Just when US federal climate policy looks like a possibility, Seattle’s prospects take a turn for the worse. The Washington supreme court justruled that Seattle City Light—the first (and only?) major utility in the nation to achieve climate neutrality—can no longer use ratepayer money to buy emissions offsets.
Luckily, I think this problem can be fixed fairly easily. But before I get to fixing things, I have a small rant to get off my chest.
According to the court’s reasoning, offsets are not sufficiently related to the utility’s core business of generating electricity. I’ll leave the legal parsing to be debated by the lawyers, but I will make two remarks.
First, almost all of City Light’s power comes from hydroelectricity, which in turn comes from dams that rely on rivers that are fed by snowmelt. And—I think you know where I’m going here—climate change is very bad for snowpack. It’s like this: no snow, no electricity.
So here’s a simplified version. Global warming reduces the city’s access to electricity. So the utility zeros out its contribution to global warming. But then the courts say that the activity is not sufficiently related to supplying electricity.
That noise you just heard was my head exploding.
Of course there are heaps of other sources of climate changing emissions too. But City Light can’t very well do anything at all about those. All it can do is bring its own contributions to zero and thereby create a national (and even international) model of sustainable power generation. In fact, its leadership was probably much more important than its emissions cuts. But no more.
The rant continues after the jump.
Find this article interesting? Support more research like this with a gift!
Second, there is something philosophically bizarre about the ruling. City Light is unique in that it is “municipally owned.” That is, it’s actually owned by the city of Seattle. Its chief is appointed by elected officials and its operations are likewise overseen by elected officials. So it’s not as if some nefarious external force is imposing itself on city ratepayers. Quite the opposite: citizens have chosen, via their elected representatives, to reduce their utility’s greenhouse gas emissions to zero. That’s a laudable goal; and the cost, roughly $750,000, is actually fairly small in the context of the utility’s operations.
Moreover, the citizenry’s commitment to reducing emissions has been affirmed in plenty of other ways too, not least of which is Mayor Nickels’ pledge to bring the city into compliance with Kyoto. So, again, it’s not as if the City Light offset program is some strange and oppressive aberration. No, it’s precisely in line with how the citizens of Seattle—the owners of the utility, that is—want to conduct their business.
I will allow that it’s painfully obvious these days that democratically elected officials may sometimes overstep the law and require judicial oversight (even if they’re carrying out the will of the majority). But this ruling against City Light seems more like an instance of the law thwarting the public good than protecting it.
So I hereby propose a reform: policymakers should get busy changing the law governing City Light’s operations. We simply need a narrow new stipulation that minimizing greenhouse gas emissions is, in fact, sufficiently related to the utility’s fundamental purpose.
Or am I missing something?
I was so excited, a week or so ago, to find out that I could pay a little bit extra each month and “buy” completely green energy from Seattle City Light. I told everybody I knew—it was so impressive to have MY utility company on the forefront of the effort to stem bad climate change. So the news story about the Wa State Supreme Court ruling came as a blow. Is there anything we can do to remedy this really ridiculous ruling?
I’m sorry, I haven’t paid too much attention to this development since I live a ways south in Oregon. However, I find it strangely ironic that a *utility* company, the main institution that has the ability to change the way we generate electricity, is buying offsets—in other words, paying *others* to save energy instead of doing it themselves! This seems to be a somewhat convoluted way to go carbon-neutral.I support carbon offsets for individuals, who don’t have a lot of say in how the electricity they use is generated (unless one is willing and able to buy solar PV panels or a windmill, or some other option), but it seems strange to me that a utility of all things would pay someone else to do the right thing, rather than changing its own means of electricity generation.I am very open to being corrected and enlightened here. If someone has a link to a site that lays out the argument, please let me know.Thanks,Dave
Eric de Place
Dave,City Light is an extremely “clean” utility. But even though almost all of its power is generated from clean and renewable sources, a small amount of coal-fired power is sometimes purchased on the open market when demand outstrips supply during low-generation periods. (Most, but not all, of these purchases are offset by selling clean power to places that would otherwise use dirty power, when City Light’s supply exceeds demand.) Regional power trading is a structural feature of energy markets that is very difficult to avoid– and it’s probably a good thing anyway.That aside, City Light is offsetting not just the small amount of carbon that consumers use, it’s also offsetting the carbon that comes from its OPERATIONS including its vehicle fleet such as maintainance trucks and so on. As there’s really no practical way (yet) for them to power their trucks without gasoline or diesel, they are more or less forced to use offsets to reach nuetrality. So City Light has really led the way here, achieving neutrality not just in its power supply, but also in the very way that it conducts its businesses, heats its offices, powers its trucks, and so on.
Thanks, Eric. This is helpful clarification. I didn’t think about the vehicle fleet’s carbon contribution. This makes a lot more sense to me now.Sorry it took me awhile to get back here to read your response.Dave