Seattle Times Climate Act “Questions”

The September 23^rd Seattle Times edition exemplifies the paper abiding the state’s approach to climate concerns.  The frontpage article details “Why a Skagit County town is fighting battery storage project”.  The caption under the picture “it’s up to the Energy Facility Sitting Evaluation Council” raises all sorts of questions.  

First, who or what created the EFSEC and gave it the authority to make the decision?  Why did Tanaska, an Omaha, Nebraska company, select Sedro-Woolley for a battery storage facility? Where did they get the $250 million and how will they be repaid for the investment?  

The usual rational for battery storage is to store wind turbine or solar powered energy for when there’s no wind or sun. Yet Goldeneye would get the “power from the Sedro-Woodley Substation just across the creek.” Presumably very little of it “renewable” and who would pay.  

The area’s concerns about the potential environmental problems are valid.  It’s also unlikely Sedro-Woolley residents get much of their power from wind turbines or solar panels.  Thus, assuring “100,000 homes would have 8 hours of power”, is of dubious benefit for residents. 

Even more questionable was the paper’s Opinion page, Pro & Con I-2117 letters.  Why didn’t the “Pro-side” detail the Climate Commitment Act’s limited benefits?  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. Not worth much when compared to China’s 30% with plans to add 25 % more by 2030.  

Also why did paper allow the flat out lies in “Con-Side”?  While I-2117 passage won’t “guarantee lower costs” the reduction in costs to providers will reduce prices for consumers to remain competitive.  That rejecting I-2117 would require they pass those costs on to remain in business.  With no limit to how high the fees.

That CO2 is not a pollutant, its emissions are not “toxic” or cause more adults and kids to suffer from asthma and illness.  The claim that not limiting them would end “Washington as a beautiful place to live and do business” is a flat out lie. Any reduction from rejecting I-2117 would be dwarfed by the CO2 coming by jet-stream from China.

All those purportedly supporting rejecting I-2117 managed to survive prior to the Climate Commitment Act.  All those waiting to benefit are a clear indication the fees will likely increase to fund them.