September 25, 2006
That Sound You Heard Yesterday

Well, besides the roar from Qwest Field, the other noise you may have heard yesterday percolating in the air was the sound of some liberal heads exploding while reading the Seattle Times editorial board's opposition to I-937, the renewable energy initiative.

The initiative itself may be somewhat benign given that some major Western Washington utilities aren't spending much time, if any, trying to defeat it, seemingly because they feel comfortable being on track to meet the initiative's goals anyway. Yet, as the Times editorial notes, I-937 is considerably flawed, and now prudently opposed by the Association of Washington Business (AWB).

The promise of I-937 has some appeal, even to non-liberal voices. The Everett Herald endorsed the idea yesterday as the Times opposed it, though I suspect the Snohomish County PUD's non-opposition to the initiative probably tipped the Herald's scales.

Benign or not, long-time readers will know this writer rarely likes government by initiative unless it serves as a truly necessary safety valve for citizens to overcome an obstinate state government. I-937 certainly doesn't meet that threshold, even before you get into the particular mandates of the policy it advances. Voting "no" would be an excellent choice.

Posted by Eric Earling at September 25, 2006 07:23 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Good for the Times. It looks like there might still be someone at Fairview Fanny with a clue. I-937 is another liberal feel good measure that, like all liberal ideas, is flawed and costs everyone more of their money.

Hydroelectric power doesn't count as "renewable energy"? Only in the warped minds of liberals is this possible.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on September 25, 2006 09:11 AM
2. I agree, Bill--i looked closely at that editorial for the trap door where Trojan soldiers would leap from. Hmmm. Did Young Blethen pen this one? actually makes sense. forced artificial market agenda never work. look at rent caps in NY. chaos. the poor burned.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on September 25, 2006 09:28 AM
3. There was a guy here a while back commenting about post regarding BioDiesel. He's an owner in an Eastern WA BioDiesel plant. Can't remember his name, but the whole premise is so laughable. They appeal to greens and government to get subsidies to make their corn-fed business viable, when it would never survive in an open market competition. And then there's the euphemisms and other green rhetoric designed to put lipstick on a pig.

Energy is the foundation of capitalism. There's is plenty of it in the ground in many forms and we should all be proud to dig it up, drill for it, capture is and burn it every day.

Posted by: Jeff B. on September 25, 2006 09:31 AM
4. Please don't ever expect that utilities will consistently be on the side of sanity when it comes to eco-energy debates. They can't be counted on. Any challenges and/or increased costs are just items they will pass along to ratepayers. Don't kid yourselves, utilities are simply government in drag.

Posted by: GN on September 25, 2006 11:28 AM
5. The reason private utilities are not fighting I-937 is they operate on a cost plus a percentage basis.If the cost of power goes up the utilities commission allows them to raise their rates. The higher their costs the bigger their margin.

Posted by: DAve Swier on September 25, 2006 03:54 PM
6. The bottom line is that I-937 is going to cost us all money. The initiative is poorly written, it's going to screw up the free market and it doesn't count hydropower, the most readily available source of renewable energy in Washington.

Here is the web site for the No on I-937 campaign: http://www.nooni937.com/index.html. It has some good information about the effects of the initiative.

Here is a good report by the Washington Research Council too. http://researchcouncil.blogs.com/weblog/2006/08/initiative_937.html.

Posted by: SR1679 on September 25, 2006 05:40 PM
7. Nice job by the invaluable Washington Research Council. Thanks for the tip, SR1679. The report is easily accessed at the Research Council's web site, researchcouncil.org

Posted by: stu on September 25, 2006 05:58 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?