Seattle is trying to ban natural gas. It’s a terrible idea | Guest Opinion

When it comes to environmental issues, Seattle and other lawmakers in Washington State increasingly seem in a hurry to join the “ban natural gas” fad. It sounds good until you read the fine print, which will leave you flummoxed — especially with the economic pain and impact caused by COVID-19.

The city councils in Seattle and Bellingham want to eliminate natural gas — among the cleanest fuel sources we have — in new commercial and residential construction. It’s a proposal that makes no sense, economically or environmentally for our families and small businesses.

A ban on natural gas as a heating or cooking fuel would hit residents, especially the less fortunate who struggle with poverty or fixed incomes, squarely in the wallets. A recent study from the University of California, Berkeley’s Energy Institute found that African American households and renters paid more for energy than white households from 2010 to 2017. And for families who often can’t afford to use enough energy to stay warm or cool, their priority is managing their basic needs and are less likely to be able to afford or make upgrades.

Bellingham’s plan would require owners of homes and commercial buildings to convert to electric heat-pump technology or its equivalent. The city’s task force said the average cost of installing an electric heat pump system was about $6,200 to $13,100 higher than a gas furnace. But Ronald Scott Colson, a financial adviser who lives outside the city, told the New York Times he spent about $28,000 to install a forced-air heat pump system in 2018 and will have to drop another $8,000 for a second heat pump to ensure he has hot water.

Colson rightly asked how many homeowners can afford that cost? That whopping price tag isn’t off the mark. In Takoma Park, MD, the city council approved a total ban on traditional fuels — including gas stations — and city officials estimate the cost to the average homeowner at up to $25,000.

Another big hit will come from our monthly electric bills. About one-third of Washington residents depend on natural gas as their primary heating fuel, and their electricity bill will climb because electricity rates are roughly 20% higher than those for natural gas.

These bans are being sold with a classic sales tactic — urgency. Urgency is why we have aggressive timelines that don’t account for how long it will take to build enough alternative energy sources to replace the huge role of natural gas in supplying inexpensive, always-on-time energy.

Renewable energy is making great strides, and we should all applaud and support its expanded use, as well as other cleaner solutions. But the bane of all energy projects — regulations and permitting — is still a barrier to getting things built in a timely fashion in Washington State, so we should carefully scrutinize any claims that we can build fast enough to replace natural gas.

Even less carbon-intensive projects are in the crosshairs. In January, the Renewable Energy Group and partner Phillips 66 canceled plans to build a renewable diesel facility at Cherry Point, citing permitting uncertainties that would have added two years to the project’s start date.

The state last year withdrew support for construction of a proposed liquefied natural gas terminal to help a global environmental effort to replace marine diesel fuels, which will totally eliminate sulphur dioxide emissions and cut carbon dioxide by 35 percent when put in place.

The state reversal cost Puget Sound Energy’s project more than a year’s delay. It received its state clean air certification in December 2019, putting it closer to its goal of fueling part of the world’s first fleet of LNG-powered container ships, owned by Tote Shipping.

Now that we understand the realities of what a ban means, it’s time for our officials to start talking straight. City councils and Washington State lawmakers have more urgent issues to deal with — COVID-19 response, homelessness, mental health, transportation and more — and should stop wasting time seeking headlines at the expense of their constituent’s wallets.

These bans appeal to a very narrow set of interests, and ignore unimpeachable data that shows that natural gas has helped the U.S. lead the world in emissions reductions on an absolute basis.

Until we have the right mix of energy sources that can meet constant demand, banning natural gas is just another recipe for our governments to create unintended costs that hurt those who can least afford it the most.

This story was originally published July 6, 2020 at 12:49 PM with the headline "Seattle is trying to ban natural gas. It’s a terrible idea | Guest Opinion."