||| CLIMATE EYES by STEVE BERNHEIM |||
“Emissions from natural gas demand an immediate, proactive response from the utilities
responsible for their climate-related risks. Integrating climate-forward planning will help
utilities avoid costly investments and associated asset-stranding risks, while ensuring their
business models evolve to take advantage of the unfolding clean energy transition.”
— Holzman, et al., “Natural Gas: A Bridge to Climate Breakdown,”
March 2020
San Juan County must decide what to do about propane/natural gas combustion in its comprehensive plan. The state growth management act (GMA) says the county’s plan “shall include … A utilities element consisting of the general location, proposed location, and capacity of all existing and proposed utilities, including, but not limited to, electrical lines, telecommunication lines, and natural gas lines.”
The County’s planning period runs from 2016 to 2036 and County Council delivery of the plan to the state commerce department is past due. What is the County’s proposed propane plan and will carbon emissions from propane combustion be increasing or decreasing as the county and the world face the deteriorating climate caused by fossil fuel burning?
The Planning Commission proposes to plan for as much propane and natural gas combustion as local residents, businesses, tourists and others are willing to burn. Its recommended Goal Number 9 for Utilities through 2036 says in full:
Recognize propane as a heating source used in the County.
Policies
1. Identify appropriate land use designations for the siting of bulk fuel storage.
2. Support the use of historic barge landings that have served as landing sites for transporting bulk fuels.
3. Work with the Ports, the Town of Friday Harbor, WSDOT and propane distributors to develop safe transportation and circulation routes for the transport of propane.
The Commission’s proposed plan relies heavily on propane as a heating source through 2036, anticipates additional natural gas construction and facilities until at least 2036, and doesn’t make plans for any reductions until after 2036. There is no mention of, much less planning for, how to transition from burning propane to not burning propane, how to compensate owners of propane burning equipment, or how to equitably retire propane businesses and re-employ owners and employees in the transition to a zero-emission county society.
When it came time for the public comment on the Commission’s pro-propane draft, one resident summed it up like this:
I would recommend that you would put in a policy number four and say basically to work to incentivize decreased use of propane over time as it is a greenhouse gas and there are approximately more than 2500 residential units in the in the county that use propane as a heating source. And I believe when we get done with the greenhouse gas inventory it will show that that’s responsible for approximately 25,000 tons per year. So, it does behoove us over time to attempt to decrease the use of this fuel and to switch over to electricity as it’s much cleaner.
The Commission members opined as follows:
Commissioner Hoffman (Lopez/Shaw): I think we’re premature. You know, OPALCO for the type of system they have to operate has been very reliable. But we’ve had some pretty severe winters and I’m not comfortable putting all my eggs in one basket. And if the hydrogen does come to bear and be practical and hydrogen is, you know, its got its own issues, but in the meantime, we have propane, it is available, it is reliable and it does give us a second source of energy that we can have. So, I think it’s premature to encourage the disuse of propane.
Commissioner Kilpatrick (San Juan): I agree with [public comment] to add number four, with language that says to incentivize decreased use of propane as a goal. I don’t have any quick ideas in terms of what incentives we would provide. I think it’s appropriate to put the language in there as a long-term goal. So yeah, I would agree with that addition.
Chair Gaquin (Orcas): Okay, thank you. I’m inclined to agree with Rick [Hoffman]. I have an all-electric house, I have solar panels, I do lots of energy saving things. I have a front-loading washer, all that kind of stuff, electric car, but when the power goes down, I do have a little propane heating stove and I’m grateful to have it. My husband and I explored all kinds of alternatives as a backup. And we didn’t see anything other than diesel, wood and propane and of the three, propane seemed to be the cleanest. And I don’t know down the road, I think there will be alternatives, but at this time I don’t see that, I don’t see what it would be. How are others feeling? Would you like to see number four added
to incentivize the decreased use of propane at this time or? Go ahead, Steve Rubey.
Commissioner Rubey (Lopez/Shaw): You know, I think this just sort of fits in with the whole notion that it should be a goal that that we all reduce or stop using fossil fuels, no matter whatever origin. Okay. And then, you know, propane the most obvious one. So, you know, I’m not sure we need to necessarily focus specifically on propane. And I think there’s language in there saying that as a goal for the county is that we’re going to move away from the use of fossil fuels for, you know, for energy in whatever way. Is that correct? I mean, isn’t there language in other parts of our comprehensive plan that basically states that?
[Planning Director]: Yes, and I’m trying to find that language in the background right now, but yes, I believe we’ve got it in there already, that the goal is the reduction of fossil fuels.
Chair: I’m seeing 8.4, Key Challenges, “Reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.”
[Planning Director]: Yes, that’s exactly what I was trying to find. Thank you.
Commissioner Rubey: Maybe we already covered it, that’s my point.
Chair: Thank you, Steve Smith.
Commissioner Smith (Orcas): No, I’m just echoing what Steve Rubey had to say, I think the climate section, that goal that you just referenced is sufficient and adequate and we all want to have that. I don’t think we need to add number four here, I guess would be my opinion.
Chair: So what I’m hearing from everyone is that the public comments, while we’re in total sympathy with that, there are, it’s being addressed in the comp plan already and we don’t need to add language to address those.
The County Council is attempting to finish the County’s 20-year planning document (2016-2036) and deliver it to the Washington State Department of Commerce before the end of the year. Expect at least one public hearing, not yet scheduled, before a council vote to finally finalize the final plan.
Legitimate question, but been through this same Comp Plan debate before on another Puget Sound Island. The state requirement for the Utilities section is for “natural gas lines.” That island government was served by Puget Sound Energy, which has an actual gas utility lines serving thousands of customers, (Seattle an example) but that island has no natural gas lines. So … no requirement for any Comp Plan position on a natural gas utility. But many houses, schools, and businesses used propane in a truck delivery system, much like is done here in SJC, but that is not a gas utility.
So the question is does San Juan County have any natural gas utility lines, and if so, is there a map available to the public of where those lines are?
“consisting of the … capacity of all … utilities, … not limited to, … natural gas lines.”