate benefits from Washington from charging those who use the electrical power.

The bottom line is any benefits from ending Washington’s use of coal-powered generators will be dwarfed by CO2 emissions on jet stream from China.  That the climate benefits of allowance fees on Washington’s 0.12% of total emissions are limited by the failure to charge those burning natural gas where they live or work or fuel for their vehicles.

Thus it’s “unlikely” many states will follow Washington as the “leader-in-state-level climate policy”.

 

The PSE Price Increase

The January 18^th Seattle Times’s article “PSE electric, gas bills are poised to rise again starting next month” is another result of Gov Inslee’s “Quixotic” relying on hundreds of wind turbines for energy rather than attacking them.  This time the article by the paper’s Climate Lab, their “project that “explores the effects of climate change in the Pacific Northwest and beyond”.  

However, like nearly all their articles, its more about their version of what causes climate change rather than its effect. That Washington’s anthropogenic (manmade) CO2 emissions are causing increased global temperatures posing an existential threat to the state's environment. That the state can reduce the threat by forcing PSE to raise costs for those who use electric energy from coal or natural gas-powered generators. That by increasing the cost for those who do so in their home or business they can reduce the amount of fossil fuel burned. 

However, I-2117 rejection doesn’t result in those burning natural gas in their home or where they work, or those burning gas or diesel in their vehicles, emitting more than half the state's CO2 being charged for doing so. That those using electric power to cook their food, heat pumps to warm where they live or work, or recharge the battery in their EV will. (It’s not clear why PSE raised gas prices since the piping of natural gas to users doesn’t result in any CO2 emissions.)  

Any climate benefit from reducing CO2 emissions is limited to Washington only emitting 1.2% of the country’s 11% of planets, or ~0.12% of the total emissions.  Not much when compared to China emitting 30% of the total to atmospheric CO2 that will be carried by jet stream to Washington.

Plans to close Washington’s coal power generators and severely limit PSE access to other coal-powered sources will do little to offset the fact that coal global use of continues to increase. That 49% of the county’s electric energy comes from coal powered generators and that China plans to add 100 coal powered generators this year.

Thus, PSE efforts to reduce the CO2 they emit will have little effect on atmospheric level.  Even more telling is the recognition that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels are the result of increasing global temperatures not the cause. That oceans warmed by the Sun increase CO2 outgassing to atmosphere that is reabsorbed by ocean when temperatures drop. Other results indicate the atmosphere was already “saturated” to where doubling the current 400 parts per million to 800 would result in a minimal .5C degree increase.

The bottom line is there’s little justification for forcing PSE to “shift away from coal and natural gas that made up nearly half its electricity generation in 2023”. That the resulting price increase is based on the premise that those using the electricity will use less for heat pumps or EV battery chargers.  That any resulting CO2 reduction will be dwarfed by emitters not paying in the state and elsewhere. 

Thus, PSE should not be required to fund hundreds of wind turbines to generate electricity or for batteries needed when they lose nearly 90% of that capacity when wind velocity drops by half.  It’s time the Seattle Times Climate Lab recognized that reality.  

Sound Transit's “Fantasy Land” Continues

The video of the January 7th Sound Transit System Expansion Committee meeting exemplifies another result of Sound Transit's “Fantasy Land” approach to reducing area’s approach to public transit.  That a transit board composed of city mayors, city and county council members, or county executives doesn’t “assure” effective public transit.  

That Dow Constantine’s recent decision to select himself as board chair resulted in his receiving nearly $250,000 in compensation as will as $200,000 compensation for each of the other 17 board members. Most of whom will do so by sitting in front of computer screens in their home or local office, 3 to 4 hours, 2 or 3 times a month. 

The result has been a Sound Transit Board more interested in transit-oriented development and affordable housing than reducing congestion. They’ve never recognized 4-car light rail trains don’t have the capacity to reduce multilane freeway peak-hour congestion and cost too much to operate off peak.  The result’s been a 2025 Proposed Budget & Financial Plan those riding pay only 1% of the 2025 cost and 4% of the $150.5B cost through 2046 

That Snohomish Community Transit (SCT), King County Metro (KCM), and Pierce County Transit (PCT) all provided transit throughout Sound Transit service area that could have been expanded to meet transit needs.  For example, SCT and KCM could have each added 50 bus routes an hour during peak commute with more capacity than 4-car light rail trains. Thus, there was never any need to extend light rail beyond UW stadium, across I-90 Bridge or beyond SeaTac airport. Funds not used for light rail tracks could have funded added parking or local routes to bus stations or stops. 

Rather than add bus routes and access Sound Transit opted to use light rail train’s limited capacity to replace bus routes into Seattle.  Reducing transit capacity into the city doesn't reduce I-5 congestion, and riders added reduce access for UW extension riders.  Again, all with a huge increase in operating cost, especially during off-peak operation.  Yet the System Expansion Committee approved the 2025 budget with plans to spend $197M for planning the extension to Everett and $112M to Tacoma Dome. Down Payment on costs for future track extensions.

Another example of Sound Transit’s “Fantasy Land’ approach to public transit is their “Field of Dreams” premise “if we build light rail riders will come”. Last year’s Starter Line and Lynnwood Link debut demonstrated providing access to light rail trains does not assure ridership. Despite 70,000 residents living within a mile of a Starter Line station, weekday average ridership in November was 1712.5, a fraction of the 4000 to 5700 predicted.  That 80,000 residents living within a mile of the Lynnwood Link stations resulted in only 6643  boardings, a fraction of the  24,000 to 35,000 predicted.

Yet Sound Transit continues with plans to spend $250 million on a light rail station on 130th Ave without any parking in hopes commuters will choose to live within walking distance.  The 2025 budget’s Link System Expansion plans to spend $270M planning the extension to West Seattle are downpayment on a $7.1B plan for a second bridge over Duwamish Waterway for light rail from  Alaska Junction to SODO.  

All on the assumption commuters, who already have KCM service throughout the entire area, will transfer to light rail for the commute into Seattle.  That those who transfer will be required to transfer again at SODO for a ride to International District rather than ride directly to far more convenient stops along 3rd Ave in Seattle.

That spending is dwarfed by the $806M the committee approved for planning the Ballard Link Extension in the 2025 budget.  Again, a downpayment for more than $12B for a second tunnel under Seattle for light rail from Ballard to SODO.  Assuming commuters riding KCM RapidRide routes from South Lake Union, Crown Hill, and Aurora Village will transfer to light rail for the commute into Seattle.  Also assuming commuters would prefer exiting and accessing transit in DSTT rather than far more convenient bus stops throughout downtown area.

The bottom line is the 2024 Starter Line and Lynnwood Link debuts should be another “nail in the coffin” of the System Expansion Committee “Fantasy Land” for light rail.  If not, “another nail” is coming in 2025 with light rail debuts across I-90 Bridge. It’s unfortunate the Seattle TimesTraffic Lab project to “comment on how transportation funds are spent” seems unable to find either the hammer or nail.

Gov Inslee, the “Don Quixote” of Climate Change

The Seattle Times January 12^th front page article “What Inslee Leaves Behind” details the paper’s version of his three terms as governor. Yet it follows a week after an editorial “Lawmakers Must Blackout-Proof States Energy Transition” concerned with the effects of his Climate Commitment Act. 

My guess is the later concern will eventually result in Inslee being regarding as the “Don Quixote” of climate change, promoting wind turbines rather than attacking windmills.  That the hundreds of wind turbines he’s advocated pose a “black out” danger because they lose nearly 90% of their capacity when the wind drops by half.  

His insistence that the state ferries be battery powered doesn’t change the fact the millions spent on batteries and battery-powered generators still require diesel fueled generators to charge the batteries rather than drive the propellers. That no longer getting energy from coal powered plants doesn’t change the fact India and China coal usage continues to grow and that U.S power companies currently get 49% of their power from coal.

He’s never accepted the fact CO2 was not a pollutant.  That CO2 feeds our planet and keeps it from being an icy orb.  That there’s ample evidence that increasing CO2 in atmosphere is the result of increasing warming from the Sun not the cause.  That ice core data indicated warming from the Sun increased ocean temperatures and CO2 outgassing to atmosphere.  That subsequent reductions in global temperatures from less radiation from Sun were followed, not led, by more ocean absorption of CO2 and less in atmosphere.

That Washington’s CO2 emissions make up only 1.56% of the countries.  That the United States make up 11.2% of the worlds. Thus, any benefits from reducing emissions are limited to reducing the states 0.117% of the total.  State CO2 emission reductions will be dwarfed by the those from a China that plans to add 25% more to its 30% of planet’s by 2030.  Especially since the jet stream will route those emissions over Washington

Inslee’s ”overwhelming” support from voters in rejecting I-2117 will result in annual increases in costs for those refining oil, making cement, or burning natural gas to create electricity.  Costs that will inevitably be passed on to those buying fuel for vehicles, cement for construction, and natural gas for heating where they live or work with heat pumps and charging the batteries in their cars. 

Yet rejecting I-2117 will do nothing to charge those emitting 20 lbs. of CO2 emission from burning a gallon of gasoline or the ~22 lbs. from diesel that make up 85%% of the Washington’s transport emissions, and 57% of total.  That those using natural gas in their homes or commercially won’t pay fees for the CO2 emissions 15% of the total. Thus, I-2117 rejection will result in continuing increases in fees for those emitting less than 30% of the total.

The bottom line is Inslee’s legacy will “eventually" be most likely akin to that of a Don Quixote. The only question being how long will it take the Seattle Times Climate Lab to recognize it,

 

 

Looking Back at Sound Transit Board 2024 Failures

This year like last year 2024 was another year of Sound Transit demonstrating a failure to effectively respond to the area’s roadway congestion.  That 2023 was a year of delay in demonstrating Sound Transit’s plan for a light rail spine won’t reduce congestion into Seattle.  It ended with CEO Timmes leaving, “likely” because she recognized the 2024 East Link Starter Line and Lynnwood Link debuts will demonstrate Sound Transit’s failed approach to public transit. 

That similar concerns by potential transit system CEOs found by Sound Transit’s outside search organization resulted in Sound Transit going to “in house” selection  The result was a new ST CEO, and another year of folly.

It began with another year of Sound Transit not recognizing King County Metro, Snohomish Community and Pierce County Transit already provided bus transit to commuters that could have been increased to meet future needs.  That 4-car light rail trains don’t have the capacity to reduce multilane freeway peak hour congestion and cost too much to operate off peak. 

That using light rail trains to replace bus routes reduced transit capacity into Seattle, does nothing to reduce GP lane congestion, and riders added by extensions  reduce access for current riders. There was never any justification to spend hundreds of millions on light rail extensions beyond UW Stadium, across I-90 bridge, or beyond SeaTac airport.

The April 21 Seattle Times Traffic Lab front page article “Eastside’s newest startup: Light rail line finally arrives” claimed it “will change how Eastsiders think about getting around” with 70.000 residents living within a mile of Starter Line stations.  Yet the 3425 weekday boardings for the 8 stations in November indicated only 1712.5 average riders, a fraction of the 4000 to 5700 predicted. 

Sound Transit made a similar claim that 80,000 residents living within a mile of one of the Lynnwood extensions would attrack 24,000 to 35,000 riders. Yet, in November, only 6643 commuters boarded at one of the extension's 4 stations. That most boarders were former bus riders whose routes were terminated at one of the stations.  Terminating bus routes does nothing ro reduce I-5 GP congestion and reduces transit capacity into Seattle.  

Thus, the cost of extending light rail tracks and routing 4-car trains to and from Lynnwood far exceed any benefits from reduced congestion. Extending light rail to Everett just adds to the problem. That the extensions across I-90 Bridge and beyond SeaTac will “likely” face similar problems. 

The lack of riders on Starter Line and Lynnwood Link in 2024 also demonstrated another Sound Transit problem, the failure of their apparent “Field of Dreams” premise, “if we build light rail riders will come.”  It's "unlikely" the number of commuters choosing to use light rail link from Ballard to SODO will justify spending more than $12 billion for the link and second tunnel.  That the number of West Seattle commuters choosing to use  light rail won’t justify spending more than $6 billion for a second bridge over Duwamish Waterway from Alaska Junction to SODO.

2024 was also the year Sound Transit decided to no longer release the  monthly Agency Progress Report.  Ending nearly 10 years of 180 pages summarizing projects and major contracts status, risks and perfoarmance for capital projects. Each project had a Project Summary, Key Project Activities, Closely Monitored Issues, Project Cost Summary, Risk Management, Contingency Management, Project Schedule, and Staffing.  Needed details reflecting Sound Transit’s response to Starter Line and Lynnwood Link lack of ridership.

2024 ended with the Board approving the Sound Transit 2025 Proposed Budget and Performance Plan.  The 2025 Budget Summary lists "Administrative" expense as $34,259,000 and $141,365,000 as "Administrative-agency admin support" expense.  Yet the 2025 budget’s Appendix C: “Departments and Staffing Budgets” details budgets by department total $957.5 million for 1572 positions gives an average cost per position in 2025 of $609,000.   It’s not clear why the difference in the Appendix and the board whose 18 members who receive an average of more than $200,000 in compensation (from somewhere) never queried the difference..

The 2025 Budget also included Appendix I: Debt Obligations reporting they were only paying interest for several years on some of the  bonds outstanding as of Dec 31,2023.  That all of those bonds would be paid off in 2046.  Five years after 2041, the end of ST3 taxes voters approved in 2016. What was new in 2024 was Sound Transit’s 5/28/2024 getting TIFIA and RRIF loans totaling $1.5 billion that won’t be paid off until 21/31/2061, and twenty years after 2041 

The bottom line being 2024 was another year of Sound Transit failures not recognizing light rail trains inability to reduce roadway congestion and that access to light rail doesn't assure ridership. That they approved a 2025 budget with  "questionable"  Staff budgets and borrowed money requiring repayments well beyond their authority to do so.