A plea from a Washington State Reader

From MCR,

Washington State voters have, over the course of the last few years defeated multiple, repeated attempts to have Carbon Trading Schemes enacted and enforced in that once-great State. Our Illustrious (and Former Democratic Presidential Candidate) Mr. Jay Inslee was seen and heard all over the airwaves during those times, endorsing the supposed benefits of Carbon Trading – required by the overwhelming ‘Existential Threat ™’ of ‘Glow-bull Warming’.

Washington Sate voters summarily voted down these repeated attempts to ram carbon taxes down our ‘fossil fuel’ guzzling throats.

Not able to persuade the electorate to willingly have their gasoline, natural gas, diesel, and other fuels artificially cost-inflated by taxing Carbon Dioxide, the Warmists in Washington State were left with few remaining methods to impose artificial Carbon Taxation and Carbon Trading schemes through elections. As a method of last resort, they merely looked to the Left Coast South, and the shining examples of California and Oregon and their highly unsuccessful Clean Fuel Standards. Seeing the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) had already imposed Carbon (Dioxide) Taxation disguised as a Clean Fuels Standard in those States, Washington’s Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) was able to plagiarize those trumped-up Carbon Trading Schemes (disguised as a Clean Fuels Standard), recode them as their own, and they now are on the verge of imposing these Standards in the Puget Sound Regional counties of Kitsap, Pierce, King, and Snohomish – home the major population centers of Tacoma, Seattle, and Everett. Not surprisingly, these impending regulations have not been communicated to the populace through the local media, except for a few local right-leaning AM radio talk shows. The following links detail these impending rules:



The public have time to weigh in on these rules, as follows:

Public Comment

The public has 90 days to provide comment and feedback on the draft rule. Comments can be provided in the following ways:

Email: CleanFuels@pscleanair.gov

Mail: Send to the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, 1904 Third Avenue, Suite 105, Seattle, WA 98101

In-person: Public hearing on December 19, 2019, at the Washington State Convention Center (more details below)

All comments are due by January 6, 2020.

Following the public comment period, the Agency will consider and summarize all comments received and respond to comments by category. The Agency will then make the comment and response summary available on this webpage or to individuals upon request.

I plead with Mr. Watts, moderators, and all readers and contributors of WUWT to get this message out, and to lodge a comment regarding these onerous rules at the PSCAA website comments section.

Thanks in advance for your consideration,

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 18, 2019 2:37 am

The carbon trading scam provides the evidence that agw is a scam.


December 18, 2019 3:43 am

There’s that pesky camel trying to put its nose under the tent again.

Maybe someone could suggest a trial period of 5 years where those who proposed the rule and those who will implement and administer the rule are the only ones subject to the rule.

There’s nothing wrong with a little bit of testing the effectiveness of the rule before committing to full implementation. It’s common sense.

Reply to  H.R.
December 18, 2019 4:02 am

H.R. are you suggesting a voluntary carbon tax, taxing only those who sign up for it? That’s a novel idea. But don’t some people already do this by signing up for optional higher electric rates because the source is solar and wind?


Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 18, 2019 4:19 am

No, he’s suggesting something much more novel – that legislators and regulators put their money where their mouths are.

Reply to  Craig
December 18, 2019 5:45 am

Legislators and regulators actually put themselves under the rules they propose for others. Surely you jest. Those enlightened people, and their rich friends who fund their campaigns, are better than us and thus not subject to the rules for us plebs.

Of course, people are selfish. They always tell others to do what they themselves will never do. Never ask me to do something you will not do yourself first. Legislators and regulators will never ever put themselves under an onerous rules because they are onerous. They are like the Pharisees Jesus condemned — they bind people with heavy burdens but are unwilling to help even with their little finger. Some things never change throughout history.

Bryan A
Reply to  Wade
December 18, 2019 12:29 pm

Start the Carbon Taxation at the Airport Private Jet refueling stations at say $290 per gallon

Bryan A
Reply to  Wade
December 18, 2019 2:32 pm

Learjet carries 840 gallons. Avgas is around $5.00 per gal so around $4200 to fill up.
$290 per gallon Carbon Tax would cost an additional $243,600 per tank.

A typical 747 holds 48,000 to 63,700 gallons at $5 per would be $240,000 – $318,500 to fill.
$290 per gallon PVT JET carbon Tax would be $13,920,000 – $18,473,000 per tank.

John Revolta might sell his 747 at that rate.
All Bore, Micky Mouth and Leo Dicrapio would have to fly with the pleebs

Bryan A
Reply to  Wade
December 18, 2019 9:15 pm

That carbon tax rate would add $200,000 to the average $4,000 Learjet refueling cost
It would also add between $13,000,000 and $18,000,000 to the typical $240,000 – $310,000 Boeing 747 refueling. Looks like All Bore and Leo DiCrapio would be flying with the hoi polloi and Johnny Revolta would have to sell his 747

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 18, 2019 4:29 am

does it matter, if the carbon tax is approved they will still pay on both sides

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
December 18, 2019 4:35 am

But those people don’t see the higher rates because of the subsidies and forced energy buybacks

Reply to  H.R.
December 18, 2019 7:43 am

H.R. you seems to have forgotten that the VOTERS don’t want any of it at all, here is the quote from the article, which is factually true, as I live in the state of Washington, having seen it happen:

“Washington State voters have, over the course of the last few years defeated multiple, repeated attempts to have Carbon Trading Schemes enacted and enforced in that once-great State. Our Illustrious (and Former Democratic Presidential Candidate) Mr. Jay Inslee was seen and heard all over the airwaves during those times, endorsing the supposed benefits of Carbon Trading – required by the overwhelming ‘Existential Threat ™’ of ‘Glow-bull Warming’.

Washington Sate voters summarily voted down these repeated attempts to ram carbon taxes down our ‘fossil fuel’ guzzling throats.”


Mr. Inslee, clearly loves a good clean environment, but goes overboard on the global warming baloney. I get his press releases every week about his environmentalism decisions and what he wants to do, he is stupidly in love with the global warming scamming tropes.

He will never stop trying to ram something through, it is what he is, a convinced ignoramus about the non existent climate problem.

Heck the state is one of the SAFEST places to live in climatically, yet he thinks we are in dire straits….. that is being dumb.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Sunsettommy
December 18, 2019 9:34 pm

What Inslee should be spending money on is earthquake resilience, to which Washington is more exposed than any other state:

“The Really Big One: An earthquake will destroy a sizable portion of the coastal Northwest. The question is when.” By Kathryn Schulz, New Yorker magazine, July 20, 2015 issue

“How to Stay Safe When the Big One Comes”, By Kathryn Schulz, New Yorker magazine, July 28, 2015, at

Reply to  Roger Knights
December 18, 2019 9:58 pm

That’s really expensive, and doesn’t play nearly as well for all the SJW in the greater Seattle area. It’s practical – it doesn’t make a liberal ‘feel good’ inside as they express their piousness before gaia.

(I was born here, but these idiots have all but destroyed this area. They haven’t give up their dream of a communist utopia.)

December 18, 2019 4:06 am

The framers of the Constitution envisioned the problem which is why there are checks and balances. There is a famous quote which sums up the problem.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few. The manna of popular liberty must be gathered each day or it is rotten. The living sap of today outgrows the dead rind of yesterday. The hand entrusted with power becomes, either from human depravity or esprit de corps, the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continued oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot; only by unintermitted agitation can a people be sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity. link

As Hayek points out:

… the abandonment of individualism and classical liberalism inevitably leads to a loss of freedom, the creation of an oppressive society, the tyranny of a dictator, and the serfdom of the individual. link

The greenies think they should be our masters. Only by concerted effort can we prevent that.

Reply to  commieBob
December 18, 2019 7:34 am

Or as Jefferson wrote, “The tree of liberty must from time to time be watered by the blood or patriots and tyrants”.

If you aren’t willing to fight for your liberty, pretty soon you won’t have any.

Reply to  MarkW
December 18, 2019 1:19 pm

“blood of patriots”

December 18, 2019 4:17 am

It appears the entire left coast has picked up the “gone bonkers” virus. Pity. Used to be a beautiful place with interesting landscapes.

Bryan A
Reply to  Sara
December 18, 2019 12:32 pm

The coast still is beautiful. Problem is the sane are moving out leaving the crazy populace as a growing percentage of the whole.

Reply to  Bryan A
December 18, 2019 9:13 pm

Over many decades of observing trends of all kinds in the U.S., I have noticed that many trends start in the east and eventually end up being embraced in the west. Depending on the speed-of-adoption for any particular trend, one can project into the future when the trend will instantiate in the west. And as a trend currently wanes in the east, one can project into the future when it will wane in the west.

The zenith of liberalism has been reached in the east and is beginning a slow decline, which will eventually happen on the west coast in about 50 years. The fractional portion of the period by which the west tends to lag the east varies from trend to trend, and of course is not a pure sinusoid over time.

old white guy
December 18, 2019 4:32 am

Anyone who thinks that giving government more money will in any way alter the climate of the planet is so dumb I don’t know how they have adequate brain power to inhale and exhale.

Reply to  old white guy
December 18, 2019 5:23 am

These people need to be challenged. They say stupid stuff like, “Leave it in the ground.” If it’s just that easy, they should lead by example. They should forswear anything that used fossil fuels to produce or transport. That means they have to live naked in a cave until they can grow their own cotton or flax, make their own loom using stone tools, and weave their own cloth. They also have to scratch out a subsistence living using wood and stone tools. Anything else is hypocrisy. 🙂

John in Oz
Reply to  commieBob
December 18, 2019 1:53 pm

Stone tools need to be removed from the ground = mining.

Looms (presumably made from timber) requires either the cutting down of trees or removal of dead wood which could be the homes of animals/insects/etc.

‘Leave it in the ground’ would quickly lead to all of us being in the ground.

December 18, 2019 4:59 am

It’s not possible for people to really be this stupid…they know this

For every tic they go down…
…China and the developing world go up 1000

Reply to  Latitude
December 18, 2019 7:36 am

In times of old, when local governments got to abusive, there was always the option of pulling up stakes and trekking over the horizon.

I’ve always hoped that we could keep things together on this planet long enough for technology to make travel to other worlds possible. For the sake of opening up new horizons.

I fear that we weren’t able to do that.

Joel Snider
Reply to  MarkW
December 18, 2019 7:59 am

My family hit the west coast with my generation. The only place after that is the ocean.
Running isn’t an option anymore.

Reply to  MarkW
December 20, 2019 7:57 am

In times of old, when local governments got to abusive, there was always the option of pulling up stakes and trekking over the horizon.

Or, in the good ole’ days when townspeople took care of their own, the abusers would simply be run out-a-town.

December 18, 2019 5:07 am

Even if humans achieve zero CO2 emission, there’s still 96% of CO2 emitted by nature. What are you going to do about that??

December 18, 2019 5:10 am

hmm as much as i loathe fkbook its got a lot of sheeple using it so post it to their local page?
and then isnt there a established oldtime 60s clique there in the Freeland area? who will be in favour of it?

December 18, 2019 5:19 am

Snoho Brexit has already been voted down twice. Now comes the punishment phase.

December 18, 2019 6:18 am

Keepasaking them WHY. eventually their heads will explode.

December 18, 2019 6:19 am

Keep asking them WHY. eventually their heads will explode.

Craig Moore
December 18, 2019 6:25 am
Mark Fraser
December 18, 2019 6:41 am

Add British Columbia to it all, for that international flavor.

Reply to  Mark Fraser
December 18, 2019 8:30 am

I would like to mention…
British Columbia’s carbon tax was originally sold to the taxpayers as being “revenue neutral”. Then after a few years, the NDP government canceled the “revenue neutral” part. Now, it’s just another gas tax, driving up prices… of everything.

Cago N Bosque (aka Hoser)
December 18, 2019 8:24 am

Try to fight what the fascist Dems want to do, and be vocal. Educate the voters, but when the time comes, never compromise to diminish the impact of Dem power plays. If we compromise, there will be pain regardless, and we will get an equal share of the blame. Nobody cares about how much worse it could have been.

Voters need to find out how bad the Dems actually are, understand their thirst for power and control, their desire to crush anything that gets in their way.

Fine. Let the Dems hang themselves with their own rope. Let voters feel the full impact of Dem scheming sooner rather than later. Then we can side with the voters who are rightly peeved, provide a sane alternative, and kick out the fascist mob.

Craig Moore
Reply to  Cago N Bosque (aka Hoser)
December 18, 2019 9:11 am

The Seattle Tesla drivers can enjoy the “green” bohemian charm while dining.

Joel Snider
December 18, 2019 9:04 am

I’m highly sympathetic down here in Oregon – the governors of all three coastal states are working – in racketeering-style conspiracy, if you want my opinion – to pretty much destroy our way of life. Certainly eliminate any important constitutional rights, and make the citizen vote an irrelevant formality.

Last year, in Oregon, it damn-near took a state-wide revolt to push back the dim’s attempt to just apply a carbon-tax – and they’ve indicated they have every intention of trying to slime it through again.

And I gotta tell ya – these ‘leaders’ hid in the state capital like cowards when all those truckers lined up on the streets outside – and this was after Kate Brown threatened to send the state cops after any Republican who didn’t show up for the vote while they ramrodded this through. And these utterly detestable tactics shamed them not at all – in fact, they whined about how ‘intimidated’ they felt that we would object to them simply forcing their will upon us.

December 18, 2019 9:51 am

Gotta love the “Over Christmas (Dec 18 – Jan 6th?)” comment period.

That is a huge red flag that the powers that be want to get this through without real debate or attention.

I would suggest highlighting this point in any submission, and demanding they extend the comment period until the end of January may get some traction. Someone may back off to avoid getting more sunlight on their plans.

A comment period over Christmas is evasive and will raise a lot of questions that people will want to look into – even if they do buy into climate change.

My thoughts.

December 18, 2019 10:11 am

Move to Eastern Washington where we are (slightly) more rational. Then join the movement to form a separate state.

Joel Snider
Reply to  eric
December 18, 2019 10:43 am

Spokane by itself is going to ruin that.

Conodo Mose
Reply to  eric
December 18, 2019 4:35 pm

Alert. You apparently are not aware of the new law in 2019 in Washington, courtesy of Democrats and Inslee, Washington’s own Green New Deal or Paris Agreement but dems call it Clean Electricity Transformation Act, SB5116, that Wash. state’s bureaucrats are huddling to determine how much to charge us for our carbon indulgences. It is all bad and no good and worse. Coal is outlawed in 2025. Natural gas outlawed in 2030 except for electricity imports subject to cap and trade (carbon credit indulgences) paid to Al Gore and finally 2045 when all fossil fuels of all types are OUTLAWED for generating electricity. Buy a wood stove, barbeque and generator before unavailable.

Thomas Homer
December 18, 2019 10:57 am

If it’s true that: “Taxing basic necessities is immoral”: then a carbon tax is immoral.

Is there any greater basic necessity than carbon for Carbon Based Life Forms?

CO2 is the base of the food chain.

December 18, 2019 11:21 am

My gut tells me that all those pols pushing for a carbon tax probably have some personal financial interest, Gore being a good example.

Wrt the public having time to comment “over the Xmas period” as noted, how are they going to know about it? It will not be widely publicized and they will be busy with other things.

In addition to the proposal for businesses to “opt in” by buying credits from “credit generators” (who are these generators and where does the money go?!), it leaves the ordinary resident no option but to absorb the increased costs, or drive less – the aim of Inslee and the administration.

However, all that apart, the latest PSE residential natural gas bill proposes an increase of some 8% in 2020 for the following (spurious) reasons:-

1] Investment in technology systems such as self-service tools that allow customers to interact with PSE at their convenience
2] Accommodate increasing levels of residential solar, battery storage and electric vehicles with electric infrastructure investments, cost recovery of electric depreciation expenses
3] improved reliability with natural gas infrastructure investments, cost recovery of natural gas depreciation expenses.

– hardly reasons your average resident would feel wildly enthusiastic about funding.

It strikes me as odd that whereas the US is celebrating a bonanza of CHEAPER energy, PSE are proposing to charge the ordinary non-solar panel resident to help finance their wealthier neighbors who can already afford to install them. This from a so-called socialist administration.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  alexei
December 18, 2019 2:22 pm

… all those pols pushing for a carbon tax probably have some personal financial interest …

They are called guaranteed benefits pensions. The unfunded liabilities of state-administered pension plans today exceed $6 trillion. Every elected official is vested, as well as all the state employees.

All the money from carbon taxes will go directly into the pockets of the ruling elite — every last penny. The probability is 100%. So that’s their motivation. It has nothing whatsoever to do with “saving the planet”.

Conodo Mose
December 18, 2019 12:24 pm

Like MCR, this is a second PLEA for Help from Washington State residents statewide. Citizens across the State of Washington are being abused and lodge a similar protest and plea for help. Washington’s Democratic legislature in April passed and in May 2019 our warmist Gov. Inslee signed bill SB56116, to implement Washington’s Clean Energy Transformation Act (CETA), with all republicans, as minorities in both houses, opposed the bill. CETA is certainly destructive, wrong and foolish and so proven because it, after January 1 2025, outlaws COAL as a source of electricity, after January 1, 2030, outlaws all FOSSIL FUELS for generation of electricity inside the State except electricity imports purchased through socialist carbon trading and cap and trade schemes to benefit firms such as Al Gore’s Barack Obama’s Generation Investment Management Inc., or other carbon credit aggregators, and after January 1, 2045, outlaws use of ALL FOSSIL FUELS for generation of electricity, including imports. Washington State is highly unique as it is blessed with hydroelectric power, the largest in all states. The Columbia-Snake River system has 25 hydroelectric dams with capacity of more than 25,000 MWs. Gov. Inslee proposes the electricity lost from fossil fuels can be replaced by solar and wind. He wrote a book on this though he is not a power planner or scientist, but believes he is expert nonetheless despite the 29 glaring errors in the books first chapter, confirming his lack of his expertness. There are several reasons why this act, CETA, is unwise, and clearly will be destructive to this state and its economy. Fact that such ideas have failed elsewhere, placing millions in electric misery in Germany, Denmark, Spain, Australia, and Ontario is history ignored by our leaders, who believe they are smarter, can do better. Ontario’s liberals thought they were smarter, could do better with their Green Energy Act 2009 but were quickly proved wrong six years after its enactment when electricity bills skyrocketed from 5 cents to 36 cents per kwhr. Ontarians now face a $172 billion deficit plus $3,247 monthly Green Energy obligations per household and is following Germany into renewable failure(wattsupwiththat.com). Germans paid 22 cents per kwhr in mega-surcharges and electric costs of 6 cents per kwhr in 2016 (total 28.6 Euro cents), for Energiewende which has become a catastrophic failure but total costs rose again from US 32 cents in 2016 to US 44 cents in 2018. Denmark’s case is similar to Washington State as it relies heavily on hydro from nearby Sweden and Norway, yet its electric bills, like those in Germany rank highest in world. Experience shows that hydroelectric will save Washington from fossil fuels is misplaced, wrong-headed and ignores experiences.
Washington’s Department of Commerce is busy carrying out directives of the Washington Clean Electricity Transformation Act. One such order is to determine the fee for social cost of carbon that Washington residents will pay. Most know that carbon dioxide is not a cost but a benefit as any investigation reveals. In a short time one can show why social cost of carbon is a phony and irrational concept and falsely presumes carbon (CO2) poses a problem. CO2 feeds plants, without which humans cannot survive, a biological fact that Washington’s CETA denies. Carbon dioxide emissions in Washington can be shown to be a benefit by comparing GDP, population and emissions data. Their comparison reveals that Washington’s benefit from CO2 is growing from $1,000/t CO2 in 1980 to $7,000/t CO2 in 2018, while at the same time Washington’s emissions are falling as CO2 emissions fell from 11.8 t/ capita to 10.1 t/ capita in 8 years, from 2010 to 2018. The social cost of carbon is a belief, not unlike that held by TinMan, Lion, Scarecrow and Toto until facts became clear on reaching the Wizard. Social cost of carbon is discordant with the best literature on the topic of the fertilization effect of CO2 emissions. Management Information Systems’ econometric projections show that the social cost of carbon is so small as to be “lost in the estimation error” and should be discarded. Benefits of CO2 from electrical generation and use of fossil fuels is enormous, a value beyond comprehension. Fossil fuels yield a GDP worth $110 trillion in today’s world, a value expected to reach $217 trillion by 2040. The problem: CETA purposely uses a tiny 2.5% discount rate to project its danger due to “social cost of carbon”, with its value misaligned with rates used and recommended by Office of Management and Budget, OMB. OMB says use a discount of 7%, 10% or higher rate, even 20% if risk is large and period is lengthy, given the two-century projection envisioned and cited by CETA’s SCC. Change of the discount rate to 7% using CETA’s methodology easily shows carbon as a benefit, not a cost, while the 20% rate shows the enormous benefit of carbon we see today as it climbs to $364/t CO2 by 2050. It’s clear that CETA’s discount is a semantical error and must be corrected. CETA’s SCC mistakenly uses the federal reserve bank’s overnight discount rate that the “fed” loans money to major banks instead of the discount rate normally used for far-into-the-future rate of return present value projections. CETA’s and the Democratic mistaken use of the federal reserve’s discount rate rather than the OMB discount rate, a rate recommended by OMB’s and Obama Administration’s Circulars A-4- and A-94, which it must use instead, must be just a semantical error but will cost Washingtonians millions of dollars in fees paying non-existent Social Costs of Carbon. Using the long term discount rate normally used for financial projections is the clear choice, as clear as the bird-in-the-hand rule, yet CETA tries to remove or obscure this idea by invoking junk science and confusing present discount rate gyrations.
Gov. Inslee further proposes to remove all four of the hydroelectric dams on the Snake River so the “river can run free”, as he believes the wind turbines will replace the electricity now provided by hydroelectric and Inslee says it will “enhance salmon to feed killer whales”, has provided millions of State dollars to feed his idea, while the Yakama Indian Tribe adds three more hydroelectric dams to the list to be removed, apparently for a return to net fishing for salmon at Celilo Falls and Cascade Locks, sites inundated by dammed reservoirs. Seven dams on these rivers were placed there for several reasons, the main reason being flood control. These are “wild” rivers and wild rivers flood, naturally, with discharge this large, exceeding 226,000 cu ft per second (McNary Dam) are prone to major flood. Normal spring flooding lasting 20 days in 1920 destroyed the city of Vanport, Oregon a century ago, killing 39 people, causing $100 million in damages, removing a community of 18,000. The river destroyed the Port of Kennewick in 1926 and 1941 and Port of Klickitat in 1952 along the Columbia. The Columbia River recorded 20 more “high water” events from 1948 to 1995 until dams were completed according to Nat. Weather Service. The great flood of 1894 inundated Umatilla and The Dalles, OR and Cascade Locks. The Columbia Basin Project began in 1950s provides irrigation but its main purpose was flood control, a purpose lost by those who ignore history, yet is a boon to the state’s agricultural economy. Another unseen problem is that reservoirs behind dams accumulate sediment, silt, clay, sand, and other debris with this rate of accumulation estimated at Boulder Dam as equal to 30,000 truckloads per day.

The Columbia-Snake River system provides a 360 mile long trade avenue for export and import of goods inland to Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and elsewhere. Barge trade on the river system accounts for 4 million tonnes of goods shipped annually to and from Port of Lewiston, the most upriver port. Total river trade was 46 million tonnes in 2012, $20 billion in cargoes and 40,000 jobs are jeopardized if dams are removed. Removing dams is without benefit, as it would prevent shipping of goods, including the agriculture products, a key industry for the region that provides more than 10% of Washington’s GDP. Removing dams would add 538 trucks to highways for each barge tow unable to perform service it now provides if impacted industries survive removing of dams. Salmon and other fisheries have been recovering losses after dam completion with fish counts rising regularly. Steelhead and Chinook fish count gains are rising at remarkably rates thanks to the efforts by US Army Corps of Engineers which now records fish passage at dams at better than 95% so the governor’s purpose to feed whales fades to a strawman fallacy. To date Washington has been known as a business and people friendly place but the Governor’s and Legislature’s plans will end this, by willfully sacrificing people, jobs, and safety for a phantom state of mind.

Further, wind turbines cannot replace hydroelectricity and proof is clear, yet the Governor and Legislature falsely believe otherwise. At least 22 serious disadvantages of wind turbines are compiled. Wind turbines pose a serious health danger due to low frequency noise that seriously impact nearby residents, up to 10 miles distant. Wind turbine construction and deployment cannot survive without continuing subsidies estimated by Institute for Energy Research at $23,370/MW that allows wind turbines to undersell all other forms of electricity, driving competitors into bankruptcy. Ontario estimates that electricity from wind turbines costs $440/MWhr which is about par with rates of 44 to 47 cents/kwhr paid by electric customers in Denmark, Germany and Australia.
All of Washington’s and Oregon’s 46 wind farms constructed along the “windy” Columbia Gorge, rated at a capacity of 4,782 MWs is a 37% larger capacity than output of the four hydroelectric dams on the Snake River at 3,489 MWs, but all wind farms regularly generate 64% less electricity than the four Snake River dams. Averaged over a five year period (January through June) the 46 wind farms underperformed the 4 Snake River dams 26 to 30 days per month. The wind turbine farms produced electricity at less than 10% of their capacity for 9 to 21 days per month over the same five year period. Examination of wind generation performance over a 776 day period, Jan. 2013-March 2015 found that wind generation performance failed to exceed 5% of capacity regularly for 14.4 days per month for the October through February period, and was less than 5% of capacity for 34% of the 776 day period and for 2018, wind output was less than 5% of capacity for 39% of the entire year. Considering the State’s population at about 9 million, the lackluster performance from wind turbines during the October-February period means that 3.67 million customers are NOT served electricity promised.
If Washington continues on its present course, ends generation of electricity from fossil fuels, removes the four dams on the Snake River that now provide 11% of the current supply of hydroelectric, by 2045 the State will be seriously deficient in electric supply, even considering a 100% expansion of wind turbine fleet to 8,742 MW and addition of 82 MWs biomass and 82 MWs solar. To project this, load and supply data for the two week period Nov. 7 – Nov. 19 2019 period was projected forward considering increase in supply and increase in population to 2045 from the 2019 data. The resulting deficit is spectacularly large, at 154,800 MWh, which equates to denying electricity supply to 322,000 persons over the two week period. The local electric utility provider, Avista Utilities also forecasts a shortage as it projects a near 50% curtailment in electric supplies for any average 10-day-long wintertime period. This means unnecessary blackouts, brownouts will become commonplace events in Washington’s winters, while the Governor fulfills his promise to end or curtail emissions of that gas of life, carbon dioxide.

December 18, 2019 1:04 pm

All that has to be communicated to the people is that the price of gas will double and same with electricity rates if these schemes pass. It is an absolute certainty.

December 18, 2019 3:00 pm

I have mixed feelings on this. Mostly because raising the price of gas for the tree-huggers surrounding the Puget Sound just doesn’t bother me. If it was guaranteed that the tax stayed limited to Kitsap, King & Pierce counties, I could live with it.

December 18, 2019 4:11 pm

This is the same scam the EPA (and every other federal agency) used to run until Trump reformed the rule-making process. The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency is offering a “comment period” only as a pretense that they will consider modifying or revoking the proposed rule. They won’t actually revoke it and any modifications will simply make it more onerous. So consider this a done deal.

In the interim, comments will become part of the public record. It is important to show:

a.) CO2 isn’t an air pollutant, it’s a vital plant nutrient
b.) there is no accurate scientific assessment of the amount of warming CO2 causes
c.) the presumed reduction in warming from limiting CO2 is so minuscule as to be useless

What you can do after they implement this rule is start a ballot initiative to revoke it next fall. Or sue the PSCAA for making rules that aren’t considered, debated, and passed by the state legislature, which is where rule-making is supposed to happen (at least at the federal level, as written in the Constitution). Good luck. You live in the land of the lunatics.

December 18, 2019 5:12 pm


December 18, 2019 5:46 pm

I am in Washington state. I regret to say I think this will pass. And if it doesn’t the legislators will figure out a way to do it anyway. The people in power in WA state have the bit in their teeth and are running as fast as they can. Sound Transit is terribly corrupt and citizens initiative voted I-976 for $30 car tabs (to keep statewide money from funding Sound Transit), it passed at a good percentage, however the initiative will not be implemented and is in the court system with no support from our less than useless AG “Sideshow Bob Ferguson”

Michael C. Roberts
December 18, 2019 6:18 pm

As well, it appears that the local EPA Air Contaminants enforcing Agency, embodied by the PSCAA has failed to perform the mandatory Cost-Benefit Analysis for these new regulations. I will use this error/omission in my comment to PSCAA, while citing the statutory requirements as found here: https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations, and here: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-administrator-pruitt-proposes-cost-benefit-analysis-reform. Nowhere was I able to find such an analysis; this alone should stop the impending adoption of the new rules.

Yeah, that’ll happen – when Hades becomes an ice rink.
Or, when porcine farm animals take wing.
and finally, when the extra-large woman belts out the final aria……



Bryan A
Reply to  Michael C. Roberts
December 18, 2019 9:20 pm

You still waiting for
Rubenesque Ruby to Resound Resplendently

Reply to  Michael C. Roberts
December 18, 2019 11:04 pm

Hello Michael,
When I look at the EPA site regarding cost benefit analysis I read it is for stationary sources. I haven’t looked up the RCW referenced in the agency documents for which they claim this proposal is exempt. Input?

December 19, 2019 9:25 am

I’m sure the good people in the Seattle area will enjoy paying over 4 dollars a gallon for fuel knowing deep in their hearts they are saving the world from humanity. Meanwhile, I enjoy $1.99 a gallon gasoline here on the Mississippi Gulf Coast.

steve in Seattle
December 19, 2019 4:25 pm

As a life long resident of WA state, I am ashamed and dismayed by the lack of logic and intelligence as should have been taught to public school students over the past 5 decades. Thus, what we have to deal with now.

As a result we now have a legislature controlled by fools and idiots. This is the kind of legislation they pass or the local level versions of, pass. WA state will suffer. I will rip the clean air agency in my comments and remind them of the need to extend the comment period so more light can be shined upon this agenda of fraud.

Stephen Singer
December 19, 2019 4:40 pm

Thanks for the heads up about WA Clean Fuels Initiative. I just sent the State Government Agency on this matter my opinion about this possible betrayal.

Jake J
December 20, 2019 3:36 pm

Washington’s Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) was able to plagiarize those trumped-up Carbon Trading Schemes (disguised as a Clean Fuels Standard)

I am a WA State resident. I plan to comment. Please give more detail to support this claim. I believe it, by the way, but I’m a detail sorta guy. I would also like to know how much extra cost per gallon this would add to fuel, and how that extra cost is calculated. Thanks.

Jake J
Reply to  Jake J
December 21, 2019 3:38 pm

Unfortunately, I didn’t get a reply, so I sent a comment opposing the standard but without the kind of factual argument that I prefer to make. Not that it will matter, because if there’s one thing any WA State resident knows, it’s that the “progressives” who run this state wouldn’t be caught dead listening to anyone outside of their echo chamber anyway.

%d bloggers like this: