Sue Lani Madsen: It’s all in the numbers

Gov. Jay Inslee used West Side manufactured solar panels for a backdrop last Monday to introduce this year’s Democratic agenda on climate change. In addition to a new state Office of Climate Commitment and Accountability, the proposals included rebates for the purchase of electric vehicles. One question from the attending press pool stood out. “If someone wants to buy a $50,000 new electric vehicle and they make $50,000 a year, how does that pencil out?”

The answer should have been … it doesn’t. No household with an income of $50,000 should be contemplating spending more than $5,000-$7,500 on a car purchase. They will also pay sales tax on their purchase.

But the answer from staff on behalf of the governor was simply that a hypothetical household with an income of less than 60% of the state median (about $68,000 for a family of four) buying a used EV would be eligible for a $10,000 point-of-sale rebate. It makes one question the financial literacy of the smart people at the table writing these bills. Sucking people into predatory car loans with the enticement of “free money” is a trap for people who won’t do math.

According to Inslee’s proposed budget, the $626 million price tag for the full package will come out of existing general fund revenue. Requested legislation will include requiring all new construction to be net-zero ready by 2034. Local governments would have the option to set tighter deadlines. Energy code requirements would be extended to all existing buildings over 20,000 square feet including multifamily residential, with promised protections for tenants and support for landlords to cover the increased expense of upgrading.

No mention on whether cutting short the expected useful life of existing systems and their embodied energy will be taken into account in forcing replacement decisions. No mention on whether differences in climate zones and heating demand will be part of the calculation. It’s that darn math again.

Inslee was asked why he “softened” his approach to new residential construction over last year’s proposal to cut off all new natural gas hookups as of 2030. He preferred to describe it not as a softening but as “more effective because we can get it passed.”

Inslee’s proposed legislation would require natural gas utilities like Avista to prepare and update a clean energy plan every four years. Regulatory changes would encourage utilities to invest in programs to shift customers from natural gas to electric, which is ironic coming so soon after previous rebate programs shifted customers from electric to natural gas for greater energy efficiency. And the governor noted utilities would be able to include these regulatory-driven expenses as part of their rate base, which means customers will be paying higher utility rates. Somebody at the table should have pointed out that corporations and state governments can’t print money like the feds do. The costs are always passed on to the consumer and the taxpayer.

The proposals include $100 million that would go toward a grant program to put solar panels on roofs all over Washington. It’s really cool to know we are assembling panels here in Washington. Point-of-use solar on roofs can be efficient, bypassing the ecological impact and transmission issues of industrial scale solar installations on agricultural landscapes and wildlife habitat. But they don’t always pay back within the life span of the solar panels even with grant programs, and are not necessarily the most cost-effective strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Every situation will pencil out differently.

This is not a package of legislative proposals developed with a diverse group of legislators, “bringing us all together … to discuss bills that unify,” as Rep. Debra Lekanoff, D-Burlington, described it. Rep. David Hackney, D-Seattle, was more honest when he said we needed PPE for the pandemic and “now we need PPD – Proud Progressive Democrats – willing to step up and pass these bills.” There were no diverse voices at the table, not the kind of diversity that counts.

They needed Rep. Alex Ybarra, R-Quincy, but not because he’s Hispanic. We were discussing redistricting this fall, and Ybarra was digging into the numbers with great enthusiasm. Turns out he’s an actual former rocket scientist. His specialty as a mathematician and data analyst for rocket engines was finding the weak spots in any process. Most recently he’s worked for the Grant County PUD as an engineering manager, providing energy analysis. Clearly the kind of numbers guy who should be at the table when dealing with complicated energy policy, if the goal really is to discuss bills that unify.

He told a story about a legislative hearing last session when he asked an expert testifying to a committee: “If you’re gonna get wind and solar and plug in all these electric cars, how much energy do we need to do that?” The answer was double the energy we already produce, and if it all comes from solar we’d have to cover the whole state of Washington with solar panels.

It’s the kind of question you get from someone who loves to do the math. It’s why viewpoint and experience at the legislative table improves the product.

Contact Sue Lani Madsen at rulingpen@gmail.com.