The Olympia City Council voted unanimously to oppose two Washington state ballot initiatives that would threaten local and state policies to reduce greenhouse emissions. The two measures will be before the voters at the general election on Nov. 5.
Initiative 2066 concerns regulating energy services, including natural gas and electrification.
Initiative 2117 would prohibit state agencies from imposing any type of carbon tax credit training and repeal legislation establishing a cap-and-invest program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The city council first considered a resolution opposing Initiative 2066, the initiative would prohibit laws and regulations that discourage natural gas use and require certain utilities and local governments to provide natural gas to eligible customers.
The initiative would reverse elements of the Washington Decarbonization Act, which requires Puget Sound Energy to plan for a cost-effective transition from natural gas to electricity explained Olympia's Climate Program Director Dr. Pamela Braff explained, detailing the potential impacts if voters approved Initiative 2066.
She stated that the initiative would limit the city's ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve its climate goals. It would also prohibit local governments from enacting policies to discourage natural gas use.
Braff noted the initiative could result in a loss of funding to support residents, particularly low and moderate-income households, in switching from natural gas to electric appliances.
Before voting on the resolution opposing Initiative 2066, Mayor Dontae Payne opened the floor for a public hearing, allowing community members to comment on the measure.
A community member argued in favor of Initiative 2066, emphasizing the importance of diversifying energy sources and the resilience of natural gas during emergencies. He stated that natural gas provides important emergency resilience, as it continues to function during power outages when electric services may be disrupted. The speaker said that limiting options by relying solely on electrification would be problematic. Additionally, he warned that restricting energy choices could lead to potential cost increases for consumers.
Jim Lazar, a recently retired utility regulation and energy efficient expert, urged the city council to oppose Initiative 2066. He explained that while natural gas was once the better choice, everything has changed due to advancements in wind solar, and heat pump technologies.
He stated that his recent analysis showed that "electric heat and electric water heat are the better choice today." Lazar added that the initiative would limit local authorities' ability to adopt energy-efficient building codes and could end programs like Energize Olympia's heat pump assistance program.
Brad Thompson, a local builder with 15 years of experience, noted that transitioning to all-electric appliances has significantly increased building costs. He added that in the homes he builds, natural gas is only used for fireplaces and cooktops, which he believes are more efficient than electric alternatives. He cautioned that restricting natural gas could increase the costs of building homes, ultimately impacting housing affordability.
According to Braff, Initiative 2117 is focused on repealing the Climate Commitment Act (CCA), a cap-and-invest program designed to help Washington State meet its goal of reducing carbon emissions by 95% by 2050.
Here is a shorter summary of the key details about the CCA from Pamela Braff's presentation:
The CCA sets an annual greenhouse gas emissions limit for major emitters, which is lowered over time to help achieve statewide emissions reduction goals. The largest emitting sources and industries are required to purchase allowances for their emissions, which can be obtained through auctions hosted by the Department of Ecology or purchased on a secondary market.
The proceeds from these allowance auctions must be invested in climate projects across the state, including efforts to increase climate resiliency, fund alternative transportation, and help Washington transition to a low-carbon economy. At least 35% of the auction proceeds must be used for projects that provide direct benefits to communities disproportionately impacted by environmental harms, and at least 10% must be used for projects with tribal support.
According to Braff, Olympia was awarded more than $2.5 million through CCA grant funding in 2024. It includes funds to install EV charging stations at multi-family buildings, city fleet depots, and workplaces. It also provided funding for solar energy projects at the Olympia Fire Station, the Armory Building, and planning grants for the city's climate element of the comprehensive plan.
The CCA also establishes a program for the Department of Ecology to reduce emissions and certain harmful air pollutants in communities that are overburdened and highly impacted by air pollution.
During the public hearing, community member Donna Patrick spoke in support of the resolution opposing I2117. She argued that it would be "bad for the environment and human health."
"This would take us backward around air, land, water, transportation, everything that gives us more pollution, and it doesn't allow any control… a total repeal of everything that has been worked on to try to move us forward incrementally is too extreme for this state," Patrick said.
Lazar commented the potential repeal of CCA, which is Washington's strongest action to address the climate crisis, would stop all important projects like energy efficient appliance replacements, electric vehicle charging, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and transit agency support.
Lazar noted that the CCA has also provided significant funding for the Olympia community, including $9.2 million for Intercity Transit, $8.6 million for local emission reduction projects, and $7 million for the Deschutes Estuary.
Councilmember Lisa Parshley, who also chairs the Thurston County Climate Mitigation Steering Committee, strongly supported the two resolutions. She noted the community has asked the committee to do more on climate action, and the CCA is an important avenue to address these concerns.
Parshley highlighted the opposition to the initiative, with over 500 endorsements from groups like labor and tribes. She questioned the claims that the initiative would lower fossil fuel prices, pointing out that there is no guarantee.
14 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
C K
VOTE YES to PAY LESS. These elitist parasites in all levels of American government do NOT give a sh** about American citizens. They don't care that what they do to create more taxes and increase existing taxes makes it harder for constituents.
5 days ago Report this
Southsoundguy
I urge an everyone to research issues with climate change, specifically around radiative forcing, saturation and the co2 absorption spectrum, and water vapor’s share of that spectrum. There is a natural relationship between these things, and the doom and gloom nihilistic outlook causes us to work against nature rather than with it. Repeal and abolish all legislation having to do with climate change and certainly VOTE YES.
5 days ago Report this
JW
The city of Olympia should be focused on their job of providing critical services such as police, fire, public roads, water etc and stop treating the taxpayer's wallet like their piggybank to grandstand on issues that are way out of their job description.
5 days ago Report this
Fraudguy
I grew up in an era where electric heat and appliances where highly encourage due to energy costs. Fast forward a handful of decades and when we bought our current home (2015), we were incentivized with thousands of dollars in rebates if we converted to natural gas. With three qualifying "appliances" (high efficiency furnace, high efficiency water heater and oven), they even ran gas from the main at the street, up to our home and placed the meter, all for free. This would have cost us several thousands more. Now, they want us to throw all of that into the landfill (no one will buy this stuff if the can'tuse it) at our expense and buy all new electric appliances, also at our expense. To the city council: you are NOT experts on the climate or its solutions. Opinions are like as@holes, everyone has one and most are full of sh#t. Yours certainly are. Stay in your lane.
5 days ago Report this
Boatyarddog
Uneducated Opinions are useless too. We do not live in the past, we look to improve conditions for Future Gens. Not our own. Global CO2 is changing the entire worlds climate.
We just witnessed its Profound effect upon well known Patterns of Hurricanes, and Typhoons.
We Experienced it in Our Most recent Kingtides in Olympia.
To those Naysayers on Climate Change Issues.
STAY in YOUR Lane. Washington needs Informed Opinions. Not emotional uprising.
5 days ago Report this
Boatyarddog
Id Give Priority to Jim Lazars Opinions, CW has issues with respecting others opinions, as well doesn't know Climate Change issues at all.
Emotional Baggage.
5 days ago Report this
KarenM
I don't see anywhere in these programs where you would be REQUIRED to remove your existing appliances and replace them.
There are programs to incentivize people to replace their appliances but that is their choice.
People who are making the claim that you will be forced to make these changes are spreading fear with no factual basis.
For new homes, the most efficient heating is now heat pumps. The additional bonus with a heat pump is air conditioning. As our summers get warmer, this will be helpful to have.
As we learn we should adjust to new knowledge.
4 days ago Report this
MrCommonSense
I will admit that taxes are high and we could always spend our tax dollars more wisely. However, we prefer driving big cars and trucks, and rely on fossil fuel powered vehicles to deliver all those material goods we don't need. And we like to vacation which means too many plane rides. If folks would simply drive less in more fuel efficient cars, buy less "crap" that simply ends up in the landfill, much lower CO2 emissions could be achieved w/o being forced to legislate reductions. Plus gas prices would be lower and we would spend less on it. It seems those opposed to I-2117, don't offer solutions, only complaints about it hitting their pocketbook. So let's just continue to kick the can down the road and leave it to our kids to solve another problem we've created. Sadly, that's what's happening with many of our current issues. Thanks for listening.
4 days ago Report this
Honestyandrealityguy
The earth's rotation is changing as well as its trip around the sun. The sun is ever changing as are the planets. Our solar system is moving throughout our galaxy. And the galaxies are moving throughout the universe which is expanding continuously.
I remember moving from leaded to unleaded gasoline.
I studied different eras through time when the earth was frozen or very hot.
But buy a battery operated car and all will be OK! Oh, who are making $$ from all of this.
4 days ago Report this
C K
https://letsgowashington.com/the-initiatives/
Vote yes to pay less!
4 days ago Report this
Southsoundguy
Anyone who wants less co2 really wants less life on the planet. Basically they are into mass genocide.
4 days ago Report this
JW
The point shouldn't even be about whether this climate initiative will do anything or not, if climate change is real etc. The real issue here is why are incredibly small municipalities wasting time, energy, and money on something far beyond their scope and ability to effect any change. If that's your hill to die on, leave it to bigger government. Local government is for the LOCALS not changing the world.
4 days ago Report this
Yeti1981
Why the council feels the need to conduct electioneering on our dime is beyond me. I do realize that I-2117 threatens the revenue windfall from the CCA though. When it comes to protecting the ability to take our money, regressive taxation doesn't seem to matter.
Yesterday at 11:36 AM Report this
Yeti1981
Let's be real, it's not about the climate. It's about the revenue. A real carbon reduction plan wouldn't punish the working and middle class. We had a plan to do this with a 1% reduction in taxes that was rejected by the very climate organizations promoting 2117.
Yesterday at 11:41 AM Report this