>>> GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME
TO A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
SUSTAINABILITY AND
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE.
IT IS SEPTEMBER 10th, 2019 AT
11:48 A.M.
MY NAME IS MIKE O'BRIEN.
I'M CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
WE HAVE THREE ITEMS ON THE
AGENDA.
THE FIRST IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT
AN ORDINANCE RELATED TO
PROHIBITING NATURAL GAS PIPING
SYSTEMS IN NEW BUILDINGS.
THE SECOND, WE WILL BE
DISCUSSING AN ORDINANCE RELATED
TO HEATING OIL, PUTTING A TAX
ON HEATING OIL.
THE THIRD IS A RESOLUTION ABOUT
OIL FROM THE ARCTIC NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE.
I HAD ORIGINALLY HOPED TO BE
VOTING ON THE OIL HEAT
ORDINANCE TODAY BUT THERE ARE
SOME AMENDMENTS THAT I BELIEVE
SOME COLLEAGUES MIGHT BE
BRINGING IN AND I THINK IT WILL
MAKE SENSE FOR US TO HAVE A
DISCUSSION OF SOME OF THOSE
AMENDMENTS AND CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS ON THAT
AND COME BACK FOR ANOTHER
DISCUSSION AND A POSSIBLE VOTE
A WEEK TODAY.
SO I'M NOT POINTING TO VOTE ON
THE HEAT OIL ORDINANCE TODAY.
AND NOT PLANNING TO VOTE ON THE
NATURAL GAS PIPING RESOLUTION
OR ORDINANCE TODAY EITHER.
SO BOTH OF THOSE WILL JUST BE
DISCUSSIONS.
AND I'M HOPING TO VOTE ON THE
RESOLUTION ABOUT DRILLING AND
GETTING OIL.
SO WE WILL SEE HOW THAT GOES
WITH THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS.
WE WILL START WITH PUBLIC
COMMENT.
SO FOLKS WILL HAVE UP TO TWO
MINUTES EACH TO PROVIDE PUBLIC
COMMENT.
WE HAVE ABOUT A DOZEN FOLKS
SIGNED UP.
ELEANOR BEST TURN IS FIRST.
AND CAROLYN LUKEY AND THEN
DANIEL HAMMER.
>> GOOD MORNING.
>> MY NAME IS ELEANOR BEST IN
AND I'M THE CLIMATE AND CLEAN
ENERGY POLICY MANAGER AT THE
WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL
COUNCIL.
THE WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL
COUNCIL IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL
ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION THAT HAS
WORKED FOR MORE THAN 50 YEARS
FOR PROGRESSIVE CHANGE.
THE BIG PICTURE AGAIN, WE ARE
ALL PAYING A HIGH PRICE FOR
USING FOSSIL FUELS AND OUR
DAILY LIVES.
GETTING OFF FOSSIL FUELS SAVES
MONEY AND LIVES.
IN AN ECONOMY WHERE FOLKS THINK
ABOUT THE BUDGET WEEK TO WEEK,
WE NEED POLICIES THAT HELP
MANAGE UPFRONT COST.
EVEN WHEN THERE IS A LIKELY
PAYOFF IN SAVINGS LATER, YEARS
DOWN THE LINE.
THE HEATING OIL BILL REPRESENTS
A TARGEED PROACTIVE APPROACH
TO REDUCING FOSSIL FUEL USE IN
THE RESIDENTIAL SECTOR AND IT
ANTICIPATES AND RESOLVES
CHALLENGES FOR LOW INCOME FOLKS
IN THE CLEAN ENERGY TRANSITION.
WE HOPE THAT THE HEATING OIL
LEGISLATION CAN BE A MODEL
EFFORT FOR OTHER PLACES AND
SECTORS BECAUSE IT TAKES THIS
THOUGHTFUL APPROACH AND WILL
MAKE SEATTLE HOMES CLEANER,
SAFER AND MORE COMFORTABLE FOR
EVERYONE IN THE NEXT DECADE.
WE ARE ALSO PLEASED TO SUPPORT
HEALTHY HOMES, HEALTHY
BUILDINGS.
THIS IS ALSO A COMMONSENSE STEP
TOWARD THE CLIMATE GOALS.
THE SCIENCE SHOWS THAT ALL
REDUCTIONS IN CARBON AND OTHER
GREENHOUSE GASES MAKE A
DIFFERENCE.
WE KNOW ALSO THAT THE BUILDING
CODES ARE ALREADY MAKING
BUILDINGS MORE EFFICIENT AND
NEW CONSTRUCTION IS AN CREEPY
INCREASINGLY MOVING TO ALL
ELECTRIC SYSTEMS FOR HEATING,
WATER AND APPLIANCES.
SO THIS MARKET SHIFT IS
HAPPENING FAST AND OF COURSE
THERE ARE SOME FOLKS, INCLUDING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS
THAT MAY NEED HELP TO ADJUST
THEIR FINANCING AND PLANNING
WITH HEALTHY HOMES AND HEALTHY
BUILDINGS.
BUT THE WASHINGTON
ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
APPRECIATES THE WORK BEING DONE
SO FAR AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO
ENGAGING WITH THE COUNCIL ON
THIS LEGISLATION AS WELL AS
OTHER INNOVATIVE PLANS TO
MANAGE THE CLEAN ENERGY
TRANSITION.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, ELEANOR.
CAROLYN.
>> THANK YOU.
FOR THE RECORD, I'M CAROLYN
LOGUE.
I'M REPRESENTING TWO
ORGANIZATIONS TODAY ON THE
HEALTHY BUILDINGS AND HEALTHY
HOMES PROPOSAL.
THE WASHINGTON AIR CONDITIONING
CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION AND THE
BARBECUE AND PATIO ASSOCIATION.
BOTH ORGANIZATIONS, WE WANT TO
SAY THAT WE WOULD LOVE TO SIT
DOWN AND GET OUR LOCAL
CONTRACTORS INVOLVED IN THIS
DISCUSSION BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE
A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON ARE
BUSINESSES AND THE JOBS THEY
PROVIDE IN THE CITY.
NEITHER OF THE ORGANIZATIONS
CAN SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL.
FOR THE WASHINGTON AIR
CONDITIONING ASSOCIATION, THEY
ARE VERY INVOLVED IN HEALTHY
CUSTOMERS.
THEY HAVE TO REDUCE CARBON
EMISSIONS.
CONCERNED ABOUT CUSTOMER CHOICE
COST AND DON'T WANT TO
JEOPARDIZE THE INFRASTRUCTURE
AND INFRASTRUCTURE.
WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT HEATING
AND COOKING ALTERNATIVES WHEN
THE POWER GOES OUT.
CONVERSION OF WOODSTOVES TO
NATURAL GAS HAS BEEN A MAJOR
PART OF THE CHANGEUP PROGRAMS
THEY ARE WORKING ON THE LOCAL
AIR QUALITY AUTHORITIES.
WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE A'S
INCENTIVE.
ONE THAT LOOKS AT CONSERVATION
EFFORTS.
A FOCUS THAT LOOKS AT HEALTHY
PEOPLE ABOUT HOW TO MAINTAIN OR
KEEP GAS APPLIANCES IN GOOD
WORKING ORDER.
A FOCUS THAT LOOKS AT, WHAT ARE
THE BEST RESOURCES.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE KEEP A
VARIETY AND ALTERNATIVES AS WE
SORT THROUGH THIS NEW ENERGY
WORLD WE ARE WORKING INTO AND
WORK WITH THE PEOPLE NOW.
S WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IN THE
PROPOSAL, TO LOOK AT THE
RETRAINING. AND WE DON'T LOSE
THE ABILITY FOR THE
TECHNOLOGIES TO USE
INFRASTRUCTURE LIKE GAS LINES
INTO HOMES AND BUSINESSES.
NEW TECHNOLOGIES COMING DOWN
THE PIPE.
WE DON'T THINK THEY ARE VETTED
YET.
TECHNOLOGIES LIKE RENEWABLE AND
NATURAL GAS AND RENEWABLE
HYDROGEN AND HOW TO DEAL WITH
THE KIND OF BACKUPS SOLAR MAY
NEED.
AND WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE THE
ABILITY TO HAVE TECHNOLOGIES
AND THERE THAT CAN PROVIDE
ENERGY NOW BUT MAY ALSO PROVIDE
úENERGY IN THE FUTURE WITH THE
RETROFIT.
>> DAN KELLAN AND THEN KEVIN
CLARK.
>> HELLO.
MY NAME IS DANIEL HAMMER.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE 25
PEOPLE I WORK WITH AT HEARTH
AND BALLARD AND THOUSANDS OF
OTHER STAKEHOLDERS FOR CRAFTING
THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE.
WE HAVE BEEN IN BUSINESS AND
BALLARD FOR 40 YEARS.
60% OF OUR REVENUE COMES FROM
THE SALES, INSTALLATION,
SUPPORT OF NATURAL GAS AND
APPLIANCES.
WITH THAT REVENUE CENTER, IT
PROVIDES IS A LIVING WAGE,
HEALTHCARE, RETIREMENT PLANS,
VACATION, HOLIDAYS AND OTHER
BENEFITS.
WE ARE STAKEHOLDERS IN THIS
DECISION AND WE ALONG WITH THE
MANY OTHERS THAT WORK IN OUR
INDUSTRY AND SERVICES SHOULD BE
INCLUDED IN ANY PLAN THAT RISKS
OUR LIVELIHOODS.
IN ADDITION, WE HAVE THOUSANDS
OF HAPPY CUSTOMERS WITH NATURAL
GAS FIREPLACES AND LOVE THEM.
CUSTOMERS WHO TELL US ABOUT
REDUCED HEATING BILLS WHICH
MEANS REDUCED WITH ELECTRIC,
FUEL OR GAS.
THEY ARE STAKEHOLDERS TOO.
LIKE US, THEY FEEL THEY SHOULD
BE CONSULTED.
ALL ELECTRIC SEATTLE MAY SEEM
GOOD ON PAPER BECAUSE MAYBE IT
IS CARBON NEUTRAL AND MAY BE
WILL MAKE A MEASURABLE
DIFFERENCE IN CLIMATE CHANGE,
HOWEVER IT SEEMS THERE ARE A
LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS ON THE LONG-
TERM IMPACT AND IN THE NEGATIVE
FOR THE STAKEHOLDERS AFFECTED.
WHAT HAPPENS IF THE POWER GOES
OUT.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE END UP
PAYING MORE FOR HEATING BILLS?
WHAT ABOUT SALMON AND THE
WATERWAYS?
WHAT ABOUT THE JOBS AND
BUSINESSES THAT MAY BE LOST IF
THE ORDINANCE IS SUCCESSFUL?
AS A FRIEND OF MINE SAID IN A
RECENT LETTER TO THE EDITOR,
ALL OF OUR ENERGY CHOICES HAVE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.
WE ARE BETTER SERVED
ENVIRONMENTALLY AND
ECONOMICALLY BY ACKNOWLEDGING
THE NEED FOR A VARIETY OF THEM.
EVEN THOUGH I OPPOSE ORDINANCE,
WHICH OFFER MY EXPERTISE AND
EXPERIENCE TO THIS COMMITTEE.
I HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR 20
YEARS.
I AM HERE TO HELP.
THANK YOU.
>> DAN.
>> MY NAME IS DAN KELLAN WITH
SOUND OIL COMPANY.
I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE
HEATING OIL TAX BILL.
I WANT TO ADDRESS THIS FROM THE
CONSUMER PERSPECTIVE.
I HAVE RECEIVED DOZENS OF PHONE
CALLS FROM OIL AND HEAT
CUSTOMERS THAT HAVE EXPRESSED
FEAR AND CONFUSION REGARDING
THE ADDED TAX AND LARGE COST
SAVINGS UNDER THIS RESOLUTION.
KEEP IN MIND THAT MANY OF THESE
HOMEOWNERS AND RENTERS IN
SEATTLE WHO HEAT WITH OIL ARE
EITHER LOW TO LOWER MIDDLE
INCOME OR RETIRED SENIORS WITH
LIMITED FINANCIAL RESOURCES.
THE 24 INCH CENTS PER GALLON
TAX WOULD BE A HARDSHIP TO
THESE RESIDENTS.
EVEN WORSE WOULD BE THE
ENORMOUS COST OF THE HARDSHIP
FOR THEM TO CONVERT TO ELECTRIC
HEAT PUMPS.
THE CITY'S OWN CONVERSION COST
NUMBERS ARE 15,000.
BUT THIS COULD BE MUCH HIGHER
GIVEN THE LIMITED RESOURCES TO
THE STATES, TO GET THE TANKS
PULLED OR REPLACED BY 2028.
THE TANK FUNDS ACCORDING TO
PLEA ARE NOT THERE.
EVEN IF THEY WERE TO DIRECT
100% OF THEIR FUNDS TO THE
18,000 TANKS IN SEATTLE AND
IGNORE THE REST OF THE STATE'S
TANKS, THERE STILL WOULD NOT BE
ENOUGH FUNDS AVAILABLE TO
REMOVE, REPLACE OR UPGRADE THE
ä8,000 TANKS BY THE YEAR 2028.
THIS WOULD PUT EVEN A GREATER
FINANCIAL BURDEN ON THE WHEEL.
IN CLOSING, LET'S SLOW DOWN THE
STRAIN.
LET'S GET BETTER COMMUNICATION
AND OUTREACH TO THE AFFECTED
COMMUNITY USING WHEEL.
LET'S WORK TOGETHER FOR AN
IMPROVED OUTCOME.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT
THAT THIS INDUSTRY PROVIDES
MANY HIGH PAYING UNION JOBS
WITH GOOD HEALTH AND WELFARE
AND PENSIONS.
AND THE COUNCIL SHOULD CONSIDER
THE IMPACT TO THOSE JOBS AS
WELL.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, DAN.
>> KEVIN.
>> SECTION 14 OF THE PROPOSED
HEATING TAX BILL.
IT DECLARES A BIG INTENT TO
REQUIRE ALL HEATING OIL STORAGE
TANKS TO BE DECOMMISSIONED OR
REPLACED BY 2028 AND CALLS
BURNABLE MENTATION PLAN BY NEXT
JULY.
OSE MAY THINK USING A FIRE CODE
THIS WAY MAY BE EFFECTIVE TO
FORCE OIL HEAT CUSTOMERS TO
SWITCH TO THE CITY'S ELECTRIC
MONOPOLY.
BUT I BELIEVE IT WILL BACKFIRE
AND ACTUALLY SLOW DOWN
CONVERSIONS.
SUCCESSORS ON THE CITY COUNCIL
WILL GET THE TELEPHONE CALLS
FROM AMY ANGRY HOMEOWNERS
DEALING WITH THE COST AND RISK
OF PICKING UP THE OLD TANKS.
NOT ONLY FROM THE 18,000 HOMES
STILL USING WHEEL BUT FROM THE
UNKNOWN TENS OF THOUSANDS OF
SEATTLE HOMES WITH ABANDONED
TANKS.
AFTER VOTERS APPROVED THE
CONTROL ACT, THE LEGISLATURE
HAD TO STEP IN WHEN BANKS
REFUSED TO MORTGAGE HOMES THAT
HAD OIL TANKS.
IT CREATED AN INSURANCE PROGRAM
CALLED PLIA TO PAY UP TO
$60,000 PER HOME PER WEEK
REMEDIATION.
IF YOU MANDATE, PLIA WILL BE
OVERWHELMED WITH OIL LEAK CLAIMS
. SINCE 1996, PLIA HAS PAID
OUT OVER $42 MILLION TO 4100
SEATTLE HOMEOWNERS TO SUCH
CLAIMS.
AND AN AVERAGE OF OVER 8000
EACH.
NOT INCLUDING THE FUEL SWITCH
AND THE NEW FURNACE.
AND BECAUSE OF THIS PROPOSAL,
PLIA HAS TAKEN STEPS TO LIMIT
HOW MUCH OF THE STATEWIDE FUND
CAN GO TO SEATTLE HOMEOWNERS.
I STARTED THE SEATTLE WATER
POLLUTION PROGRAM 32 YEARS AGO
INCLUDING WATER QUALITY
MONITORING.
I DO NOT RECALL A SINGLE
INSTANCE DURING MY SEVEN YEARS
WHEN LEAKING HOME HEATING OIL
WAS DETECTED IN ANY OF THE
SURFACE WATERS.
ALSO THERE ARE NO DRINKING
WATER WELLS.
INSTEAD OF AN UNSUPPORTED
INTENT STATEMENT NOW, I URGE
YOU TO PROVIDE THE NEXT COUNCIL
A RISK ASSESSMENT OF HEATING
OIL TANKS TO THE ENVIRONMENT,
TO HOMEOWNERS LIKE ME ON THE
CITY GOVERNMENT ITSELF.
JUMPING INTO REGULATING OIL
TANKS WOULD CREATE NEW DUTIES
AND RISKS FOR THE CITY.
I URGE YOU TO LOOK BEFORE YOU
LEAP.
SUCH ANALYSES ARE ESSENTIAL
COMPONENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT REQUIRED
BEFORE THE CITY COULD ADOPT
SUCH A PLAN.
NOT ALL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
ARE OF EQUAL URGENCY.
THIS COUNCIL SHOULD FOCUS ON
HIGHER PRIORITIES LIKE REDUCING
CLIMATE CHANGE AND NOT OLD
STORAGE TANKS.
TRYING TO DO EVERYTHING AT ONCE
WILL DILUTE YOUR EFFECTIVENESS
AND BOG DOWN YOUR EFFORTS TO
REDUCE CARBON EMISSIONS
QUICKLY.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, KEVIN.
NEXT WILL BE KURT SWANSON
FOLLOWED BY SHAUNA AND BRITNEY.
>> MY NAME IS KURT SWANSON.
I AM A BUSINESS AGENT FOR LOCAL
32 PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS.
I'M SPEAKING TODAY IN OPPOSITION
TO THIS LEGISLATION PROHIBITING
NATURAL GAS PIPING IN ALL NEW
CITY BUILDINGS.
WHILE WE UNDERSTAND THE CITY IS
TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH AND AGREE
THAT ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN ON
GLOBAL WARMING OF COURSE, WE
ARE DEEPLY DISAPPOINTED THAT
THE VOICE, THE VOICE OF
WORKERS, WAS NOT CONSIDERED IN
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
LEGISLATION.
IN ADDITION TO PLUMBERS AND
PIPEFITTERS, WE ARE CONCERNED
LOCAL 17 WORKERS WORKING AT S
D.O.T.
MAY LOSE WORK DUE TO THIS
LEGISLATION.
I HAVE HEARD THAT THIS BILL IS
DESCRIBED AS A MODEST FIRST
STEP TO REDUCING CARBON IN
NOTIONS.
I'M HERE TO SAY THAT WE THINK
THIS IS FAR FROM MODEST AND
WOULD HAVE A HUGE IMPACT ON US.
MY JOB WOULD BE IN JEOPARDY AND
SO WITH THE JOB OF MANY OF THE
NUMBERS THAT I REPRESENT.
ASIDE FROM IGNORING THE IMPACT
TO WORKERS, THE DEVELOPING OF
THIS ORDINANCE ALSO DID NOT
INVOLVE THE COMPREHENSIVE STUDY
TO ENSURE THE FEASIBILITY OF
THE ELECTRICAL GRID TO HANDLE
THE CAPACITY OF ADDING ALL NEW
ELECTRIC ONLY RESIDENTS AND
BUILDINGS.
WE BELIEVE THAT MOVING FORWARD
IN THIS ORDINANCE WITHOUT
CONDUCTING A STUDY WOULD BE
IRRESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE THAT
LIVE AND WORK IN SEATTLE.
WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE
ENVIRONMENT AND LABOR THAT WE
WERE NOT AT THE TABLE AND OTHER
STAKEHOLDERS WERE NOT INVOLVED
IN HELPING DISCUSS THIS
LEGISLATION.
AGAIN, I WOULD URGE CITY
COUNCIL TO CONVENE A SIMILAR
STAKEHOLDER PROCESS INVOLVING
ALL STAKEHOLDERS DEVELOP A
FEASIBLE, REALISTIC ENERGY
POLICY ON THIS MATTER.
OUR MEMBERS AND CONTRACTORS ARE
CONTINUOUSLY TRAINING AND
INSTALLING MORE EFFICIENT MEANS
OF EQUIPMENT AND REDUCING
CARBON FOOTPRINT.
I WOULD ASK COUNCIL MEMBERS TO
OPPOSE THIS LEGISLATION AND
PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO CONDUCT
FEASIBILITY STUDIES AND CONVENE
THE STAKEHOLDER PROCESS.
WE WOULD LOOK FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH THE COUNCIL WHEN
THE STUDY IS COMPLETED.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
SHAUNA.
>> SHAUNA?
OKAY.
BRITTANY FOLLOWED BY STEVE GOLD
AND ZACH SIMON.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON
COUNCILMEMBER.
I AM THE CHAIR OF THE SIERRA
CLUB SEATTLE GROUP.
WE ARE SUPPORTIVE OF ALL THREE
THINGS ON THE AGENDA TODAY.
BUT I AM HERE SPECIFICALLY TO
SPEAK ABOUT THE NATURAL GAS AND
THE HEATING OIL POLICIES.
WE HAVE DONE A LOT OF REALLY
GOOD WORK AROUND ESTABLISHING A
CONVERSATION AROUND OUR
TRANSPORTATION EMISSIONS COME
AROUND DRIVING, AND WE KNOW HOW
HAZARD IS THAT IS TO OUR
HEALTH.
UNFORTUNATELY WE HAVE BEEN
NEGLECT FULL OF THE WORK WE
úNEED TO DO AROUND REDUCING
BUILDING EMISSIONS.
TOGETHER NATURAL GAS AND
HEATING OIL ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR
THE MAJORITY OF SEATTLE'S
BUILDING CARBON POLLUTION.
IN ADDITION TO CARBON
POLLUTION, NATURAL GAS AND OIL
DAMAGE THE ENVIRONMENT DURING
THE EXTRACTION, DURING
TRANSPORT AND DURING STORAGE.
AND CREATING AIR THAT IS
DANGEROUS TO BREATHE.
IT IS TIME TO FOLLOW BOTH
SCIENCE AND MORALITY.
CLEARLY ESTABLISH OUR
PRIORITIES AND MOVE AWAY FROM
INVESTMENT AND DANGEROUS
UNHEALTHY FOSSIL FUELS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, BRITTANY.
STEVE.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON
COUNCILMEMBER'S.
I AM HERE TO SPEAK ON THE OIL
LEGISLATION AS WELL AS THE
HEALTHY HOMES, HEALTHY
BUILDINGS.
REGARDING OIL, WE ARE
SUPPORTIVE OF THIS LEGISLATION.
AND WITH EMERALD CITY, SEATTLE.
WE, LIKE THE FACT THAT IT
REDUCES UTILITY COST FOR
HOMEOWNERS.
MANY OF THEM LOW INCOME AND
MODERATE INCOME.
IT IMPROVES HEALTH, REDUCES
CLIMATE POLLUTION AS WELL AS
GROUNDWATER POLLUTION.
AND WE ARE PARTICULARLY EXCITED
THAT IT ADDRESSES EQUITY
CONCERNS IN THE TRANSITION FOR
WORKERS THAT HAVE BEEN
DISPLACED IS ADDRESSED
PARTICULARLY WITH FUNDING AND
WE LOOK FORWARD TO SUPPORTING
TRAINING OF NEW WORKERS TO HELP
WITH THE TRANSITION THAT LOW
INCOME FOLKS HAVE BEEN COVERED
WITH FUNDING FOR THEIR
CONVERSIONS AS WELL AS
REMEDIATION.
WITH SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS
OVERLOOKED OFTEN, IT IS THAT
THEY ALSO WORKED OUT A LONE
PROGRAM THAT ALLOWS MODERATE
INCOME AND MIDDLE INCOME FOLKS
TO BORROW MONEY, REGARDLESS --
ALMOST REGARDLESS OF THEIR
CREDIT SCORES.
AND PAY IT BACK ON THE ELECTRIC
BILL.
AND FOR THEM, OVERALL, THEIR
COST OF UTILITIES WILL BE LOWER
BY CONVERTING FROM OIL TO
ELECTRICITY.
AND THAT IS A POSITIVE FOR
MODERATE AND MIDDLE INCOME
FOLKS.
ON THE HEALTHY HOMES, HEALTHY
BUILDINGS ORDINANCE, WE ARE IN
SUPPORT OF IT.
I THINK WE WANT TO EMPHASIZE
THAT WE BELIEVE AND WE NEED TO
STOP THE PROBLEM FROM GETTING
WORSE.
THE PROBLEM OF CLIMATE
POLLUTION.
THAT THIS IS A RELATIVELY SMALL
STEP AND NOT A BAN ON ALL GAS.
AND THE TRANSITION FOR NEW
BUILDINGS IS ALREADY UNDERWAY.
THE MAJORITY OF NEW BUILDINGS
ARE ALREADY ALMOST ALL
ELECTRIC.
AND FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS, IT
IS A VERY TOUGH CHALLENGE AND
THERE ARE MANY EQUITY ISSUES
THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.
THE TRANSITIONS OF WORKERS AND
LOW TO MODERATE INCOME FOLKS,
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SO ON.
AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING
WITH STAKEHOLDERS FROM LABOR,
LOW INCOME COMMUNITIES AND
OTHERS TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, STEVE.
ZACH.
>> YOU WILL BE FOLLIS
FOLLOWED BY THOMAS HILDEBRANDT
AND MICHAEL GONZALEZ.
>> GOOD MORNING.
I'M THE COCHAIR OF SHIFT TO
ZERO WHICH IS AN ALLIANCE OF
OVER 30 GREEN BUILDING ENERGY
EFFICIENCY AND CLIMATE ACTION
ORGANIZATIONS AND BUSINESSES
THAT HAVE COME TOGETHER TO
SUPPORT POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
THAT ADVANCED ZERO CARBON
BUILDINGS FOR ALL COMMUNITIES
IN WASHINGTON STATE.
I'M HERE TO EXPRESS OUR SUPPORT
FOR COUNSEL BILL 119640 AND
119607.
STARTING WITH 119640, THE HOLY
BUILDING LEGISLATION, THIS IS A
COMMONSENSE STEP IN OUR
TRANSITION FROM FOSSIL FUELS.
THE BUILDING CODES ARE ALREADY
MAKING BUILDINGS MUCH MORE
EFFICIENT.
MOVING NEW CONSTRUCTION TOWARD
ALL ELECTRIC SPACE AND WATER
HEATING TECHNOLOGY.
AND THIS POLICY ACKNOWLEDGES
THAT SHIFT AND WILL ACCELERATE
MARKET TRANSFORMATION OF ZERO
CARBON BUILDINGS.
FOR MOST BUILDINGS MOVING AWAY
FROM GAS IS A SLAMDUNK.
WE KNOW HOW TO DO IT.
IT IS GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT,
HEALTHIER AND CHEAPER FOR
RESIDENTS TO LIVE IN ALL
ELECTRIC HOMES.
WE RECOGNIZE THAT FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS
MAKING THOSE TRANSITIONS, THERE
ARE UNIQUE CHALLENGES IN THE
WAY THAT THOSE PROJECTS ARE
FUNDED.
AND SHIFT A ZERO IS COMMITTED
TO HELP NAVIGATE THIS.
WORKING TOGETHER TO EXPLORE
INCENTIVES ALONG WITH
CONCESSIONS FROM THE FUNDING
COMMUNITY.
TO ALLOW FOR ANY ADDITIONAL
COST UNTIL THEY HAVE MODERATED.
WE WANT THE POLICY TO MOVE
FORWARD IN A WAY THAT ENSURES
THE BENEFITS OF HEALTHY HIGH-
PERFORMANCE BUILDINGS BEING
AVAILABLE FOR ALL COMMUNITIES.
REGARDING 119607, THE HEATING
OIL, THE MOST CRITICAL STEP IN
ADDRESSING CARBON POLLUTION AND
INDOOR AIR QUALITY AND SEATTLE
HOMES.
IT IS A MODEL POLICY THAT PUTS
IT AT THE GOOGLE EQUITABLE
PATHWAY FOR HOMEOWNERS TO
TRANSITION FROM OUTDATED AND
EFFICIENT OIL HEATING SYSTEMS
TO CLEAN HEATING TECHNOLOGIES
SUCH AS ELECTRIC HEAT PUMPS.
WE PARTICULARLY APPRECIATE THAT
THE REVENUE FROM THIS
LEGISLATION'S TAX ON HEATING
OIL WILL SUPPORT THE CONVERSION
FROM OIL TO ELECTRICITY FOR LOW
INCOME RESIDENTS.
REDUCING THE ECONOMIC BURDEN
AND NEGATIVE HEALTH IMPACTS OF
HEATING OIL.
WE ALSO APPLAUD THE INCLUSION
OF FUNDING FOR TRAINING HVAC
TECHNICIANS TO PERFORM THIS
WORK AND URGE THE CITY TO
TARGET THESE TRAINING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMMUNITIES
OF COLOR, WOMEN AND VETERANS.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, ZACH.
THOMAS.
>> I'M TOM HILDEBRANDT.
I HAVE COME TO TALK TO YOU
ABOUT THE RECENT ORDINANCE THAT
WAS PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
REQUIRING PROTECTIVE BICYCLE
FACILITIES TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN
CONNECTION WITH TRANSPORTATION
RENOVATION PROJECTS EXCEEDING
$1 MILLION.
FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO
THINK THE CITY COUNCIL FOR
PASSING THIS RESOLUTION.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER THE
NEEDS OF CYCLISTS AND ANY MAJOR
TRANSPORTATION PROJECT.
BUT I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO URGE
THE CITY COUNCIL -- URGE THE
CITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE
PROJECTS ARE DONE RIGHT.
I HAVE BEEN A BIKE COMMUTER FOR
44 YEARS.
I HAVE TRAVELED OVER 200,000
MILES ON A BICYCLE.
I HAVE A UNIQUE PERSPECTIVE ON
WHAT BIKE SAFETY MEANS.
AND IN SOME OF THE PROJECTS
THAT I HAVE USED AROUND THE
CITY, I FIND THAT I AM FORCED
TO SLOW DOWN DUE TO MY SENSE OF
SAFETY IN THESE PROTECTED BIKE
LANE FACILITIES.
IT IS NICE TO HAVE THIS SENSE
OF PROTECTION.
IT IS NICE TO FEEL SAFE WHEN
YOU ARE RIDING BUT IT IS ALSO
IMPORTANT TO GET CYCLISTS FROM
ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER.
THERE ARE PROBABLY TWO GROUPS
OF CYCLISTS THAT NEED TO BE
SERVED.
SO IN ADDRESSING THE TRADE-OFF
BETWEEN SAFETY AND MOBILITY, I
WOULD LIKE TO HELP THE CITY ON
THE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION WORK OUT THESE
DETAILS.
I HAVE APPLIED FOR A POSITION
ON THE SEATTLE BICYCLE ADVISORY
BOARD AND I LOOK FORWARD TO
HELPING THE CITY AND OTHER WAYS
THAT I CAN.
>> THOMAS, THANK YOU FOR
COMING OUT TODAY.
MICHAEL GONZALES.
YOU ARE THE LAST ONE THAT
SIGNED UP.
IF THERE ARE FOLKS IN THE
AUDIENCE THAT I MISSED OR HE
DID NOT SIGN UP, PLEASE JUST
QUEUE UP BEHIND MICHAEL AND YOU
WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO GO AFTER
HE IS DONE.
>> I WILL TRY TO BE BRIEF.
MICHAEL GONZALES.
POLITICAL DIRECTOR SPEAKING OUT
AGAINST THIS LEGISLATION TODAY.
WE REPRESENT ABOUT 50 DRIVERS
IN THE BUSINESS WHICH WOULD
LOSE THEIR JOBS UNDER THIS
LEGISLATION.
ALSO I BELIEVE THERE ARE ABOUT
50 MORE IBW LOCAL 46 MEMBERS
THAT WOULD LOSE THEIR JOBS
UNDER THIS LEGISLATION.
WE BELIEVE IN CLIMATE CHANGE.
WE UNDERSTAND THERE HAS TO BE
COMPROMISES MADE IN ORDER TO
MAKE SURE THE SOCIETY MOVES
FORWARD AND THAT CLIMATE CHANGE
DOES NOT DESTROY EVERYTHING WE
HAVE BUILT.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE
APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATIONS WE
HAVE HAD AND WE BELIEVE THERE
ARE AMENDMENTS WE PUT ON THE
TABLE THAT NOT ONLY ADDRESSES
THE CONCERNS OF PEOPLE IN THE
ROOM THAT GET AWAY FROM THE
CARBON-BASED FUEL BUT ALSO
ADDRESSES CONCERNS OF OUR
WORKERS AND THE UNION WORKERS
THAT MAKE SURE THEY STILL HAVE
THOSE JOBS THAT PAY GOOD WAGES
AND BENEFITS AND FOR THE
RETIREMENT.
ALSO I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION
THE 18,000 PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE
AFFECTED BY THIS LEGISLATION.
MOST OF THEM LOW INCOME.
MOST OF THEM WORKING PEOPLE.
MOST OF THEM RETIRED ON A FIXED
INCOME.
EVEN THOUGH WE UNDERSTAND THAT
THE LEGISLATION PROVIDES SOME
SORT OF FINANCIAL RELIEF FOR
THEM AND THEY WILL NOT COME
CLOSE TO COVERING THE $15,000
IT WOULD COST TO GO THROUGH AN
ELECTRIC HEAT PUMP AND/OR ANY
ABATEMENT COSTS THAT ARE ALSO
PART OF THAT.
WHERE THEY FIND US PESTIS AND
THINGS LIKE THAT.
THEY START GETTING INTO THESE
OLD HOMES THAT ARE PRIMARILY
FROM THE EARLY EIGHTH CENTURY
WHEN THEY WERE BUILT.
>> THANK YOU, MICHAEL.
IF OTHER FOLKS WANT TO COMMENT,
YOU CAN GET IN QUEUE.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
ALICIA LOUISE WITH THE MASTER
BUILDERS ASSOCIATION.
THE MASTER BUILDERS SHARE YOUR
CONCERN WITH THE GROWING
CLIMATE CRISIS BUT CANNOT
SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL AS WRITTEN
TO DISCONTINUE NEW NATURAL GAS
CONNECTIONS TO BUILDINS.
BUILDERS ARE KNOWN FOR THEIR
CONSISTENT EFFORTS TO BUILD
LOCAL HOMES AS ENERGY EFFICIENT
AS POSSIBLE AND MANY WORKING
WITH ENTITIES LIKE BUILT GRAIN
TO CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTALLY
CONSCIOUS EFFORT.
MOVING FORWARD IS OUR HOPE THAT
CITY COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER MORE
OF AN INCENTIVE-BASED APPROACH
RATHER THAN A PROHIBITORY ONE.
THIS HAS BEEN A HARD YEAR FOR
OUR HOMEBUILDERS WITH THE
ADDITION OF MHA FEES AND
RESTRICTIONS.
MEMBERS ARE DOING THEIR BEST TO
ROLL WITH THE PUNCHES BUT IF
THE CITY CONTINUES TO ADD TO
THE COST OF BUILDING, HOW ARE
WE EVER GOING TO MAKE HOMES
MORE AFFORDABLE?
THINK YOU.
>> COME FORWARD.
IF YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME FOR
THE RECORD.
>> SHAUNA ALFORD.
>> I AM THE OFFICE MANAGER AT
GENESEE ENERGY.
I WAS RAISED ON BEACON HILL AND
I ATTENDED CLEVELAND HIGH
SCHOOL.
I WAS HIRED BY GENESEE AT THE
ENTRY LEVEL CUB'S CUSTOMER
SERVICE REP IS IN IT OF MAKING
$10 AN HOUR.
SEVEN YEARS LATER I AM THE
OFFICE MANAGER PICK I HAVE BEEN
ABLE TO PURCHASE MY OWN HOME.
AS LEAD CUSTOMER SERVICE REP IS
IN IT UP OVER THE YEARS, I HAVE
HAD FIRST-HAND INTERACTION WITH
OUR CUSTOMERS, MANY OF WHOM ARE
WORKING FAMILIES AND ELDERLY
CITIZENS LIVING ON A FIXED
INCOME.
I UNDERSTAND MOST OF THESE
CUSTOERS ALREADY RECEIVE
ENERGY ASSISTANT PLEDGES FROM
VARIOUS PROGRAMS.
IT IS THE FAMILIES THAT DO NOT
QUALIFY FOR LOW INCOME ENERGY
ASSISTANCE AND WHO WON'T
QUALIFY FOR THE SUBSIDY
GENERATED BY THE TAX TO WORKING
FAMILIES, THE ELDERLY AND THOSE
THAT STARTED LIKE I DID SEVEN
YEARS AGO, YOUNG AND EARLY IN
MY CAREER.
THEY ARE THE ONES THAT WILL BE
DIRECTLY IMPACTED.
I'M A MOTHER OF THREE.
WHILE I WAS ABLE TO PURCHASE MY
OWN HOME, I WAS NOT ABLE TO DO
SO IN SEATTLE BECAUSE IT WAS
TOO EXPENSIVE.
THIS BILL WILL ONLY MAKE
SEATTLE LESS AFFORDABLE AND I
LIKE MOST PEOPLE WANT TO LOWER
CARBON OUTPUT EXPENDING $15,000
ON A HEAT PUMP WOULD BE A
SIGNIFICANT BURDEN TO MANY OF
THE CUSTOMERS I HAVE INTERACTED
WITH.
THERE HAS TO BE ANOTHER
ALTERNATIVE.
I URGE THE COUNCIL TO
RECONSIDER THIS PROPOSAL
KEEPING IN MIND THE IMPACT OF
WORKING FAMILIES.
THANK YOU.
>> I'M NOT SEEING ANYONE ELSE
STEP FORWARD.
WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT.
WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM
NUMBER ONE.
I WILL INVITE THE PRESENTER
FORWARD.
YOLANDA AND ASKED THAT KELLY
READ THE ITEM INTO THE RECORD.
>> COUNSEL BILL 119640, AN
ORDINANCE RELATING TO
PROHIBITING NATURAL GAS PIPING
SYSTEMS IN NEW BUILDINGS ADDING
A NEW CHAPTER 22.942 THE
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE.
>> QUICK INTRODUCTIONS.
>> YOLANDA COUNSEL CENTRAL
STAFF.
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE,
YOLANDA.
FOR THE PUBLIC'S BENEFIT, WE
HAD A DISCUSSION ON THIS ON THE
COMMITTEE LAST WEEK.
ON THE LEGISLATION ON THAT
POINT, IT WAS WHAT WE CALL
DRAFT LEGISLATION AND HAD NOT
BEEN FORMALLY INTRODUCED TO THE
COUNCIL.
WE NOW HAVE AN ACTUAL PIECE OF
LEGISLATION HERE.
WE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE
NUMBER OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS
THAT HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THE
POLICY AT THE TABLE.
TODAY I WAS HOPING, YOLANDA,
THAT YOU COULD WALK US THROUGH
WHAT IS ACTUALLY IN THE PIECE
OF LEGISLATION.
AND I WILL LET YOU PROCEED
THROUGH THAT.
IF I HAVE QUESTIONS OR
CLARIFYING POINTS, I WILL JUMP
IN.
>> SURE.
THERE WAS A LONG MEMO ATTACHED
TO THE AGENDA THAT PROVIDED
SOME OF THE BACKGROUND.
I WANTED TO FRAME SOME OF WHAT
THIS POLICY COMES FROM.
BEFORE DIVING INTO THE DETAILS
OF THE LEGISLATION IF THAT'S
OKAY WITH YOU.
JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE
UNDERSTANDS, GREENHOUSE GASES
TRAP HEAT IN THE ATMOSPHERE
CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING WHICH IN
TURN CAUSES CLIMATE CHANGE.
WHICH THE MOST COMMON TYPES OF
GREENHOUSE GAS IS CARBON
DIOXIDE.
WE ALSO INCLUDE METHANE,
NITROUS OXIDE AND FLUORINATED
GASES IN THAT CATEGORY.
THE COUNCIL HAS HAD A LONG
HISTORY OF RECOGNIZING THE
THREAT POSED BY GLOBAL WARMING,
CLIMATE CHANGE BEGINNING WITH
THE RESOLUTION 285496 IN 1992.
FAST FORWARD TO MORE RECENT
YEARS, THE COUNCIL ADOPTED THE
GOAL THROUGH RESOLUTION 31312
ESTABLISHING FOR THE CITY TO
REACH A ZERO NET GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS BY 2050 AND SETTING
INTERMEDIATE REDUCTION TARGETS.
SO TO THAT END, THE COUNCIL
ADOPTED THE 2013 CLIMATE ACTION
PLAN WHICH INCLUDED A VARIETY
F STRATEGIES TO REDUCE
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND
FOSTER CLIMATE RESILIENCY.
THESE STRATEGIES FOCUS ON
BUILDINGS AND TRANSPORTATION
WHICH ACCOUNT FOR, ACCORDING TO
THE MOST RECENT GREENHOUSE GAS
INVENTORY OF 2016, 97% OF
SEATTLE'S GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS.
AND THE PLANTS AT INTERMEDIATE
TARGETS TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE
GAS EMISSIONS FROM RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS BY 32% AND COMMERCIAL
BUILDINGS BY 45% AND 2008
LEVELS BY 2030.
THE GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY
FOUND THAT EMISSIONS WERE
REDUCED BY 18% FOR RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS AND 8% FOR COMMERCIAL
BUILDINGS FROM 2008 LEVELS.
SO THERE ARE REDUCTIONS.
BASED ON THE RATES OF
REDUCTION, IT DOES NOT APPEAR
THAT WE ARE ON TRACK TO MEET
OUR NET ZERO EMISSIONS GOLD BY
2050 AND WOULD NEED TO INCREASE
REDUCTIONS RATES BY SEVENFOLD.
FURTHER, SPURRED BY THE
NATIONAL MOVEMENT, IMPLEMENT A
FEDERAL GREEN NEW DEAL THE
COUNCIL ADOPTED RESOLUTION
31895 ESTABLISHING GOALS FOR A
GREEN NEW DEAL FOR SEATTLE
INCLUDING THE GOAL FOR SEATTLE
TO BE CLIMATE POLLUTION FREE BY
2030 AND A TRANSITION FROM
NATURAL GAS AND A STRATEGY TO
TRANSITION FROM NATURAL GAS TO
NONPOLLUTING ELECTRICITY.
THE SHORTER TIMEFRAME OF 2030
REFLECTS FINDINGS FROM THE
UNITED NATIONS
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON
CLIMATE CHANGE'S 2018 REPORT
EMPHASIZING THE NEED FOR
IMMEDIATE REDUCTIOS IN
GREENHOUSE GASES EMISSIONS TO
LIMIT THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE
CHANGE.
SEATTLE IS FORTUNATE IN THAT
ITS ELECTRICAL SUPPLY HAS BEEN
CARBON NEUTRAL SINCE 2005 AND
WAS THE FIRST IN THE NATION TO
ACHIEVE THIS GOAL.
AT THE STATEWIDE LEVEL, THE
STATE LEGISLATURE PASSED AND
THE GOVERNOR SIGNED THIS YEAR
INTO LAW, THE CLEAN ENERGY
TRANSFORMATION ACT REQUIRING
THAT ALL ELECTRICAL UTILITIES
SERVING RETAIL CUSTOMERS IN THE
STATE SUPPLY ELECTRICITY
COMPLETELY FREE OF GREENHOUSE
GAS EMISSIONS BY 2045.
SO A STATEWIDE PUSH AS WELL.
SO I JUST WANTED TO NOTE IN
TERMS OF NATURAL GAS
SPECIFICALLY, THE GREENHOUSE
GAS INVENTORY OF 2016 FOUND
THAT THE DIRECT COMBUSTION OF
NATURAL GAS IN RESIDENTIAL AND
COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS ACCOUNTED
FOR 71% OF CITYWIDE BUILDING
EMISSIONS AND 25% OF SEATTLE'S
TOTAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
SO SIGNIFICANT SOURCE.
>> WE KNOW THAT DIRECT
COMBUSTION, THESE ARE
APPLIANCES IN THE BUILDING.
>> YES.
SO THE DIRECT COMBUSTION WHICH
CREATES CARBON DIOXIDE.
ALSO IN ADDITION TO EMISSIONS
RELATED TO THOSE USES WE JUST
SPOKE ABOUT, THE DRAWING
EXTRACTION AND NATURAL GAS
GENERATES GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS AND SPECIFICALLY
METHANE AND METHANE IS A
PARTICULARLY PROBLEMATIC
GREENHOUSE GAS BECAUSE WHILE IT
PERSISTS IN THE ATMOSPHERE FOR
A MUCH SHORTER PERIOD OF TIME
COME UP TO 20 YEARS VERSUS
CENTURIES OR MILLENNIA FOR
CARBON DIOXIDE, IT CAN WARM THE
PLANET OVER 80 TIMES MORE THAN
AN EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF CARBON
DIOXIDE OVER A 20 YEAR PERIOD
MAKING IT PARTICULARLY
IMPORTANT TO REDUCE METHANE AND
SPECIFICALLY IN ADDITION TO
CARBON DIOXIDE.
IN THE SHORT TERM, THAT WILL BE
QUITE IMPACTFUL.
NOTING THAT THROUGHOUT THE
NATURAL GAS SUPPLY CHAIN,
METHANE IS RELEASED BOTH
INTENTIONALLY THROUGH VENTING
AND FLARING.
AND ALSO ACCIDENTALLY OR
INADVERTENTLY AS A RESULT OF
MALFUNCTIONING AND AGING
EQUIPMENT.
SO PIPELINES AND VARIOUS OTHER
SOURCES OF WHAT IS KNOWN AS
FUGITIVE EMISSIONS.
>> DO WE HAVE A SENSE OF HOW
THAT IS QUANTIFIED?
IT SEEMS LIKE I AM HEARING MORE
AND MORE ABOUT THAT.
BUT IT SEEMS LIKE IT IS A
RELATIVELY NEW NEWS STORY.
>> THERE HAVE BEEN SOME
STUDIES.
THERE WAS A STUDY I FOUND THAT
PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS OF NATURAL
GAS SUPPLY CHAIN HAVE
UNDERESTIMATED THE AMOUNT OF
METHANE EMISSIONS POSSIBLY BY
AS MUCH AS 60%.
SO I BELIEVE THE EPA HAD SOME
STUDIES DONE BUT OTHER RESEARCH
HAS DISCOVERED THAT PERHAPS
THEY ARE UNDERESTIMATING THE
AMOUNT OF METHANE EMISSIONS AS
A RESULT OF THE NATURAL GAS
SUPPLY CHAIN.
>> WHEN WE CALCULATE, WE DO
OUR INVENTORY AND SEATTLE FOR
THE CLIMATE POLLUTION RELEASED
WHEN BURNING IT.
IT DOES NOT GET OUR PRORATED
SHARE OF METHANE THAT IS LINKED
IN THE PRODUCTION OR
DISTRIBUTION.
>> I BELIEVE WE WILL HAVE
OFFICE SUSTAINABILITY APPEAR
FOR THE NEXT AGENDA.
I BELIEVE IT IS JUST WHAT IS
PRODUCED IN THE CITY DUE TO
OPERATIONS IN THE CITY.
SO IT DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE
EXTERNALITIES OF THE SUPPLY
CHAIN.
>> THANK YOU.
>> AND AS WAS DISCUSSED
PREVIOUSLY, NATURAL GAS DOES IN
FACT PRODUCE FEWER EMISSIONS
RELATIVE TO COAL.
BUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE
FUGITIVE EMISSIONS AND THE
ENTIRE HOLISTIC SENSE OF WHAT
IS HAPPENING WITH NATURAL GAS,
THE CLIMATE BENEFITS ARE MORE
DUBIOUS.
AND I WILL ALSO NOTE THAT
RECENT RESEARCH HAS ALSO NOTED
AN ACCELERATION IN THE AMOUNT
OF METHANE IN THE ATMOSPHERE
AFTER YEARS OF BEING RELATIVELY
STABLE.
AND WHILE THERE IS SOME
SPECULATION ABOUT WHERE THIS IS
COMING FROM, THERE WAS A RECENT
STUDY RELEASED THAT LINKS THIS
TO POTENTIALLY THE PRODUCTION
OF SHALE GAS WHICH IS EXTRACTED
VIA HYDRAULIC FRACKING. AND
THE U.S. ACCOUNTED FOR 89% OF
TOTAL GLOBAL PRODUCTION OF
SHALE GAS IN 2015.
>> ALMOST 90% OF GLOBAL
FRACKING GASES COMING FROM THE
UNITED STATES?
>> IN 2015, THAT WAS THE MOST
RECENT NUMBER I COULD FIND.
SO THAT WAS A SIZABLE
PROPORTION.
ALSO, NOTING SOME OF THE
CHALLENGES OF NATURAL GAS AND
OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE PROS AND
CONS.
WE JUST WANT TO KNOW THAT
SEATTLE IS AN EARTHQUAKE PRONE
AREA.
HAVING NATURAL GAS
INFRASTRUCTURE IS POTENTIALLY A
SIGNIFICANT SOURCE OF FIRE OR
EXPLOSION DURING AN EARTHQUAKE
OR OTHER EVENTS.
AND WHILE IT HAS BEEN NOTED
THAT NATURAL GAS EXTRUSION
PIPES HAVE BEEN GRADUALLY
SWITCHED OVER TO PLASTIC, THEY
ARE MORE FLEXIBLE WITH THE
ACTUAL SHAKING.
AND THEY MAY NOT STAND UP TO
THE SHEARING FORCES OF
LANDSLIDES AND AS WE KNOW
SEATTLE IS PRONE TO LANDSLIDES
AND THERE IS A GOOD PERCENTAGE
OF THE CITY, ABOUT 15%, THAT IS
VULNERABLE TO GROUND FAILURE IN
THE EVENT OF AN EARTHQUAKE.
LIQUID SOIL OR LIQUID ACTION
COULD OCCUR AND THERE IS NOT
MUCH THAT COULD HOLD UP TO
THAT.
THERE ARE AREAS THEY ARE AT THE
INNER BAY AND THE RAINIER
VALLEY.
AND ALSO NOTING THAT FIRE HAS
HISTORICALLY, HAS RESULTED IN
MORE LOSS OF LIFE AND
COLLAPSING BUILDINGS, WHICH WAS
NOTED BY THE OFFICE OF
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT.
AND THE HAZARD IDENTIFICATION
AND VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS.
AND EVEN WITHOUT AN EARTHQUAKE
OR OTHER CATASTROPHE, NATURAL
GAS PIPES CAN FAIL.
AND AS WE DISCUSSED EARLIER
LAST WEEK ABOUT THE GREENWOOD
NEIGHBORHOOD IN 2016, THERE WAS
AN ABANDONED BUT STILL ACTIVE
NATURAL GAS PIPE THAT EXPLODED
AND DESTROYED THREE BUSINESSES
AND DAMAGE DOZENS OF OTHERS AND
ESTIMATED $3 MILLION IN DAMAGES
AND SOME INJURIES TO FIRST
RESPONDERS WHO WERE
INVESTIGATING THE REPORTS OF A
LEAK.
RECENTLY IN 2018, WHILE THE
EXPLOSION DID NOT OCCUR IN
SEATTLE BUT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN CANADA, THE NATURAL GAS PIPE
CUT OFF THE FLOW OF NATURAL GAS
INTO THE STATE POTENTIALLY
PUTTING WASHINGTON RESIDENTS AT
RISK OF POWER OUTAGES IN AREAS
WHERE NATURAL GAS WAS USED FOR
ELECTRICITY AND MORE LOCALLY,
WE EXPERIENCED A TEMPORARY
DISRUPTION IN OUR GARBAGE.
BECAUSE THE TRUCKS USE RELY
NATURALLY ON NATURAL GAS.
SO THE RADIATING EFFECTS OF
SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I ALSO WANT TO NOTE THAT
RESEARCH HAS FOUND COOKING
USING A GAS STOVE CAN OMIT
INDOOR AIR POLLUTION IF NOT
PROPERLY VENTILATED.
AND THESE TYPES OF AIRBORNE
POLLUTANTS CAN IMPACT
RESPIRATORY HEALTH OF CERTAIN
POPULATIONS, PARTICULARLY
CHILDREN, ELDERLY AND THOSE
WITH EXISTING HEALTH
CONDITIONS.
ASTHMA BEING ONE OF THEM AND
ASTHMA IS MORE PREVALENT IN LOW
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AND A BLACK
AFRICAN-AMERICAN HOUSEHOLDS.
SO MAKING IT IMPORTANT TO
REDUCE EXPOSURE TO POSSIBLE
TRIGGERS FOR ASTHMA ATTACKS FOR
THOSE HOUSEHOLDS.
IN TERMS OF ELECTRIC BUILDINGS,
WE HAVE HAD PUBLIC COMMENTS
ABOUT THAT.
>> CAN I GO BACK TO ONE OTHER
POINT IN THAT PARAGRAPH.
RESEARCH ON 55-70% OF THE HOMES
WITH GAS STOVES EXCEED THE
LEVEL OF NITROGEN -- CARBON
DIOXIDE FOR THE EPA'S LEVEL OF
CLEAN AIR.
>> IT IS BERKELEY LABORATORY.
THE NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE, I
THINK BERKELEY DOES TESTING OF
THESE TYPES OF INDOOR COMMON
APPLIANCES.
SO THEY ARE PRETTY WELL KNOWN
FOR RESEARCH ON THE SUBJECT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ON TO ELECTRIC BUILDINGS.
THERE WERE SOME THINGS I DID
NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO INCLUDE ON
MY MEMO BUT I WANTED TO MAKE A
NOTE OF THE MOST RECENT 2017
úRESIDENTIAL BUILDING STOCK
ASSESSMENT FOR SEATTLE FOUND
THAT THE DISTRIBUTION OF SINGLE-
FAMILY HOMES AND HOW THEY ARE
HEATED. I WANTED TO NOTE THAT
CURRENTLY 19% OF HOMES ARE
HEATED BY ELECTRICITY.
66% ARE HEATED BY GAS.
11% BY OIL.
AND 4% BY WOOD.
I THINK THAT IS THE MOST
ACCURATE DATA.
WE ALSO LOOKED AT KING COUNTY
ASSESSOR DATA WHICH I HAVE
RECENTLY LEARNED IS NOT
ENTIRELY RELIABLE.
IT DOESN'T REFLECT WHERE PEOPLE
HAVE CONVERTED FROM OIL TO
SOMETHING ELSE.
THEY DON'T NECESSARILY UPDATE
IT.
I THINK THE MOST RECENT DATA IS
MORE ACCURATE IN TERMS OF THE
BUILDINGS MORE RECENTLY AND
KNOWING HOW THEY ARE HEATED.
>> SO THE ASSESSOR PAGE HAS
MORE INFORMATION AS FAR AS HEAT
SOURCE?
>> THERE IS A DATABASE YOU
CAN DOWNLOAD FROM THE ASSESSOR
WHICH IS WHAT WE WERE LOOKING
AT PREVIOUSLY.
I BELIEVE THAT DOES NOT EVOLVE
OVER TIME.
IT REFLECTS.
IT IS LIKE A PICTURE OF THAT
BUILDING THAT WAS BUILT IN
1955.
AND WAS HEATED BY OIL.
THEY WON'T COME BACK AND SAY
THEY CONVERTED TO AN ELECTRIC
HEAT CAP HEAT PUMP.
NOT NECESSARILY AN EVOLVING
PHOTOGRAPH OF WHERE WE ARE IN
TERMS OF HOW HOMES ARE HEATED.
>> I BELIEVE THAT SHOWED
SOMETHING LIKE 25% WERE HEATING
OIL.
CAN YOU REPEAT THE NUMBER.
>> 11% IS WHAT THE
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING STOCK
ASSESSMENT FOR SEATTLE FOUND.
THIS WAS A REPORT COMMISSIONED
BY SEATTLE CITY LIGHT.
>> 11% FOR HEATING OIL.
AND NATURAL GAS IS 66%.
>> ELECTRIC WAS 19%.
>> A COUPLE OF PIECES WITH
GEOTHERMAL.
>> AND WOOD.
>> THANK YOU FOR GETTING
THAT.
>> JUST WANTED TO CORRECT THE
RECORD FOR THAT.
I ALSO WANT TO KNOW THAT
SEATTLE ALREADY HAS MANY ALL
ELECTRIC BUILDINGS.
MOSTLY SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES,
TOWNHOUSES AND APARTMENT
BUILDINGS FROM WHAT I HAVE BEEN
HEARING.
AND GOING BACK TO KING COUNTY
ASSESSOR DATA WHICH I BELIEVE
IS AN ACCURATE PICTURE FOR MORE
RECENT YEARS, IN 2010, THE
HEATED ELECTRICITY WAS 15%.
NOW A GROWING TREND IN 2018.
IT WAS 65%.
SEEING A GROWING TREND OF HOMES
HEATED WITH ELECTRICITY.
>> 15% IN 2010.
65% IN 2018.
>> IN 2018, 65% OF HOMES
HEATED BY ELECTRICITY.
>> THANK YOU.
>> I ALSO PROVIDED SOME OTHER
EXAMPLES IN THE MEMO IN THE
ATTACHMENT TO THE MEMO.
ALL THAT BEING SAID, WE CAN
MOVE ON TO THE LEGISLATION.
>> I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR
BACKGROUND ON THE BILL.
AGAIN, WE APPRECIATE THE FOLKS
THAT WERE DISCUSSING THAT.
>> THIS BILL WOULD AMEND THE
SEATTLE BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION CODES WHICH IS THE
SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 22
TO PROHIBIT THE INSULATION OF
NATURAL GAS PIPELINE SYSTEMS
SUBMITTED TO THE SEATTLE
DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND
INSPECTIONS ON OR AFTER JULY
1st, 2020.
THIS PROHIBITION WOULD ALSO
APPLY TO NEW DETACHED UNITS
NOTING THAT THEY ARE NOT
NECESSARILY A NEW BUILDING BY
THE DEFINITION OF STCI BUT IN
OUR MINDS, IT IS A NEW
BUILDING.
THE PROHIBITION WOULD EXCLUDE
PORTABLE PROPANE APPLIANCES FOR
OUTDOOR COOKING AND HEATING.
IN THE SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
INSPECTIONS WOULD HAVE THE
AUTHORITY TO PROMULGATE RULES,
NECESSARY TO POWER CERTAIN
NATURAL GAS POWERED EQUIPMENT
AND APPLIANCES SUCH AS
COMMERCIAL COOKING APPLIANCES
ON A BASIS WERE SUITABLE
ALTERNATIVE ELECTRIC APPLIANCES
ARE UNAVAILABLE.
THE SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTIONS
WOULD ALSO BE GIVEN AUTHORITY
TO SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT OF THE
PROHIBITION. THE LEGISLATION
INCLUDES A REQUEST TO THE
SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION TO
RECOMMEND AMENDMENTS TO
TECHNICAL CODES AND THE SEATTLE
MUSICAL CODE BY JULY 1st, 2020
FOR THE EXPANSION OF NATURAL
GAS PIPING SYSTEMS IN ADDITIONS
TO EXISTING BUILDINGS,
SUBSTANTIAL DONATIONS WHERE THE
EXISTING MECHANICAL SYSTEMS ARE
PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED AND
REPLACED AND EXTENSIONS TO
EXISTING NATURAL GAS PIPING
SYSTEMS AND EXISTING BUILDINGS.
SO ONE MORE TIME TO PONDER AND
EXPLORE WHERE THAT MIGHT MAKE
SINCE.
>> THE LEGISLATION FIRST OF
ALL, JOINED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PACHECO.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
THE LEGISLATION IS CLEAR THAT
NEW CONSTRUCTION, MEANING A NEW
BUILDING BUILT WOULD BE
PROHIBITED FROM USING NATURAL
GAS.
THERE IS A PATH FOR EXEMPTIONS.
MY INTENTION THERE WAS THE ONE
AREA I'M AWARE OF WHERE I
AVEN'T SEEN GREAT ALTERNATIVES
IN THE MOMENT IS COMMERCIAL
RESTAURANTS.
THE VAST MAJORITY ARE STILL
COOKING WITH NATURAL GAS AND
HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO SEE
EVIDENCE OF THE TYPE OF
COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE
ALTERNATIVES FOR THAT.
I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT WE NEED
THOSE ALTERNATIVES TO EXIST AND
TO CONTINUE TO HAVE A PLAN WE
CAN LIVE ON.
THAT WILL NEED TO HAPPEN.
IT IS NOT A PERMANENT
EXEMPTION.
TO THE EXTENT THAT THE MARKET
HAS NOT FOUND A SOLUTION YET,
WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE
CAN ACCELERATE THAT AND WORK
WITH RESTAURANT OWNERS.
THE MAJORITY OF OTHER SOURCES,
WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE
ALTERNATIVES THAT EXIST.
WHEN WE SWITCH TO SIGNIFICANT
REMODELS AND THOSE TYPES OF
THINGS, THE BILL AS PROPOSED
DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY CHANGE
THAT BUT IT ASKS THE DEPARTMENT
TO LOOK INTO THAT.
ONE OF THE AREAS WE TYPICALLY
GET INTO ON ANY REGULATION WE
DO IS AROUND SUBSTANTIAL
REMODELS.
WINDOW SOMETHING STOP BEING A
REMODEL?
SO THERE ARE SOME FOLKS THAT WE
HAVE A SERIES OF RULES AND
OTHER REGULATIONS AS TO WHAT IS
WHAT.
WE ARE ASKING TO LOOK AT THOSE
QUESTIONS.
AND ALSO RECOGNIZING THAT THIS
IS THE FIRST STEP.
WE WILL NEED TO TRANSITION OFF
NATURAL GAS AND EXISTING
BUILDINGS.
THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS PROPOSES
TO DO.
BUT TO HAVE THE DEPARTMENT BE
THINKING ABOUT WHAT THAT
TRANSITION LOOKS LIKE IS
ENVISIONED THERE.
>> I WOULD ADD THAT WE HAVE
RECEIVED FEEDBACK FROM THE
SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
INSPECTIONS THAT WE MAY WANT TO
CONSIDER IN ADDITION TO THE
COMMERCIAL KITCHEN EXAMPLE
WHERE THERE ARE EMERGENCY
GENERATORS THAT USE NATURAL GAS
AND SOME OF THEM ARE REQUIRED
BY CODE AND OTHERS ARE NOT.
FOR REASONS OF, ONE OF THE
EXAMPLES WAS A LABORATORY THEY
WOULD HAVE AN EMERGENCY BACKUP
GENERATOR SO THEY CAN KEEP THE
RESEARCH INTACT AND WELL, IN
THE EVENT OF A LOSS OF POWER.
SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THEY
MAY WANT TO CONSIDER.
>> WE APPRECIATE YOU
HIGHLIGHTING THAT.
>> SHALL I MOVE ON TO THE
IMPACT?
>> COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO, LET
ME KNOW.
>> PUBLIC HEALTH, SEATTLE AND
KING COUNTY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
ADMINISTERING SEATTLE'S FUEL
GAS CODE INCLUDING THE
INSTALLATION OF NATURAL GAS
PIPING SYSTEMS AND ENFORCEMENT.
THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION COULD
RESULT IN REDUCTIONS TO PUBLIC
HEALTH SEATTLE AND KING COUNTY
STAFF DUE TO DIMINISHED REVENUE
FROM PROJECTS IN SEATTLE WHICH
TOTALED $550,000 IN 2018 AND
THEY EXPECT TO BE ROUGHLY THE
SAME IN 2019.
SERVICE CONNECTIONS TO NATURAL
GAS COMPRISE ABOUT 50% OF THE
SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION UTILITY PERMITS.
ON AVERAGE, BETWEEN 2013 AND
2018, THESE PERMITS ACCOUNTED
FOR 9% OF ALL STREET USE
PERMITS REPRESENTING 2.9
MILLION IN PERMANENT FEE
REVENUES.
I WILL NOTE THAT STREET USE IS
TO COLLECT 44 MILLION IN
REVENUES IN 2019.
OF COURSE THOSE REVENUES
FLUCTUATE WITH THE ECONOMY.
SO THERE IS A LOT OF
CONSTRUCTION HAPPENING ON A LOT
OF PERMITS.
AND IF THERE IS NOT A LOT OF
CONSTRUCTION HAPPENING, THERE
IS NOT A LOT OF PERMITS.
>> TO BE CLEAR, THE NATURAL
GAS ACCOUNTS FOR ABOUT 6% OF
THE PERMIT FEE REVENUE.
>> YES.
>> AND I DON'T HAVE A NUMBER
FOR YET.
WITH THE SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION HAS THAT GAS
PIPING MECHANIC LICENSE FEE.
I HAVE REACHED OUT TO THE TEAM
THERE TO KNOW HOW MANY LICENSES
WE HAVE.
THIS IS PERTINENT TO OTHER
ASPECTS OF THE IMPACT.
ALSO THERE IS THAT FEE THAT WE
COLLECT AS A CITY FOR THOSE
DOING THAT WORK IN THE CITY.
PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
JULY FIRST, 2020, THE CITY WILL
PROBABLY WANT TO CONDUCT AND
MAKE SURE THEY ARE AWARE OF THE
PROHIBITION ON NATURAL GAS
PIPELINE SYSTEMS IN NEW
BUILDINGS AND ALSO STAFF AT THE
SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS WILL
NEED TO BE TRAINED TO ENSURE
THAT ALL PERMIT APPLICANTS
UNDERSTAND THE REGULAR ASIAN
STICK TO THE END, IF THIS
PROPOSAL IS ADOPTED, THE
COUNCIL MAY WANT TO CONSIDER
APPROPRIATING ADDITIONAL
RESOURCES FOR OUTREACH AND
TRAINING.
DURING THE BUDGET
DELIBERATIONS.
THE LEGISLATION ALSO GIVES THE
SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION.
DEPENDING ON THE FREQUENCY OF
REPORTED VIOLATIONS OF THE
DEPARTMENT, MAY NEED TO HAVE
ADDITIONAL STAFF WHICH WOULD BE
FUNDED THROUGH THE GENERAL
FUNDS TO SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT.
JUST NOTING THAT EXECUTIVE
COMMITMEN TO HAVING KIND OF A
SHARED COMMITMENT WITH THE
MAYOR AND CITY DEPARTMENTS ON
THIS LEGISLATION WILL ALLOW FOR
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION. AS
THE SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
UPDATING TECHNICA CODES AND
ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH THE
INTENT OF THIS LEGISLATION AND
HAS SIGNALED THAT THE TIMING IS
APPROPRIATE WITH THE
LEGISLATION AND WHERE THEY ARE
RIGHT NOW IN TERMS OF UPDATING
THE BUILDING CODE FOR NEXT
YEAR.
AND THEY EXPECT TO SUBMIT THESE
AMENDMENTS TO COUNSEL BY THE
END OF THE 2nd QUARTER,
BEGINNING OF THE 3rd QUARTER OF
2020.
AND AS DISCUSSED BEFORE, THE
REQUEST TO THE LEGISLATION FOR
THE SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION TO
EXPLORE OTHER INSULATION
EXPECTIONS OF NATURAL GAS
PIPING SYSTEMS.
IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT COST,
WE HAVE HEARD FROM LOCAL
DEVELOPERS SAYING THAT THEY
HAVE NOT NOTED ANY DIFFERENCE
IN THE DEVOUT MEN BETWEEN
ELECTRIC HOMES AND THOSE THAT
USE NATURAL GAS.
VARIOUS STUDIES, MOSTLY COMING
OUT OF CALIFORNIA.
THERE ARE OTHERS THAT DID COST
COMPARISONS AND FOUND THAT
THERE ARE COST SAVINGS
ASSOCIATED WITH ALL ELECTRIC
VERSUS NATURAL GAS SYSTEMS.
SAVINGS FROM NOT HAVING
INSTALLED DUCTWORK, TRENCHING,
SPACE EFFICIENCY AND THINGS
LIKE THAT HAVE BEEN NOTED.
AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE LIST ON
THE MEMO, IT APPEARS TO BE
MOSTLY RESIDENTIAL AND NOT SO
MUCH COMMERCIAL. SO THERE IS
PROBABLY SOME DIFFERENTIAL IN
TERMS OF THE IMPACT OF
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT VERSUS
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
THAT NEEDS TO BE EXPLORED
FURTHER TO FULLY UNDERSTAND.
AND OBVIOUSLY THE BIG ONE.
EMPLOYMENT.
WHILE THE LEGISLATION WOULD
INCREASE IN CLAIMANT
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ELECTRICIANS
AND RELATED TRADES, IT IS
LIKELY TO ADVERSELY IMPACT
THOSE WHO SUPPLY NATURAL GAS
AND INSTALL NATURAL GAS PIPING
SYSTEMS THE CITY AND ITS
PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS MAY WANT
TO CONSIDER PROVIDING
DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT FOR THOSE
WHO ARE LIKELY TO ASK DURING
THE LOSS OF INCOME AS A RESULT
OF THIS LEGISLATION.
IN TERMS OF ELECTRICITY
GENERATION CAPACITY, FROM WHAT
I UNDERSTAND, CITY LIGHT HAS
EXCESS ELECTRICITY.
IT IS POSSIBLE THAT IN THE
SHORT TERM, IT COULD
ACCOMMODATE AN INCREASE IN
DEMAND ALTHOUGH THE LONG-TERM
CAPACITY CAN REQUIRE FURTHER
ANALYSIS AND I HAVE REACHED OUT
TO CITY LIGHT TO SEE IF I CAN
GET MORE INFORMATION ON THEIR
LOAD FORECASTING TO HELP INFORM
THIS.
AND FINALLY, THE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS, I HAVE BEEN WORKING
WITH THE OFFICE OF THIS IS HIS
SUSTAINABILITY AND ARE MEANT ON
ANALYZING HOW THIS LEGISLATION
WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO REDUCING
SEATTLE'S FUTURE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS AND ARE HOPING TO BE
ABLE TO PRESENT THESE TO YOU AT
THE NEXT COMMITTEE MEETING.
>> YOLANDA, THANK YOU FOR ALL
OF YOUR WORK ON THIS.
MAYBE YOU HAVE A MASTERS DEGREE
IN NATURAL GAS BUT I IMAGINE
YOU HAVE LEARNED A LOT IN THE
LAST MONTH OR SO AND I
APPRECIATE YOU DIVING INTO
THIS.
AND IT IS REALLY QUITE HELPFUL
FOR ME AND HOPEFULLY ALL OF US
TO HAVE THIS ANALYSIS.
GERMAN PACHECO, DO YOU HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AT THIS
POINT?
>> LUCKILY YOLANDA AND I HAD
AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THIS
DEFLATION YESTERDAY AND MY
OFFICE BRIEFLY.
I WILL LIKELY BE OFFERING --
I THINK THAT CONSENSUS IS WE
NEED TO GO IN THIS GENERAL
DIRECTION.
I DEFINITELY AM WANTING TO SEE
THIS, IN TERMS OF THINKING
ABOUT THE TRADE-OFFS AND THE
COST.
THINKING ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS
FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO LOSE 6%
OF THE REVENUE.
HOW DO WE TRANSITION?
I'M TRYING TO BETTER UNDERSTAND
THE PHYSICAL SIDE OF WHAT IT
MEANS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS AND
ALSO THINKING ABOUT JUST FOR US
AS A CITY AND HOW WE GET THERE.
AND A FEW MORE STAKEHOLDER
MEETINGS BEFORE I HAVE MORE OF
THAT TO OFFER.
>> WE WILL BE BACK IN
COMMITTEE A WEEK FROM TODAY.
DISCUSSING THIS FURTHER.
IT SOUNDS LIKE WE WILL HAVE A
LITTLE MORE INFORMATION.
I MENTIONED EARLIER MY
COMMITMENT TO PUTTING US ON
THIS NEW TRAJECTORY FOR
ACHIEVING OUR CLIMATE
OBJECTIVES.
I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THESE
CLIMATE OBJECTIVES ARE NOT
SOMETHING MADE UP.
THESE ARE DRIVEN BY THE REALITY
WE FACE FROM SCIENCE.
I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IN
PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY, LAST WEEK
ANOTHER COMMENTS RECEIVED IN
MEETINGS I HAVE HAD WITH
STAKEHOLDERS, I CONTINUE TO
HEAR A SET OF CONCERNS.
I WILL TRY TO HIGHLIGHT SOME OF
THEM.
WE HEAR FROM WORKERS IN THE
FIELD AS YOUR MEMO HIGHLIGHTS.
FOLKS THAT WILL LIKELY GAIN
EMPLOYMENT AND FOLKS THAT WILL
LOSE EMPLOYMENT.
WE ARE HEARING SPECIFICALLY
FROM FOLKS THAT ARE CONCERNED
ABOUT LOSING JOB OPPORTUNITIES
AS THIS MOVES FORWARD.
AND THAT IS CRITICALLY
IMPORTANT FOR US TO UNDERSTAND.
IT IS EMBEDDED IN THE
PRINCIPLES OF THE SEATTLE GREEN
NEW DEAL WITH WHAT THE
TRANSITION LOOKS LIKE AND HOW
WE DO IT IN A WAY THAT IS FAIR
AND JUST AND NOT ON THE BACK OF
WORKERS.
AND WE NEED TO DO MORE WORK
WITH WORKERS AND LABOR UNIONS
TO REPRESENT THE WORKERS TO
UNDERSTAND THAT AND HELP FIGURE
OUT HOW TO MAP OUT WHAT A
TRANSITION LOOKS LIKE.
WE HAVE HEARD FROM FOLKS THAT
CURRENTLY USE NATURAL GAS.
I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THIS
LEGISLATION DOES NOT TAKE AWAY
PEOPLE THAT ARE CURRENTLY USING
NATURAL GAS.
BUT, WHEN IT MAKES UP OVER 70%
OF OUR CLIMATE POLLUTION AND
EMISSIONS FROM BUILDINGS NOT
INCLUDING THE METHANE LAKES
HAPPENING ELSEWHERE, WE CLEARLY
WILL HAVE TO ADDRESS THE
EXISTING USE OF NATURAL GAS.
THAT IS A PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED.
HOPEFULLY IN THE NEAR FUTURE
BUT NOT WITH THIS LEGISLATION.
WE HEAR FROM FOLKS THAT ARE IN
THE NATURAL GAS BUSINESS.
OBVIOUSLY, THIS WOULD CERTAINLY
AFFECT THEIR BUSINESS.
WE HEARD FROM THE
REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE MASTER
BUILDERS CONCERNED ABOUT THE
FLEXIBILITY.
AT LEAST ONE BUILDER WITHIN THE
MASTER BUILDERS WHO HAS BEEN
SUPPORTIVE OF THIS BECAUSE THEY
HAVE BEEN BUILDING ALL ELECTRIC
HOMES AND HAVE BEEN A DATA
SOURCE FOR THE COST ON THAT.
AND THE CONVERSATIONS WITH
FOLKS LIKE THAT WILL BE
IMPORTANT.
WE HEARD FROM BUSINESS AND
BALLARD TODAY.
THEY I IMAGINE, I IMAGINE THEY
ARE GAS APPLIANCES WHETHER IT
IS IN THE HOUSE OR BACKYARD.
IT IS HARD FOR ME TO IMAGINE, I
CANNOT IMAGINE THE SCIENCE WILL
START TO DECELERATE.
I THINK IT WILL CONTINUE TO
ACCELERATE.
WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT
LOOKS LIKE.
I THINK IT IS FAIR TO HAVE
CONVERSATIONS WITH FOLKS LIKE
THAT TO UNDERSTAND THE
TRANSITION FOR A BUSINESS THAT
LARGELY SELLS GAS APPLIANCES
AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE IN A
WORLD WHERE THE REALITY IS THAT
WE CAN NO LONGER USE THE
PRODUCT.
AND THAT THEIR BUSINESSES
SUPPORT.
THERE IS A LOT OF WORK TO BE
DONE HERE.
AND I THINK HEARING FROM A LOT
OF FOLKS HIGHLIGHTS THE NEED
FOR THOSE CONVERSATIONS TO
HAPPEN.
IT DOESN'T CHANGE -- ALL THE
TALKING WE DO WON'T CHANGE THE
SCIENTIFIC REALITY WE ARE
FACING, THAT THESE FOSSIL FUELS
ARE DEVASTATING FOR THE PLANET.
AND I WISH THAT WE HAD STARTED
HAVING MORE ROBUST
CONVERSATIONS A FEW DECADES AGO
WHEN WE KNEW SOME OF THE
REALITY OF CLIMATE CHANGE
BECAUSETHAT WOULD HAVE GIVEN
US MORE TIME FOR A TRANSITION
AND A BETTER GLIDE PATH.
I ALSO WISH THAT THE SIGNS WERE
SUCH THAT WE HAD UNTIL 2050 BUT
IT IS UNTIL 2030.
SO THAT REALITY ALSO SHORTENS
THAT GLIDE PATH.
AND IF WE HAVE 10 YEARS TO
FIGURE A TRANSITION, THAT IS
BETTER THAN NINE YEARS OR EIGHT
YEARS.
THE SOONER WE WORK ON THIS AND
GET THIS GOING, IT WILL BE
DISRUPTIVE BUT IT WILL BE LESS
DISRUPTIVE IF WE HAVE A LITTLE
MORE TIME.
THAT IS THE URGENCY I'M WORKING
WITH.
AND MY COMMITMENT TO WORK WITH
SOME OF THE FOLKS WE HEARD WITH
TODAY.
>> NOTHING ELSE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK,
YOLANDA AND WE WILL SEE YOU
AGAIN IN A WEEK.
>> KELLY, WILL YOU READ
AGENDA ITEM TWO.
>> I WOULD LOVE TO READ THE
SHORT VERSION.
COUNSEL BILL 119607.
AND ORDINANCE RELATING TO
HEATING OIL.
>> INVITING PRESENTERS
FORWARD.
>> HELLO EVERYONE.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
WE WILL START WITH A NEW ROUND
OF INTRODUCTIONS.
YOLANDA, YOU ARE BACK.
WILL YOU START BY INTRODUCING
YOURSELF.
>> LONDA COUNSEL CENTRAL
STAFF.
>> CHRISTINE BUNCHE, OFFICE
OF SUSTAINABILITY AND
ENVIRONMENT.
>> JUST OFFEND THE DIRECTOR
OF OFFICE OF SIX INABILITY
ENVIRONMENT.
>> JENNIFER BRECHT WITH THE
SEATTLE OFFICE OF HOUSING.
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE
TODAY.
AS I MENTIONED IN MY OPENING
COMMENTS, MY ORIGINAL INTENT
WAS TO VOTE ON THIS LEGISLATION
TODAY.
BASED ON SOME OF THE
SUGGESTIONS WE HEARD FROM
COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND I THINK
THERE IS ENOUGH FLOATING AROUND
THAT I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE
ANOTHER WEEK TO CONSIDER SOME
OF THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN
RAISED.
MY COMMITMENT ON NATURAL GAS,
THESE FOSSIL FUELS ARE NOT
CONSISTENT WITH OUR CLIMATE
GOALS.
IT USED TO BE LONG-TERM BUT NOW
I WILL SAY IT IS MEDIUM-TERM.
I DO THINK TAKING ANOTHER SEVEN
DAYS TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS MAY
HELP US MAKE THIS LEGISLATION
STRONGER AND MORE FAIR.
WHY DON'T WE JUMP IN. YOLANDA,
DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOME
OPENING COMMENTS ABOUT THIS?
>> I HAVE MY MEMO.
AS A REMINDER, WE HAVE THE
BRIEFING, IT WAS A MONTH AGO.
I WILL REFRESH FOR THE RECORD,
FOR THE PUBLIC, THE INTENT, THE
BACKGROUND IN THE LEGISLATION
ITSLF AND WE CAN START
DISCUSSING POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS
AND ANY DETAILS AND ANY
QUESTIONS WE MAY HAVE FOR THE
OTHER FOLKS AT THE TABLE.
SO SEATTLE HAS APPROXIMATELY 15-
18,000 HOMES HEATED BY OIL
CURRENTLY AND THE MAJORITY OF
THESE HEATING SYSTEMS WHICH
INVOLVE UNDERGROUND STEEL OIL
TANKS WERE INSTALLED BETWEEN
THE 1920s AND THE 1950s.
OVER TIME, THE TANKS HAVE
DETERIORATED.
AS A RESULT OF EXPOSURE TO
WATER AND THE STEEL WAS NOT
MEANT TO WITHSTAND.
AND A RESULT AND OIL LEAKS THAT
DAMAGE SOIL, PROPERTY AND
POENTIALLY CONTAMINATE
GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER.
THE LONGER THE TANKS STAY IN
THE GROUND, THE MORE LIKELY A
LEAK WILL OCCUR AS THE STEEL
CONTINUES TO DEGRADE.
CLEANING UP OIL TANKS IS
COSTLY.
OVER 4100 CLAIMS HAVE BEEN MADE
TO THE WASHINGTON STATE
INSURANCE PROGRAM SINCE 1996,
TOTALING MORE THAN $42 MILLION.
IN ADDITION TO POTENTIALLY
CONTRIBUTING TO SOIL AND WATER
POLLUTION, RESIDENTIAL OIL
HEATING SYSTEMS PRODUCE
GREENHOUSE GASES WHICH WE JUST
DISCUSSED IN THE PREVIOUS
AGENDA ITEM.
AND THE CITY'S CLIMATE ACTION
PLAN HAS A TARGET TO REDUCE
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM
RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS BY 32% BY
2020.
PHASING OUT OIL HEAT BY 2030 IS
ESTIMATED TO REDUCE RESIDENTIAL
BUILDING GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS BY 16-18% WHICH
EQUALS A REDUCTION OF IT 9% OF
TOTAL BUILDING GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS.
THE MAYOR ALSO RELEASED HER
CLIMATE ACTION STRATEGY IN 2018
IDENTIFYING OIL HEATING TO
ELECTRIC HEATING PUMPS AS A
PRIORITY.
IN 2012, FROM A GRANTOR THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, THE
OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY
ENVIRONMENT OFFERING REBATES TO
ENCOURAGE THE CONVERSION FROM
OIL HEAT TO HIGHER EFFICIENCY
SYSTEMS AS PART OF THE CITY'S
CLEAN POWER WORKS.
THE COUNCIL ADDED $200,000 OF
GENERAL FUND AND THE ADOPTED
2014 BUDGET TO PROVIDE ONGOING
SUPORT FOR THE PROGRAM WHICH
CONTINUES UNTIL THE PRESENT
DAY.
THIS AMOUNT FUNDS CONVERGENCE
OF ABOUT 200 HOMES PER YEAR
PROVIDING UP TO $1500 TO ANY
HOUSEHOLD CHOOSING TO CONVERT
FROM OIL HEAT TO A HIGH-
EFFICIENCY ELECTRIC HEAT PUMP
SYSTEM.
JUST SO EVERYONE IS AWARE,
CONVERTING TO AN ELECTRIC HEAT
PUMP SYSTEM TYPICALLY COST
BETWEEN 10-$15,000.
CURRENTLY ABOUT 1300 HOMES ARE
CONVERTING FROM OIL HEAT TO
MORE EFFICIENT SYSTEMS EVERY
YEAR.
>> THAT IS PROBABLY A GOOD
BACKGROUND.
I APPRECIATE THAT.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO NEXT IS
TO GIVE OSE A CHANCE TO ADD
ANYTHING YOU WANT TO THE
LEGISLATION.
ADD ANY COMMENTS YOU WOULD
LIKE.
AND I'M AWARE OF A COUPLE OF
AMENDMENTS THAT ARE BEING
CONSIDERED.
ONE IS ONE I AM LIKELY
BRINGING.
I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS SOME OF
THOSE JUST SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT
THAT.
I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE OSE
COMMENT ON THAT AND WE CAN
DISCUSS THE CONTENT OF THOSE.
THE GOAL IS TO PUT ON THE TABLE
EVERYTHING WE ARE AWARE OF AND
HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT PROS
AND CONS AND TRADE-OFFS IN
THERE.
AND TAKE THE NEXT FEW DAYS TO
USE THAT INFORMATION AND HAVE
MORE CONVERSATIONS AND SEE WHAT
KIND OF REFINEMENTS WE CAN DO.
NOT ACTUALLY VOTE ON AMENDMENTS
TODAY BUT BRING THOSE BACK NEXT
WEEK.
SO OSU, DO YOU WANT TO ADD
ANYTHING TO WHAT YOLANDA SAID
OR ELEVATE ANY POINTS YOU WANT
OR ANY FRAMING WOULD BE GREAT?
>> I JUST WANT TO REITERATE
THE FACT THAT YOLANDA, WHAT
YOLANDA NAMED WAS THAT WE SEE
BETWEEN 13-1400 HOMES EVERY
YEAR.
THEY NATURALLY GET OFF OF OIL.
AT THAT RATE, DOING THE MATH,
WE KNOW THAT BY 2030, THERE
WILL BE NO MORE OIL IN SEATTLE.
AND I THINK THAT WHAT WE ARE
TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THE
INTENT OF THIS LEGISLATION, I
WANT TO SAY THAT WE DON'T WANT
LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS TO BE
LEFT BEHIND IN THIS PROCESS.
SIMILAR TO OTHERS SEATTLE CITY
LIGHT OR PUGET SOUND ENERGY
UTILITIES WHO HAVE LOW INCOME
PROGRAMS, WE ARE CREATING
PARITY WITH THIS TAX SO THAT WE
CAN TRULY ENSURE THAT LOW
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS ARE
SUPPORTED.
>> I THINK THE NUMBERS WERE
12-1400 HOUSES SWITCHED OFF OF
OIL EVERY YEAR.
HAS THAT NUMBER BEEN FAIRLY
CONSISTENT OVER THE LAST
DECADE?
>> YES.
LOOKING AT THE DATA, WE SEE
DIPS.
IT SPIKES THE LAND THAT HEATING
OIL COSTS ARE HIGHER.
SO BACK WHEN I HAD OIL, IT WAS
$4.54 YEARS AGO.
WE SAW A SPIKE THERE.
IT SORT OF GOES WITH THE
MARKET.
IT SHIFTS.
>> SO DO WE HAVE A GREATER
SENSE OF THE SPLIT OF THAT
QUICK SOME PEOPLE WILL BE
RESPONDING TO, THE PRICE IS TOO
HIGH.
I IMAGINE SOME PEOPLE ARE
RESPONDING TO, I DON'T WANT TO
SPEND $1000 ON A REPAIR FOR MY
OIL FURNACE AND IT IS TIME TO
REPLACE IT.
I IMAGINE SOME OF IT IS HOMES
BEING TORN DOWN AND NEW
CONSTRUCTION PROBABLY NOT GOING
WITH OIL HEAT.
>> PROBABLY EVERYTHING.
IT IS HARD TO SAY ONE THING IS
THE MAIN DRIVER.
IT IS EVERYTHING FROM HOMES
BEING TURNED OVER TO A NEW
BUYER.
SOMEONE MAY BE IN THE COMMUNITY
OR THE BLOCK WHO HAS ACCESS TO
GAS.
SO THEY PULL TOGETHER AND SAY,
LET'S GET GAS AND THEY CONVERT.
IT COULD BE AN EMERGENCY
REPLACEMENT.
SO THE OIL FURNACE BREAKS DOWN.
SUDDENLY, I NEED TO FIGURE OUT
WHAT I'M GOING TO DO.
THE OIL TANK COULD LEAK AND
THAT COULD CAUSE A WHOLE SYSTEM
REPLACEMENT COST IS DEFINITELY
A FACTOR.
I WOULD SAY THAT, YEAH.
HONESTLY I TALK TO PEOPLE EVERY
DAY.
WE HAVE THE OIL REBATE PROGRAM
WITH THE ELECTRIC HEAT PUMPS.
FOLKS JUST WANT TO GET OFF OF
OIL.
THEY CANNOT WAIT TO GET OFF OF
OIL.
THEY ARE ASKING ABOUT GAS.
AND WE DO A SURVEY TO ASK WHAT
SOME OF THE BARRIERS WERE.
ONE OF THE BIGGEST BARRIERS IS
THERE IS NO ACCESS TO GAS ON
THEIR STREET.
AND SO ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
ARE A BIG FACTOR AND OF COURSE
PRICE.
SO JUST TO ANSWER YOUR
QUESTION, MANY FACTORS CAN
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CHANGE OUT.
AND SO I THINK WE WANT TO BE
COGNIZANT OF HOW WE ARE USING
THE REVENUE TO TRULY SUPPORT
PEOPLE, TO MAKE THAT TRANSITION
TO ELECTRIC HEAT PUMP THE MOST
ENERGY EFFICIENT SYSTEM THAT
WILL SAVE THEM MONEY BUT ALSO
GIVE THEM AIR-CONDITIONING AS
WE ARE SEEING A HIGHER
FREQUENCY OF COOLING DAYS THAT
WE NEED IN THE SUMMER.
AND ALSO SYSTEMS THAT SUPPORT
BETTER HEALTH.
ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT WE
THINK ABOUT, THEY ARE NOT
NECESSARILY MONETIZED.
BUT HOW DO WE THINK ABOUT
MONETIZING THEM?
AND OFTEN TIMES WE COMPARE THE
PRICE OF SUCH AND SUCH GAS TO
WHATEVER OTHER FUEL AND WE HAVE
TO CONSIDER ALL OF THE OTHER
NONENERGY BENEFITS THAT COME
WITH THAT.
>> JESSICA, ANYTHING ELSE TO
ADD?
>> I THINK CHRISTINE SAID IT
WELL.
OF THE GREAT SUMMARY.
I WILL JUST REITERATE HOW WE
ARE LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING
WITH STAKEHOLDERS AND LOOKING
FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
COUNCILMEMBERS TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE AND TO
LOOK AT ANY AMENDMENTS THAT YOU
MIGHT WANT TO SEE.
>> I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS.
AND WE HAVE NOT REALLY PREPPED
FOR THESE.
IF YOU DO NOT HAVE THE ANSWER,
FEEL FREE TO TELL ME AND WE
WILL FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GET
IT.
AND PUBLIC COMMENT, SUMMIT HE
MENTIONED ABANDONED TANKS.
I DON'T KNOW THE STATE LAWS
AROUND TANKS BUT I IMAGINE
THERE ARE TANKS IN THE GROUND
THAT YEARS AGO SOMEONE
CONVERTED AND MAYBE THE OLD
TANK WAS NOT PROPERLY DEALT
WITH.
HOW WOULD THIS LEGISLATION
AFFECT ABANDONED TANKS?
THE LEGISLATION IS CRAFTED
AROUND THE TANKS LARGELY,
RIGHT?
>> THERE ARE TWO THINGS.
THERE IS THE POLLUTION
LIABILITY INSURANCE AGENCY THAT
COVERS THE EVENT OF A LEAKING
TANK.
IT DOES NOT APPLY TO ABANDONED
TANKS.
SO THAT IS ONE THING.
IN TERMS OF OUR LOCAL POLICY
WITH THE SEATTLE FIRE MARSHAL,
THEY OVERSEE THE
DECOMMISSIONING OF TANKS WHICH
MEANS YOU HAVE TO EITHER FILL
THE TANK WITH FOAM AND TAKE OUT
THE OIL OR YOU CAN REMOVE IT.
IF IT IS ABANDONED, THERE IS
REALLY NO WAY OF THE SEATTLE
FIRE MARSHAL KNOWING IF IT IS
ABANDONED.
>> YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE
FIRE MARSHAL AND GET A PERMIT
TO DECOMMISSION THE TANK SO IT
IS DOWN THE RIGHT WAY.
ABANDONING WOULD BE, THERE
COULD BE OIL STILL IN THE TANK.
>> I BELIEVE THERE IS NOTHING
IN THIS ORDINANCE THAT
ADDRESSES OR WOULD IMPACT
ABANDONED TANKS.
>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE PART
OF THE DISCUSSION WITH THE
SEATTLE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND
OTHERS.
THE ABANDONED TANKS, I WOULD
ASSUME THEY WOULD JUST BE
EXEMPT FROM DECOMMISSIONING.
BECAUSE WE DON'T REALLY WANT TO
GO BACK TO THE OLD ABANDONED
TANKS FOR SOMEONE TO DO
SOMETHING WITH IT AND THEN
SUDDENLY THERE COULD BE A LEAK.
AND PLIA WOULD NOT ACTUALLY
COVER.
WE ARE AWARE THAT THERE
PROBABLY ARE SOME ABANDONED
TANKS OUT THERE.
>> I IMAGINE WHEN SOME
ABANDONS A TANK, THAT MEANS
THEY ARE NOT GOING THROUGH THE
DECOMMISSIONING PROCESS.
THEY ARE NOT CALLING UP ANY
AGENCY AND SAY, FOR YOUR
RECORD, THERE IS AN ABANDONED
TANK ON MY PROPERTY.
SO I ASSUME WE DON'T HAVE GREAT
DATA ON THE QUANTITY OF THOSE
OUT THERE.
IF THERE IS A TANK HALF FULL OF
OIL AND IT HAS BEEN SITTING
THERE FOR 40 YEARS OR WHATEVER
OR 10 YEARS AND IT HAS A LEAK
OR A SLOW LEAK, WE CARE ABOUT
THAT IMPACT AND WE WANT TO GET
THAT JUST LIKE WE DO WITH THE
OPERATIONAL TANKS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE ANY
DIFFERENT.
>> AND IT IS NOT BEING
REFILLED.
SO AT SOME POINT, THAT WHEEL
WILL DISSIPATE.
THE ONE CONCERN ABOUT
ABANDONING TANKS AND NOT
DECOMMISSIONING THEM
APPROPRIATELY IS THAT AS THE
STEEL CORRODES, AS SOMEONE
WALKS OVER THE TANK, IT
COLLAPSES.
>> BELIEVE, AND CORRECT ME IF
I'M WRONG.
THE LEGISLATION CALLS ON OSE
AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO
CRAFT AND OF LIMITATION PLAN
FOR HOW WE WILL HANDLE ALL OF
THESE TANKS.
WE WILL CERTAINLY ENGAGE A
RANGE OF STAKEHOLDERS AND THAT
IMPLEMENTING SHOULD PLAN TO
LOOK AT HOW WE ADDRESS THINGS
LIKE ABANDONED TANKS AS WELL
BUT I DON'T WANT TO LOSE THE
POINT THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF
TANKS THAT ARE NOT ABANDONED
AND WE KNOW WHERE THEY ARE AND
WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE
A PLAN FOR ADDRESSING THEM.
>> LET'S PIVOT TO THAT.
PLIA IS AN ACRONYM THAT HAS
BEEN THROWN AROUND.
SOMEONE JUST SAID THE ACTUAL
NAME OF IT.
>> IT IS THE POLLUTION
LIABILITY AND GEORGIANS AGENCY
-- POLLUTION LIABILITY
INSURANCE AGENCY.
A STATE AGENCY.
IT WAS CREATED IN 1996-1997 TO
PROVIDE INSURANCE IN THE EVENT
OF A LEAK.
THAT IS BECAUSE INDEPENDENT
PRIVATE INSURANCE AGENCIES WERE
NOT AGREEING TO DO THAT.
SO HOMEOWNERS HAD NO WAY OF
ENSURING FOR LEAKS.
SO THE STATE LEGISLATURE PASSED
LEGISLATION TO ENSURE
INSURANCE.
AND I THINK YOLANDA MENTIONED
$42 MILLION IN CLAIMS SINCE 1996
THROUGH THE PRESENT WHICH IS
QUITE A BIT OF MONEY WHEN YOU
THINK ABOUT THE TOTAL IMPACT.
PLIA, THERE ARE A LOT OF RULES
FOR PLIA.
NUMBER ONE, IT IS A VOLUNTARY
PROGRAM.
SO YOU HAVE TO BE REGISTERED IN
ORDER TO GET THE BENEFITS.
>> YOU REGISTER OR DO YOU PAY
PREMIUMS?
>> IT IS FREE.
SO YOU CAN SIMPLY GO ONLINE.
>> IT IS NOT LIKE A TYPICAL
INSURANCE WHERE THEY COLLECT
MONEY FROM A BUNCH OF PEOPLE
AND PAY OUT.
IS A SUBSIDY PROGRAM BUT YOU
HAVE TO BE SIGNED UP TO GET IT.
>> THAT IS RIGHT.
IT IS FREE TO SIGN UP.
>> AND IT DOES NOT PAY FOR
DECOMMISSIONING.
IT JUST PAYS THE ADDITIONAL
COST IF THERE IS A LEAK FOR
DECONTAMINATION OR SOMETHING.
>> WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
THE AMOUNT OF CLAIMS THAT PLIA
HAS PAID TO SEATTLE, I THINK IT
IS A GOOD SIGNIFIER OF THE
AMOUNT OF LEAKS THAT WE SAW IN
SEATTLE.
>> SO I GUESS THERE MIGHT BE
A FEW EXCEPTIONS TO THIS.
IN GENERAL, THE ACTIVE
DECOMMISSIONING A TANK WILL
PROBABLY NOT CREATE A LEAK.
THE TANK IS EITHER LEAKING OR
NOT.
EITHER WE KNOW ABOUT IT OR WE
DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT.
TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE
TANKS.
SO IF WE CHOOSE TO SLOW THIS
DOWN BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE
ENOUGH INSURANCE MONEY, IT
MEANS WE ARE ALLOWING THE TANKS
TO KEEP LEAKING.
AND IF IT TURNS OUT THEY ARE
LEAKING, THE FACT THAT THERE
WAS INSURANCE TO CLEAN UP, IT
WOULDN'T MATTER BECAUSE IT
WOULD HAVE BEEN COMMISSIONED AT
THE REGULAR COST.
>> WE LOOKED AT THE DATA.
THE DATA THAT PLIA PROVIDED.
WE LOOKED AT THE SEATTLE FIRE
MARSHAL DATA AND WE SEE THIS
TREND AS A FUNCTION OF TIME.
THESE THINGS CONTINUE TO
CORRODE.
AND THE SOIL STAYS MOIST.
AND WHEN WATER GETS INTO THOSE
TANKS IT CONTINUES TO
EXACERBATE IT.
AND I HAVE HEARD, TODAY AND
OTHER TIMES, FOLKS REPRESENTING
PLIA THINKS THIS OR SAID THAT.
AND I WON'T ADD TO THAT.
BUT I BELIEVE PLIA WROTE A
LETTER PROVIDING OFFICIAL
COMMENT ON THIS ORDINANCE TO
COUNSEL SIGNIFYING THE REAL
WILLINGNESS TO WORK ON THIS AND
HAS BEEN A PARTNER WITH US IN
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO
MAKE WHAT THEY OFFER AVAILABLE
TO SEATTLE RESIDENTS AND ENSURE
THAT IT WILL WORK FOR RESIDENTS
WITH THIS ORDINANCE.
>> WE SHOULD PROBABLY POST
THAT WITH THE AGENDA FOR NEXT
WEEK.
>> IN TERMS OF
DECOMMISSIONING, THE SEATTLE
FIRE DOES NOT DO ANY SOIL
TESTING.
I THINK THAT IS AN IMPORTANT
POINT.
>> THAT IS RIGHT.
THEY DON'T REQUIRE IT.
>> THEY CERTIFY THAT THE TANK
WAS PHYSICALLY REMOVED.
>> REMOVED OR DECOMMISSIONED
AND PLACE.
>> THE FIRE MARSHAL DOES NOT
WANT TO GET INVOLVED WITH
REQUIRING SOIL.
THAT IS REALLY UP TO THE
HOMEOWNER.
AND THE HOMEOWNER WOULD KNOW IF
THEY ARE REGISTERED WITH PLIA
ARE NOT.
SO THEY WOULD HIRE A
DECOMMISSIONING FIRM.
AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THOSE
IN SEATTLE.
AND THEY WOULD DO THAT TESTING
AND ARE CERTIFIED TO DO THAT
TESTING.
>> DO WE KNOW HOW MANY
SEATTLE RESIDENTS ARE
REGISTERED WITH PLIA RIGHT NOW?
>> WE THINK THERE ARE ABOUT
-- PLIA PROVIDED THE DATA.
I THINK IT IS 24,000 ARE
REGISTERED.
THAT IS HIGHER THAN WHAT WE
ANTICIPATE.
THE REASON IS BECAUSE THEY ARE
NOT DOING ANY DATA CLEANSING.
I CHANGE FROM OIL TO ELECTRIC.
>> AND IT IS NOT COSTING YOU
ANYTHING.
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE IT IS A
PRETTY ROBUST PROGRAM.
I IMAGINE THE OIL SUPPLIERS IN
TOWN CERTAINLY COULD ENCOURAGE
THE CUSTOMERS.
>> I THINK MY UNDERSTANDING
FROM SPEAKING WITH OIL DEALERS
IS THAT THEY ARE ENCOURAGING.
SOME ARE EVEN REQUIRING THAT
THE HOMEOWNER HAS PLIA BEFORE
THEY FILL THE TANK.
AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS A STATE
LAW PASSED A FEW SESSIONS AGO
THAT REQUIRES THE DISCLOSURE ON
THE NEW REAL ESTATE
TRANSACTION.
THE DISCLOSURE FORM.
IT SAYS IF THERE IS AN OIL TANK
ON THE PROPERTY, THAT THE
HOMEOWNER HAS ACCESS TO PLIA.
>> IT IS LIKE ANOTHER
OPPORTUNITY TO PROMOTE PLIA.
>> I'M GOING TO PIVOT AWAY
UNLESS THERE ARE QUESTIONS ON
THAT.
>> REALLY QUICKLY, A BRIEF
CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS.
CAN YOU TALK ABOUT BIODIESEL
FUELS AND WHAT THEY WOULD DO?
>> SURE.
>> LET'S PIVOT THE
CONVERSATION TO BIOFUEL.
>> I WILL SPEAK TO WHAT I
HAVE LEARNED.
IN TERMS OF BIOFUEL, IT IS
ANOTHER WAY OF HEATING ONE'S
HOME THAT ARE NOT AS EMISSIONS
HEAVY.
ONE OF THE PROPERTIES OF
BIOFUEL IS THAT THEY ACT AS A
SOLVENT.
AS THESE TANKS HAVE BEEN IN THE
GROUND FOR DECADES USING
PETROLEUM-BASED OIL, THERE IS
THE TECHNICAL TERM THAT WOULD
BE DEPOSITS I BELIEVE.
OR JUST GUNK THAT BUILDS UP ON
THE INSIDES OF THE TANK.
AND MAY RESULT IN TAKING THE
INSIDE OR PLUGGING TINY HOLES
THAT HAVE OCCURRED IN THE TANK
AS A RESULT OF CORROSION.
BUT BY INTRODUCING SOMETHING
LIKE A BIOFUEL INTO A TANK THAT
MAY HAVE HOLES THAT ARE PLUGGED
BY DEPOSITS, ONE MIGHT
INADVERTENTLY RESULT IN LEAKS
FROM THE TANK BECAUSE THEY ARE
BREAKING DOWN AND DISSOLVING
THOSE DEPOSITS THAT HAVE
ACCRUED OVER TIME.
THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF
POSSIBLY A GOOD IDEA MIGHT BE
THAT A TANK THAT WAS NOT IN
GOOD CONDITION IS NOW LEAKING
OR THERE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN
LEAKS THERE BEFORE.
THAT IS ONE CHALLENGE.
FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND,
BIOFUELS ARE ALSO MORE
EXPENSIVE AS OPPOSED TO THE
REGULAR HEATING OIL.
>> MAYBE WE CAN TALK ABOUT
WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE SCIENCE
OF BIOFUELS AS A SOLVENT.
I HAVE HEARD DIFFERENT ANGLES
ON THAT AND WHAT WE ARE SEEING
HERE.
WE CAN TOUCH ON THE COST OF
BIOFUELS TO THE EXTENT YOU HAVE
INFORMATION ON THAT WOULD BE
HELPFUL.
I'M INTERESTED IN THE CARBON
IMPACT OF BIOFUELS AND WHAT WE
KNOW ABOUT THE SCIENCE THERE.
>> SURE.
JUST DOING SOME OF THE RESEARCH
ON OUR END, WHAT YOLANDA
MENTIONED IS ACCURATE.
IN FACT, THERE IS A FEDERAL
REGULATION AS IT RELATES TO
STORAGE OF BIOFUELS.
NOT HOME HEATING SIZED TANKS
BUT THE LARGER UNDERGROUND
STORAGE TANKS.
THE REQUIREMENT BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS THAT THOSE TANKS
HAVE TO BE COMPATIBLE IF THEY
ARE STORING BIOFUELS.
SO THE FEDS DEFINITELY
RECOGNIZED WITH THE FEDERAL
ORDER, THAT THERE IS A SOLVENCY
ISSUE AND ANY OLD TANK WON'T
DO.
ESPECIALLY STEEL.
IT NEEDS TO BE SOME CONTAINMENT
OR PLEXIGLASS OR OTHER PLASTICS
OR WHATNOT TO ENSURE THAT THERE
ISN'T A LEAK ON A BIG SCALE.
ON SO KNOWING THAT, TO ME SORT
OF IT IS LIKE, WHAT IS THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A LARGE
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
HOLDING BIOFUELS VERSUS A
SMALLER 1000-GALLON TANK THAT
YOU WOULD FIND ON RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTY.
SO THAT WAS SORT OF AN
INDICATOR TO ME AND MY RESEARCH
THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS
RECOGNIZED THAT THERE IS AN
ISSUE.
THERE HAS ALSO BEEN A NUMBER OF
STUDIES IN THE BIOFUEL INDUSTRY
ON BIOFUELS AND THEY HAVE A
CONSENSUS THAT THERE IS HIGHER
CORROSION LEVELS AS WELL AS
BIODEGRADABILITY, IF YOU WILL,
OF THE MATERIAL, ESPECIALLY AS
IT REACTS TO BACTERIA AND OTHER
MICROBES THAT CAN COME INTO
PLAY AND WATER.
WATER IS A BIG FACTOR.
I DON'T PRETEND TO BE AN EXPERT
ON THIS BUT I HAVE DONE A
REVIEW, A LITERATURE REVIEW AND
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT IS
SOMETHING THAT WE PROBABLY
CAN'T IGNORE.
SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS I HAVE
READ ALSO IS THAT THE FUEL, OR
THE FILTER OF THE OIL SYSTEM,
WHEN YOU PUT THIS DETERGENT
LEVEL BIOFUEL INTO THE NEW
FURNACE OR THE OLD FURNACE
ACTUALLY, THIS LEGEND GETS
CLEANED OUT AND THE FILTERS GET
IMPACTED.
AND POTENTIALLY, THE EFFICIENCY
OF THE SYSTEM IS IMPACTED OR
MAY NOT WORK AT ALL.
AND SO THE BIOFUEL INDUSTRY,
FROM WHAT I HAVE READ, THEY ARE
RECOMMENDING A STEP PROCESS FOR
THE HOMEOWNER TO TAKE.
A BLEND OF 5% BIOFUEL AND 95%
DIESEL.
AND THEN GO UP FROM THERE TO A
20 AND THEN A B50.
B99 BEING THE HIGHEST
PERCENTAGE.
SO THE SYSTEM ISN'T SHOCKED
AND.
>> SO IT IS A GRADUAL
TRANSITION.
>> AS IT FLUSHES THINGS OUT
AND I ASSUME THIS REQUIRES MAY
BE AN INCREASE OF DILIGENCE
UNFILTERED CHANGING AND THINGS
LIKE THAT.
>> THERE ALSO IS INFORMATION
I HAVE READ THAT ANYTHING ABOVE
A B20 MAY REQUIRE SOME
MODIFICATIONS TO THE FURNACE.
BUT I DON'T SPECIFICALLY KNOW
WHAT THOSE MODIFICATIONS WOULD
BE.
SO I NEED TO DO A LITTLE MORE
ON THAT.
>> LET ME OFFER A FEW GENERAL
THOUGHTS ON BIODIESEL IF THAT
IS OKAY.
FOLKS HAVE WORKED WITH ME FOR A
LONG TIME.
THEY KNOW I HAVE BEEN A LONG-
TIME PROPONENT OF POLICY IS
LIKE A CLEAN FUEL STANDARD TO
GET MORE SUSTAINABLY SOURCED
LOW CARBON BIOFUELS INTO OUR
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM HERE IN
WASHINGTON STATE.
BECAUSE THAT BIOFUEL DOES EXIST.
AND THE HIGH CARBON CONTENT AND
COULD CONTRIBUTE TO MASSIVE
DEFORESTATION ABROAD.
THERE CAN BE HUGE AND DIRECT
AND AGRICULTURAL IMPACT TO
THESE PRODUCTS AS WELL.
THAT IS WHY THINGS LIKE LOW
CARBON FUEL STANDARD OR CLEAN
FUEL STANDARD, LIKE THEY HAVE
IN CALIFORNIA AND OREGON, THESE
PRODUCTS ARE HIGHLY REGULATED
TO ENSURE WITH THE FEEDSTOCK
IS.
SO YOU KNOW IF YOU ARE GETTING
A CARBON BENEFIT FROM THESE
FUELS ARE NOT.
THAT TYPE OF MONITORING DOES
NOT EXIST IN THE HOME HEATING
INDUSTRY RIGHT NOW.
IT COULD.
I WANT TO SHOW AN OPENNESS TO
CONTINUE TALKING ABOUT THIS AND
SEEING HOW WE CAN MAKE IT WORK.
WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE
PRODUCTS LIKE THE VERY HIGH
CARBON AND DESTRUCTIVE PALM OIL
THAT CAN'T BE SOLD AND
REGULATED TRANSPORTATION
MARKETS IS NOT BEING DUMPED
INTO OUR HOME HEATING MARKET.
I THINK IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO
THAT AND IT IS INCREDIBLY
IMPORTANT TO DO SO.
WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE,
RECOGNIZING AGAIN -- I AM THE
STRONG COMPONENT OF BIOFUEL BUT
THERE IS A FINITE NUMBER OF
SUSTAINABLE FEEDSTOCKS.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY
ARE GOING TO THE HIGHEST VALUE.
THINGS YOU CANNOT PLUG IN.
THINGS LIKE AIRPLANES OR FIRE
ENGINES RIGHT NOW DON'T HAVE AN
ELECTRIC ALTERNATIVE
UNFORTUNATELY.
WE RECOGNIZE HOME HEATING DOES
HAVE A READILY AVAILABLE
TECHNOLOGY LIKE HEAT PUMPS THAT
WE CAN TRANSITION TO.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, I AM
CERTAINLY WILLING TO TALK ABOUT
THE USE OF BIOFUELS FOR HOME
HEATING AND I WANT TO ENSURE
THAT WE ARE GETTING THE
SUSTAINABLE BIOFUELS AND WE
WON'T SEE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES LIKE WHAT YOLANDA
AND CHRISTINE WERE TALKING
ABOUT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON
BIOFUELS?
>> WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT THE
DESIRE FOR EXEMPTIONS FOR
BIOFUELS.
SO I WANT TO WALK THERE WHAT
THAT WOULD MEAN IN RELATION TO
THE STILL.
IF WE PURSUED AN AMENDMENT THAT
WOULD EXEMPT BIOFUELS
UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE KNOW
RIGHT NOW, THAT IS SEPARATE.
GOING INTO THE FINANCIAL
ANALYSIS OF THE BILL, HOW MUCH
ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?
IF WE WERE TO EXEMPT BIOFUELS?
>> CHRISTINE, DO YOU KNOW THE
PERCENTAGE OF BIOFUEL USED?
I THINK IT IS VERY LOW.
>> IT WOULD BE CHALLENGING TO
KNOW THAT.
I DON'T KNOW THE MAKEUP FOR
EACH OIL SERVICE PROVIDER, WITH
THE MAKEUP OF BIOFUEL
DISTRIBUTION IS.
I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO KNOW
NOT JUST THE NUMBER OF THE
CUSTOMERS GETTING BIOFUEL BUT
WHAT BLEND.
SO IS IT B20, BE 99.
UNDERSTANDING THE RATIO OF THE
BIOFUEL VERSUS THE DIESEL.
>> WHEN YOU SAY EXEMPTION,
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT AN
EXEMPTION FROM THE TAX?
OR AN EXEMPTION FROM THE
REQUIREMENT TO REPLACE THE
TANK?
>> FROM THE TAX.
>> YEAH.
AND I THINK THE OTHER THING WE
HAVE TO THINK ABOUT FROM A
POLICY STANDPOINT IS, DO YOU
EXEMPT THE TAX JUST ON THE
BIOFUEL PORTION?
OR THE WHOLE PRODUCT ITSELF?
LET'S SAY IT IS A B5 AND THERE
WAS ONLY 5% OF BIOFUEL AND 95%
DIESEL.
IS THE WHOLE PRODUCT EXEMPT?
OR IS IT JUST A SMALL AMOUNT OF
BIOFUEL DISTRIBUTED?
>> I THINK IT WOULD BE
IMPORTANT TO PROVIDE AN
ADDITIONAL DEFINITION OF WHAT
HIGH-QUALITY HIGH-GRADE BIOFUEL
IS.
>> I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS
COUNCILMEMBER O'BRIEN, YOUR
QUESTION ABOUT COST.
RECENT DATA WE RECEIVED ON THE
WHOLESALE SIDE OF THINGS.
IT WAS A DOLLAR 20 ADDITIONAL
OVER DIESEL.
THAT IS WHOLESALE AND AT THE
RETAIL RATE.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE
CURRENT IS.
IS OIL $3 A GALLON?
>> IT HAS BEEN TRACKING AT
ABOUT $3.20.
MAY BE RESENT WE WENT DOWN JUST
BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE THINGS
GOING ON IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND
COMMODITIES.
>> SO 25-35% PREMIUM AT THE
WHOLESALE LEVEL.
I GUESS I'M TRANSITIONING
WHOLESALE TO RETAIL.
CERTAINLY, THE PREMIUM FOR
BIODIESEL IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE
THAN THE TAX.
>> THAT IS RIGHT.
AND IF WE ARE LOOKING AT A
CARBON STANDPOINT, AS JESSICA
MENTIONED, RECYCLED RESTAURANT
GREASE IS A HIGHER QUALITY,
LOWER CARBON BIOFUEL, IF WE
WERE TO GO TO A STANDARD NUMBER
TWO DIESEL TO A B99, THAT WOULD
BE ABOUT A 75% REDUCTION IN
CARBON.
IF WE ARE JUST TALKING ABOUT
CANOLA OIL, THAT IS 20-25%
REDUCTION.
SO THINKING ABOUT THE
INCREMENTAL COST.
$1.20 AT LEAST PER GALLON.
THE COST BENEFIT AND OUR MIND
IS NOT QUITE THERE.
>> MY OFFICE HAD BEEN
ENGAGING.
I JUST WANTED TO HAVE THAT
CONVERSATION OR EXCHANGE WITH
ALL OF YOU IN THE CENTRAL
STAFF.
I THINK FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I
ACKNOWLEDGE THE COST OF WHAT IT
IS GOING TO TAKE FOR US TO
BUILD A MORE SUSTAINABLE
FUTURE.
AND THIS IS ONE AREA WHERE IT
IS GOING TO COST MONEY.
BUT HOPEFULLY IDEAS LIKE THIS
CAN HAVE COST SAVINGS FOR
FAMILIES OVER TIME AND WE KNOW
THE COST SAVINGS ARE REALIZED
OVER TIME.
I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW IF THERE
ARE OTHER WEATHERIZATION
EFFORTS YOUR OFFICE MIGHT BE
LOOKING TO DO OR PILOT FOR
OTHER FAMILIES, EITHER LOW
INCOME OR SENIOR FAMILIES.
OR THE POTENTIAL TO SAY, HERE
IS ANOTHER IDEA THAT MIGHT BE
COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE OR MAY
BE SOMETHING WE WOULD LIKE TO
EXPLORE IF WE HAD A WISH LIST.
I DO THINK THAT AS WE HAVE
LOOKED AT TRANSITION TO A MORE
SUSTAINABLE FUTURE, WHAT ARE
THE OTHER IDEAS WE CAN DO AND
PEOPLE'S HOMES?
I'M JUST CURIOUS.
>> I LOVE THE QUESTION AND I
WOULD LOVE TO DO MORE
BRAINSTORMING WITH YOU OF WHAT
THOSE IDEAS ARE.
A HIGH PRIORITY FOR OUR OFFICE,
WE HAVE BEEN VERY LUCKY KNOCK
ON WOULD THIS YEAR, TO NOT HAVE
WHAT WE HAVE SEEN WITH SMOKE
VENTS IN THE LAST FEW YEARS.
WE KNOW THERE ARE
DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACTS ON
POPULAR PARTS OF THE POPULATION
PARTICULARLY SENIORS.
WE ARE INTERESTED IN HOW WE GET
MORE HEAT PUMPS TO SENIORS IN
WAYS THAT -- BECAUSE WE KNOW
IT HELPS PROTECT THEM DURING
SMOKE EVENTS.
IT HELPS PROTECT THEM DURING
HOT WEATHER EVENTS.
AND IT CAN BRING CARBON
BENEFITS.
SO TRANSITIONING TO HEAT PUMPS
FROM EITHER OIL OR NATURAL GAS
RIGHT NOW, YOU SEE SIGNIFICANT
CARBON BENEFITS.
AND SIGNIFICANT HEALTH AND
QUALITY OF LIFE BENEFITS.
WE ARE INTERESTED IN CONTINUING
TO THINK, HOW DO WE PILOT IT TO
MAKE MORE HOMEOWNERS AND RENTERS
AND RESIDENTS WHO COULD
DISPROPORTIONATELY BE IMPACTED
BY THE HEALTH IMPACT OF CLIMATE
CHANGE, HOW DO THEY HAVE THE
HEAT PUMPS THAT CAN REALLY HELP
KEEP THEM SAFE?
>> I WOULD LOVE TO ADD TO
THAT TOO.
I MANAGE THE LOW INCOME
WEATHERIZATION AND HOME REPAIR
PROGRAMS AT THE OFFICE OF
HOUSING.
THE CITY HAS A LONG-STANDING
WEATHERIZATION PROGRAM SERVING
LOW INCOME HOMEOWNERS AND
MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS WITH LOW
INCOME TENANTS INCLUDING ROBUST
PROGRAMS FOR HEAT PUMPS FOCUSED
HISTORICALLY ON BEING ABLE TO
CONVERT HOUSEHOLDS WITH
BASEBOARD HEATING OR OTHER
FORMS OF AN EFFICIENT HEAT, TO
HEAT PUMPS.
WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT THIS
OPPORTUNITY, OR THIS PROTECTION
WILL GO FROM OIL TO ELECTRIC
HEAT.
AND WE ARE EXCITED TO BRING
OTHER RESOURCES TO ANY
HOMEOWNER THAT WE HELP TO
PROVIDE A HEAT PUMP.
THAT INCLUDES ALL THE TRIED AND
TRUE WEATHERIZATION MEASURES
LIKE INSULATION THAT CAN
DELIVER A POWERFUL PACKAGE TO A
HOMEOWNER.
NOT ONLY SIGNIFICANTLY DECREASE
THEIR HEATING BILLS AND HAVE
ALL THE OTHER BENEFITS OF
MOVING AWAY FROM OIL, BUT ALSO
CAN JUST DELIVER A MUCH MORE
COMFORTABLE, HEALTHY AND SAFER
ENVIRONMENT.
>> CAN YOU JUST ELABORATE
FURTHER?
I APPRECIATE WHAT THIS IS DOING
FOR LOW INCOME FAMILIES.
BUT MORE SPECIFICALLY, WHAT WE
CAN DO FOR MIDDLE INCOME
FAMILIES.
AT THE BUDGET TOWN HALL I HAD
HIS PAST SATURDAY, I HA
SENIORS AND FOLKS TALKING
SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THIS, OF HOW
THEY ARE FEELING SQUEEZED.
THIS IS A 15,000-DOLLAR
EXPENSE.
IF YOU DON'T QUALIFY -- AND I
APPRECIATE COUNCILMEMBER
O'BRIEN'S COMMENT AND FEELING A
BIT OF A SQUEEZE.
15,000 IS THE COST OF A CAR.
AND SO, I WANT TO BE MINDFUL
ABOUT WHAT WE ARE DOING.
SO FOLKS THAT ARE NOT DOING TOO
WELL BUT THEY ARE NOT
STRUGGLING, WHAT CAN WE DO TO
HELP THOSE PEOPLE RIGHT IN THE
MIDDLE?
>> I THINK SOME OF OUR IDEAS
THERE, PUTTING THIS QUESTION
WITH YOUR LAST ONE AND
BRAINSTORMING ON THINGS WE CAN
DO TO HELP MORE FAMILIES, I
THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WE
WOULD LOVE TO DO IS TAKE SOME
OF THE OFFERINGS THAT THE
HOUSING PROVIDES TO OUR
RESIDENTS WITH LOWER INCOMES
AND MAKE THOSE AVAILABLE TO A
WIDER SWATH OF OUR RESIDENTS
THAT COULD REALLY USE THOSE
BENEFITS.
WE DON'T NEED TO COME UP WITH
NEW IDEAS BECAUSE OF THE OFFICE
OF HOUSING AND OTHERS
INNOVATING PRODUCTS THAT ARE
WORKING FOR THE RESIDENTS.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE
AVAILABLE TO MORE PEOPLE.
ONE OF THE WAYS THAT WE HAVE
TRIED TO DO THAT AT OSE, I
THINK ONE OF THE FOLKS IN
PUBLIC COMMENT MENTIONED THIS.
THERE ARE PARTNERS IN THE CITY
THAT PROVIDE A FINANCING
FFERING FOR FOLKS WITH QUITE A
WIDE RANGE OF CREDIT SCORES SO
THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT LEFT OUT OF
THE ABILITY TO FINANCE SOME OF
THESE THINGS.
I KNOW THAT WHEN I TRANSFERRED,
TRANSITIONED TO HEAT PUMP IN MY
HOUSE, I UTILIZED ONE OF THOSE
FINANCING TOOLS AND IT WORKED
VERY WELL, TO ALLOW YOU TO
AVOID SUCH A HUGE UPFRONT
EXPENSE.
AND YOU CAN PAY IT OFF IN YOUR
CITY LIGHT BILL SO YOU SEE THE
SAVINGS RIGHT AWAY.
>> CAN YOU PERFORM AN
ANALYSIS ON WHAT THE LIFECYCLE
COSTS LOOK LIKE?
WE KNOW THAT RIGHT HERE, THE
HEATING OIL IS MORE EXPENSIVE.
AND SO IF THIS IS REALLY A CASH
FLOW ISSUE, IT IS HARD
OBVIOUSLY FOR A LOT OF FOLKS TO
COME UP WITH $15,000 UPFRONT.
BUT IF THEY ARE SAVING $1000 A
YEAR AND WE CAN FIGURE OUT HOW
TO FINANCE IT, THEY MAY BE
BETTER OFF MAKING THE
TRANSITION.
>> YEAH.
WE HAVE DONE ANALYSIS SIMILAR
TO HOW A UTILITY WILL LOOK AT A
COST EFFECTIVENESS TEST WHEN
THEY LOOK AT REBATING
INSULATION OR HEAT PUMPS, WE
TAKE THIS SIMILAR METHODOLOGY.
WE LOOK AT THE INCREMENTAL COST
OF A HEAT PUMP OVER WHAT A
BASELINE WOULD BE.
AND THE BASELINE IS AN OIL
FURNACE.
ASSUMING SOMEONE'S OIL FURNACE
AT SOME POINT MAY CONK OUT AND
THEY HAVE TO GO GET SOMETHING
ELSE.
SO WE LOOK AT THE COST-
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE HEAT PUMP.
AND WE USE 15,000 AVERAGE COST
TO DO THAT.
BASICALLY, THE BOTTOM LINE --
>> CAN I INTERRUPT.
THE 15,000 INCLUDES TAKING OUT
THE OLD FURNACE,
DECOMMISSIONING THE TANK AND
INSTALLING THE NEW DUCTLESS
HEAT PUMPS.
>> THE $15,000 WOULD JUST BE
FOR THE EQUIPMENT AND THE
ASSOCIATED COSTS FOR THE WORK
THAT MIGHT NEED TO BE DONE.
AND THEN THERE IS THE
DECOMMISSIONING COST WHICH IS
ROUGHLY 700-$1000.
I DID INCLUDE THAT IN MY
ANALYSIS.
AND ALSO RECOGNIZING ON A
BASELINE STANDPOINT FOR OIL
FURNACE.
IF YOU ARE GOING TO GET A NEW
OIL FURNACE, IT IS LIKELY YOU
WILL HAVE TO REPLACE THE TANK.
AND POTENTIALLY IF YOU GET
BIOFUELS TOO, YOU HAVE TO
REPLACE THE TANK.
LOOKING AT THAT, WE BASICALLY
IDENTIFIED THAT THERE WOULD BE
A SIMPLE PAYBACK OF JUST UNDER
FOUR YEARS USING THE SAVINGS
THAT WOULD OCCUR FROM GOING
FROM OIL TO ELECTRIC HEAT
PUMPS.
SO FACTORING THAT IN, IT IS A
GOOD PAYBACK.
THAT IS A SIMPLE PAYBACK.
WE ALSO KNOW THAT WHAT WE CALL
THE SAVINGS TO INVESTMENT
RATIO, SO WHAT YOU WOULD GET IN
SAVINGS VERSUS WHAT YOU PUT
INTO THE SYSTEM IS 1.9.
SO ANYTHING ABOVE ONE, YOU ARE
BREAKING EVEN.
WE DON'T REALLY THINK ABOUT, IF
YOU HAVE AN OIL FURNACE, DO YOU
EVER THINK YOU WILL GET
SOMETHING BACK OUT OF IT?
NO BUT WE ARE SOMEHOW APPLYING
THAT SAME APPROACH TO AN
ELECTRIC HEAT PUMP, THAT WE
NEED TO GET SOMETHING BACK.
THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT THEY
WOULD GET SOMETHING BACK.
IT IS COST-EFFECTIVE.
THERE IS A GOOD PAYBACK.
THERE IS GOOD SAVINGS.
>> I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE
SUPPORT OF THAT.
THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
I WANT TO MOVE TO WRAP UP HERE.
COUNCILMEMBER PACHECO, WE
TALKED ABOUT THE EXEMPTION TO
THE TAX FOR BIOFUEL.
ARE THERE OTHER THINGS HE
WANTED TO BRING UP ON A
POTENTIAL AMENDMENT THAT YOU
ARE CONSIDERING FOR THIS THAT
WE SHOULD GET OUT THERE TODAY
TO DISCUSS?
>> AND NO.
I THINK JESSICA BRIEFLY TALKED
ABOUT WHAT NEW IDEAS MAY
POTENTIALLY BE AVAILABLE IN THE
FUTURE.
FOR ME, IT IS JUST EXTREMELY
HELPFUL.
I RECOGNIZE AND I REALIZE THE
COST OF THE TRANSITIONING TO A
MORE SUSTAINABLE FUTURE WILL
COST MONEY AND I WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THE HARDSHIPS THAT
PEOPLE FEEL AND PEOPLE FACE.
ALSO, WHEN I TALK TO PEOPLE AND
SIT WITH THEM AT THE TOWN HALL,
I NOT ONLY HAVE A
RESPONSIBILITY TO THEM BUT I
HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO THE
KIDS AND THEIR GRANDKIDS.
SO IN 2030 -- COUNCILMEMBER
O'BRIEN AND I GET TO SIT AND
SOME COMMITTEES TOGETHER.
I WANT TO BE ABLE TO AT LEAST,
WHEN I'M A LITTLE MORE GRAY,
SAY THAT I TRIED TO DO WHAT I
CAN TO PUSH US TO BE A LITTLE
BETTER SO THE WORLD IS A BETTER
PLACE.
HOPEFULLY THAT IS WHAT WE ARE
ALWAYS STRIVING FOR.
AND THAT IS WHAT AM I -- WHAT
I AM KEEPING IN MIND.
>> I WANT TO CONTINUE TO
ENCOURAGE THE TEAM AT OSE AND
YOLANDA THAT I AM OPEN TO
SUPPORTING AN AMENDMENT THAT
WOULD PROVIDE A TAX EXEMPTION
FOR BIODIESEL'S.
MY CRITERIA WOULD BE ONE WHERE
WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A
STANDARD AROUND IT FOR THE
BIOFUEL.
IT WOULD BE A LITTLE TRICKY.
IT WOULD BE GREAT IF OUR STATE
HAD A STANDARD, LOW CARBON FUEL
STANDARD BECAUSE WE COULD PLUG
INTO THAT.
I IMAGINE WE CAN MIMIC OTHER
PLACES AND IT MAY BE THAT WE
WILL SEE THAT WE MIGHT LEAN ON
YOUR EXPERTISE FOR SOMETHING.
WE DEFINITELY DON'T WANT TO
GIVE A TAX BREAK TO SOMETHING
LIKE INDONESIAN PALM OIL THAT
IS ACTUALLY MAKING THE SYSTEM
WORSE.
AND NO CONSUMER WOULD PAY EXTRA
MONEY FOR A PRODUCT TO MAKE
THEM WORSE THAT THEY KNEW ABOUT
IT.
SO IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT THAT
THERE IS TRANSPARENCY AND
INFORMATION IN THE MARKET.
SO YOUR HELP ON THAT WOULD BE
GREAT.
FOR ME, THE TAX BREAK WOULD
NEED TO BE PRORATED BASED ON
THE AMOUNT OF BIOFUELS IN
THERE.
IT IS NOT LIKE YOU PUT A DROP
OF BIOFUEL AND A TANK AND YOU
WIPE OUT THE WHOLE TAX.
SO B99 WOULD GET ALMOST AN
ENTIRE TAX BREAK AND A B5 WOULD
BE A 5% TAX BREAK.
AND THEN PAYING TAX ON THE
OTHER 95%.
THAT WOULD BE MY OBJECTIVE FROM
A FAIRNESS STANDPOINT.
I ALSO HAVE MY OWN AMENDMENT
THAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE HEARD IN
PUBLIC COMMENT IS THAT I THINK
PEOPLE HAVE SAID IT IS GREAT
WHAT WE ARE DOING TO THE LOWEST
INCOME FOLKS.
1100 PEOPLE THAT QUALIFY FOR
THE UDP WE ESTIMATE THAT WE GET
A FULL REPLACEMENT COVERED BY
THIS.
THERE IS A MISSING MIDDLE.
CERTAINLY THE FOLKS ABOVE THAT
LEVEL.
BUT THEY STILL ARE GOING TO
STRUGGLE FINANCIALLY.
IT IS IN THE LEGISLATION HERE.
SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THE UDP IS
TRIGGERED BY 70% OF STATE
INCOME AND UP TO 80% OF AREA
MEDIAN INCOME.
AND I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT GAP.
JEN, YOU MIGHT KNOW IT.
BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO GIVE SOME
FLEXIBILITY TO DIRECT SOME OF
THE RESOURCES TO HELP THOSE
FOLKS PRIORITIZE THE LOW INCOME
FOLKS OF COURSE . SO ALSO THE
ABILITY TO HELP.
SO YOU HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO SEE
THIS AND PERHAPS EVEN DRAFTED
IT.
MAYBE YOU CAN WALK US THROUGH
WHAT THAT DOES AND HOW THAT
MIGHT WORK.
>> I WOULD AGREE THAT WE
AGREE THAT WE WOULD WANT TO
PRIORITIZE SERVING THE LOWEST
INCOME HOUSEHOLDS WITH THESE
FINDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THE
OTHER REQUIREMENTS GOVERNING
THE OTHER SOURCES OF
WEATHERIZATION FUNDING.
THIS WOULD HAVE A COUPLE OF
BENEFITS.
IT WOULD ALLOW US TO PROVIDE
THE ASSISTANCE TO MORE
HOUSEHOLDS AS WE HEARD IT CAN
BE A RELATIVELY EXPENSIVE
ENDEAVOR TO DO THIS.
AND ALSO IT WOULD ALLOW THIS
PROGRAM TO BE CONSISTENT WITH
OUR OTHER WEATHERIZATION
PROGRAMS WHICH DO PROVIDE
ASSISTANCE TO HOUSEHOLDS UP TO
80%.
SO WE WOULD BE ABLE TO BRING
THAT FULL BIT OF RESOURCES TO A
HOME EVEN FOR SOMEONE THAT IS
CLOSE TO 80% AMI AND NOT JUST
FOR A CHANGE IN THE HEATING
SYSTEM BUT OTHER IMPROVEMENTS
LIKE INSULATION, AIR SEALING
AND WEATHERIZATION AND HEALTH
PROGRAMS THAT WE HAVE THAT CAN
ADDRESS OTHER HEALTH ISSUES.
OVERALL, I THINK A POSITIVE
CHANGE.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT.
A COUPLE OF THINGS IN THE
WORKS.
I THINK THOSE ARE THE ONLY ONES
I'M AWARE OF.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY IS
AWARE OF ANYTHING ELSE THEY CAN
SHARE HERE.
NOT HEARING ANYTHING, WE WILL
FIGURE OUT HOW TO REFINE THOSE
AND HAVE CONVERSATIONS.
HOPEFULLY BACK IN COMMITTEE --
DEFINITELY BACK IN COMMITTEE
AND A WEEK AND BE PREPARED TO
CONSIDER SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS
AND POTENTIALLY VOTE THIS BILL
OUT OF COMMITTEE.
LOOKING FORWARD TO MORE
CONVERSATIONS WITH COMMUNITY
MEMBERS BETWEEN NOW AND THEN
TOO.
WITH THAT, WHY DON'T WE EXCUSE
YOU ALL AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE.
>> RESOLUTION 31903.
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE
PROCUREMENT AND THE ARCTIC
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
AFFIRMING THE CITY OF SEATTLE'S
COMMITMENT TO AVOID PROCURING
GOODS AND SERVICES FROM
CORPORATIONS THAT PURCHASE
LEASES OR DEVELOP OILFIELDS IN
THE ARCTIC REFUGE COASTAL
PLAINS.
>> WE WILL INVITE OUR
PRESENTERS FORWARD.
VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS
LEGISLATION.
I THINK IT WILL BE LESS
CONTROVERSIAL AT LEAST N THIS
ROOM THAN THE LAST TWO ITEMS.
WHY DON'T WE START WITH A QUICK
ROUND OF INTRODUCTIONS.
>> MY NAME IS MICHELLE PIÑON.
I AM A POLITICAL ORGANIZER WITH
THE SIERRA CLUB.
I HAVE BEEN IN THAT POSITION
FOR TWO YEARS AND WORKING WITH
THE REFUGE.
>> I AM ROBIN EVERETT.
I DIRECT THE ORGANIZING PROGRAM
FOR THE SIERRA CLUB IN
WASHINGTON.
>> I'M GOING TO DEFER TO YOU.
IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO HEAR
SOME HISTORY ON WHAT HAS
HAPPENED HISTORICALLY AND MORE
RECENTLY IN THE ARCTIC NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE AND WHAT WE SEE
AS THREATS THERE AND THEN WE
CAN MOVE ON TO THE RESOLUTION
AND HOW THIS MIGHT HELP.
>> I'M HAPPY TO START WITH
THAT CONTEXT.
I THINK IT IS ALWAYS IMPORTANT
AT THE BEGINNING TO ACKNOWLEDGE
WHY SHOULD WE CARE?
WHY DO I CARE PERSONALLY?
I GREW UP IN LOS ANGELES.
I HAVE BEEN LIVING IN SEATTLE
FOR SIX YEARS.
MOST OF MY INTRODUCTION TO
ENVIRONMENTALISM IS FROM A
PLACE OF TRYING TO RECLAIM WHAT
WE ALREADY LOST.
IT WAS FASCINATING TO SIT ON
THESE COMMITTEES AND OTHER
ACTIVISM WORK AND SEE HOW HARD
WE FIGHT TO UNDO THE WRONGS
THAT WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST.
AND WITH THE ARCTIC REFUGE,
WHAT IS EXCITING AND WHAT IS AN
OPPORTUNITY IS THAT WE HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO PROTECT
SOMETHING AND CONTINUE A WAY OF
LIFE AND NOT BE FIGHTING FOR
SOMETHING WE LOST BUT SAY, NOT
EVERY PLACE IN THIS WORLD NEEDS
TO BE DEVELOPED AND WE DON'T
HAVE TO CONSTANTLY BE FIGHTING
TO HAVE A LITTLE PIECE OF
GREEN.
AND I THINK THERE IS A GENERAL
SENSE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT.
TO GO OVER IT, THE ARCTIC
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, THE
COASTAL PLAINS IN PARTICULAR
PROVIDE A LOT OF ECOSYSTEM
SERVICES.
THERE ARE BIRDS THERE FROM ALL
AROUND THE WORLD.
WHAT EVER HAPPENS IN THE ARCTIC
RELATED TO CLIMATE WILL AFFECT
THE REST OF THE COUNTRY.
BUT WHAT RESONATES FOR ME ARE
THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF THE
COASTAL PLAIN.
THE PEOPLE WHO PRACTICE A STYLE
OF LIFESTYLE THAT IS INCREDIBLY
RARE IN THE WORLD.
AND PRETTY MUCH UNSEEN IN THE
LOWER 48.
THEY PRACTICE THE ASSISTANCE
CULTURE WHICH MEANS 90% OF
THEIR DIET IS STILL GOING.
THE SALMON AND THE BERRIES THEY
ARE ABLE TO PICK.
SO COST-OF-LIVING IN RURAL
ALASKA IS INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE.
SO THE ONLY OPPORTUNITY FOR
THEM TO HAVE A SUSTAINABLE LIFE
IS TO LIVE OFF THE LAND AND
CONTINUE THE CULTURE FOR
THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
WHAT WE KNOW IS DRILLING IN THE
COASTAL PLAIN WILL HAVE EFFECTS
ON THE ECOSYSTEM.
PARTICULARLY THE PORCUPINE
CARIBOU THAT RELY ON THAT PLACE
ARE BREEDING GROUNDS.
AND THE WAY THE CARIBOU GO WILL
BE THE WAY THE PEOPLE GO AS
THEY SAY.
WE ARE POSSIBLY LOSING A
CULTURE THAT IS VERY SPECIAL
AND VERY UNIQUE.
AND THAT IS WHY I PUT A LOT OF
MY WORK AND EFFORT INTO
PROTECTING THIS PLACE.
WE HAVE GRAVE CONCERNS ABOUT
THE WAY THE ADMINISTRATION IS
PURSUING DRILLING ON THE
REFUGE.
POLL AFTER POLL WILL TELL YOU
THAT MOST AMERICANS ARE AGAINST
DRILLING AT THE REFUGE BUT
THERE IS STILL A CONSISTENT
EFFORT OVER THE LAST 50 YEARS
TO OPEN IT LARGELY ON BEHALF OF
THE STATE OF ALASKA
REPRESENTATIVES THAT SEEM TO
NOT REPRESENT THE RIGHTS AND
THE INTEREST OF THE INDIGENOUS
PEOPLE OF THE COASTAL PLAIN.
BACK IN 17, THEY RUSHED THE TAX
BILL THROUGH.
AND WITH THAT, THEY SNUCK AND A
PROVISION THAT MANDATES THE
SALE OF THE COASTAL PLAIN
WITHIN THE NEXT 4-5 YEARS.
AND WE HAVE SEEN THEM BRUSH
THEIR PROCESSES THROUGH
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS
THAT GENERALLY TAKE YEARS.
AND THEY ARE TRYING TO GET THAT
DONE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
FOR US, WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL
FIELD, WE ARE TRYING TO RESIST
THEM BECAUSE WE THINK IT
VIOLATES DUE PROCESS.
AND REPRESENTATIVES HAVE
LIMITED SCOPE FOR WHICH THEY
HAVE INFLUENCE.
WE HAVE BEEN HAVING
CONVERSATIONS WITH CORPORATIONS
AND TRYING TO COMMUNICATE WITH
THEM THAT DOING THAT IS A RISKY
INVESTMENT AND DOES NOT TAKE OR
MAKE ANY SENSE IN THE LONG TERM
IN ADDITION TO BUILDING LOCAL
RESISTANCE.
SEATTLE IS WHERE I LIVE SO IT'S
AN OPPORTUNITY TO HOST A COUPLE
OF DIFFERENT EVENTS OVER THE
PAST 2-3 YEARS ENGAGING A WIDE
VARIETY OF FOLKS.
NONTRADITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
GROUPS INCLUDING LATINO
OUTDOORS AND OUTDOOR ASIAN AND
THE PROTECTION OF THIS WILD
PLACE THAT FRANKLY A LOT OF US
WILL NOT GET TO KNOW BUT
NONETHELESS WE THINK IT IS
IMPORTANT TO PROTECT.
SO THAT IS THE ORIGIN STORY OF
WHY WE CAME HERE AND I WILL LET
ROBIN SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
HER IDEA.
BECAUSE SHE REALLY PUSHED THIS
FORWARD.
>> GO ROBIN.
>> THANK YOU, MICHELLE.
THAT WAS REALLY GREAT.
BASICALLY, WHERE WE ARE AT IS
WE ARE DEALING WITH A HOSTILE
ADMINISTRATION THAT WANTS TO
OPEN UP THE ARCTIC REFUGE.
WE HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE.
WE HAVE SEEN THREATS TO THE
ARCTIC REFUGE OVER THE YEARS.
THIS ONE IS PRETTY DARN HARD.
AND WE ARE FACING DOWN
POTENTIAL SALE BY THE END OF
THE YEAR TO OPEN UP THE COASTAL
PLAIN.
AND SO WHAT MICHELLE ALLUDED TO
WAS, WE ARE TRYING TO SHOW THAT
THERE IS NOT A MARKET FOR THIS
ANYMORE.
POLLING SHOWS THAT PEOPLE DON'T
WANT THIS OIL AND WE ARE TRYING
TO SHOW LOCAL RESISTANCE TO
PURCHASING THIS OIL AS WELL.
THIS WAS DONE BEFORE, ABOUT 15
YEARS AGO IN THE EARLY TWO
THOUSANDS.
A NUMBER OF CITIES BACK WHEN WE
WERE FACING ANOTHER THREAT OF
OPENING UP THE REFUGE.
A NUMBER OF CITIES PASSED
SIMILAR RESOLUTIONS AND WE
LOOKED TO THEM FOR INSPIRATION
THIS GO AROUND.
AND WE HAVE LOOKED AT WHERE
LIKELY THE.
>> OF OIL WOULD GO FROM THE
ARCTIC IF IT WERE TO HAPPEN.
IN WASHINGTON AND CALIFORNIA,
THAT WOULD BE THE TWO PRIMARY
PLACES WHERE IT WOULD GO.
SO IT IS NOT JUST A SEATTLE CAN
DO THIS BECAUSE IT MAKES A
LOVELY STATEMENT, BUT IT IS
ACTUALLY A VERY PROMINENT AND
IMPORTANT POLITICAL STRATEGY
FOR US.
AND SHOWING THE OIL INDUSTRY
THAT THE MARKETS IN WHICH THEY
WOULD LIKELY PUT THIS OIL DON'T
WANT IT.
AND WE HAVE FOUND THAT PUBLIC
PRESSURE HAS BEEN REALLY
EFFECTIVE.
WE RECENTLY, THE SIERRA CLUB
DID A LOT OF TACTICS AROUND BP
AND THE DRILLING IN THE ARCTIC
REFUGE.
GREEN PEACE IN CASE TO
THEMSELVES AND CONCRETE IN
FRONT OF THEIR LONDON
HEADQUARTERS.
AND BP JUST ANNOUNCED TWO WEEKS
AGO THAT THEY HAVE SOLD ALL OF
THEIR ASSETS IN THE ARCTIC.
OT JUST THE REFUGE BUT
EVERYWHERE.
SO WE CAN ACTUALLY MAKE A
DIFFERENCE BY MAKING THESE
STATEMENTS.
THIS IS PART OF A BROADER
STRATEGY TO HAVE LOCAL FOLKS
SAY NO AND NOW THAT WE HAVE THE
HOUSE BACK, THE HOUSE WILL BE
PASSING A BILL, TRYING TO
REINSTATE THE PRODUCTIONS IN
THE ARCTIC.
THE SENATE WILL BE AS WELL.
SO KIND OF HITTING AT ALL
LEVELS.
BOTH AT THE OIL COMPANIES
THEMSELVES, AT THE CITY LEVEL
AND AT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
LEVEL.
>> I HAVE NEVER MADE IT TO
THE COASTAL PLAINS OF ALASKA.
I HOPE SOMEDAY TO GET THERE AND
SEE IT.
CERTAINLY IT IS SOMETHING I
HAVE TRACKED FOR A NUMBER OF
YEARS.
AND IT IS GREAT KNOWING THAT
THOSE PLACES STILL EXIST ON THE
PLANET.
I APPRECIATE YOU HIGHLIGHTING
ABOUT THE PEOPLE.
WE HAVE HAD TESTIFYING AT CITY
COUNCIL AT THE PAST.
AND IT IS AMAZING TO MEET AND
WORK WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL
LIVING A LIFESTYLE THAT
RESEMBLES SOMETHING THAT
TRADITIONALLY HAVE BEEN DOING
FOR EONS.
AND IT IS CRASHING TO THINK
THAT WE ARE PERHAPS ON THE EDGE
OF MAKING A DECISION THAT WILL
END THAT POSSIBILITY.
I'M REALLY GRATEFUL FOR THE
SIERRA CLUB AND OTHER COALITION
MEMBERS THAT HAVE CONSTANTLY,
DILIGENTLY WORKED ON SOMETHING
THAT WE DON'T GET TO SEE EVERY
DAY.
IT IS ONE THING WHEN WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT A PARK IN THE
CITY.
OR A NEW ELECTRIC BUS OR BIKE
LANE THAT WE ARE ALSO VERY
EXCITED ABOUT.
BUT TO HAVE THE DILIGENCE TO
KEEP AN EYE ON SOMETHING THAT
IS SO FAR REMOVED.
YOU COULD EASILY SLIP OUT OF
THE AMERICAN CONSCIOUSNESS.
NOT FOR THE PEOPLE THERE BUT
FOR THE REST OF US.
SO CONSTANTLY HIGHLIGHTING
THAT.
AND WITH BOTH SETBACKS AND WE
ARE AT THIS MOMENT WHERE IT
FEELS LIKE SOMETHING REALLY BAD
COULD HAPPEN.
I AM EXCITED TO SUPPORT THIS
RESOLUTION.
I THINK IT IS VERY CONSISTENT
WITH SO MANY ACTIONS THE CITY
HAS TAKEN IN THE PAST.
AND I THINK IT ACCURATELY
REPRESENTS THE VAST MAJORITY OF
WHAT PEOPLE IN SEATTLE BELIEVE
TOO.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS
OR QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING YOU
WOULD LIKE TO ASK?
>> THANK YOU FOR MAKING ME
AWARE.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK
AND YOUR ADVOCACY.
I WISH IT WASN'T SO.
I THINK IT IS REFLECTIVE OF OUR
VALUES.
>> I'M PREPARED TO MOVE
RESOLUTION -- I WILL MOVE
RESOLUTION 31903.
THE SECOND?
>> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK.
THIS RESOLUTION PASSES OUT OF
COMMITTEE WITH A RECOMMENDATION
FOR A YES VOTE.
IT WILL BE AT THE COUNCIL
MEETING NEXT MONDAY WHICH IS
THE 16th.
AND SO WE WILL MAKE SURE THE
COLLEAGUES ARE AWARE OF THAT.
THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
TESTIFY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON
THIS.
AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN, THROUGH
MULTIPLE STRATEGIES ACROSS THE
SPECTRUM, FIGURE OUT A WAY TO
PREVENT A REAL SETBACK FROM
HAPPENING.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
YOUR LEADERSHIP.
AND IF THERE IS ANYTHING WE
NEED TO ANSWER IN THE MEANTIME,
IF ANY OF THE OTHER
COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS,
PLEASE DIRECT THEM TO ME OR
MICHELLE AND WE WILL BE SURE TO
GET THOSE QUESTIONS ANSWERED.
>> YOU WILL BE NOT THE ONLY
CITY THAT WILL DO THIS.
YOU WILL BE INSPIRATION FOR
MANY MORE CITIES THAT WE WILL
BE WORKING WITH ON THE WEST
COAST TO PASS THESE
RESOLUTIONS.
>> THAT IS GOOD TO HEAR.
>> HOPEFULLY LA.
>> THAT IS NEXT.
>> I MET WITH A COUNCILMEMBER
FROM LA YESTERDAY.
>> I'M FROM LA TOO.
TELL THEM I SENT YOU.
>> WILL DO.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> IF THERE IS NOTHING ELSE,
WE WILL BE ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU, KELLY.
ONE LAST THING.
YOU GUYS CAN GO.
I SEE THE CAMERAS ARE STILL ON
SO I ASSUME WE ARE STILL
RECORDING.
I WANT TO JUST ACKNOWLEDGE ONE
OF MY STAFF MEMBERS.
I HAVE A WHOLE TEAM OF LARGELY
NEW STAFF MEMBERS.
AND LEAVING MY OFFICE IN THE
NEXT WEEK, AMELIA.
SHE HAS WORKED A LOT ON THE
GREEN NEW DEAL FOR ME.
THE FIRST TWO PIECES OF
LEGISLATION WE HAD TODAY.
SHE HAS BEEN AMAZING TO GET TO
KNOW HER AND WORK WITH HER.
SHE WILL BE MOVING ON TO DOING
OTHER POLICY WORK AT THE
FEDERAL LEVEL INSTEAD OF THE
LOCAL LEVEL.
I AM EXCITED FOR THAT
OPPORTUNITY BUT I AM SAD THAT I
WILL MISS HER.
I WILL MISS HER PERSONALLY IN
MY OFFICE AND I THINK THE WHOLE
CITY WILL MISS THE SHORT WORK
SHE HAS DONE.
IF YOU ARE LISTENING, THANK YOU
FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
WITH THAT, WE ARE ADJOURNED.