How a 'climate crisis' echo chamber and detached from reality energy strategy is driving increasing electricity prices and risk of blackouts, and to what end?
And the same people touting carbon-free hydropower are the same people pushing for breaching dams (while also pushing for covering the east side of the state in windmills and solar panels).
I would describe these people as simpletons. A simpleton has a low-resolution mind. As such, they can only think in low-resolution, they are incapable of differentiation and experience a level of thought purely at the level of perception. Windmills and solar panels are nice, because there is no smokestack. And, of course, tearing down the dams, "for the fish" is a win-win since the fish win and we get more clean green wind power.
The most outrageous example -- a few years ago, citizens were allowed a minute of time, each, to make their voices heard during a two hour phone / zoom session, related to the removal of the LSRD (Lower Snake River Dams). During two such citizen comments, the voice of a child was heard, reading a script as prepared by the parents... where the child insisted that they were "speaking on behalf of the salmon, who have no voice." This event disgusted me as it was the deliberate propagandizing of children incapable of thinking. I could visualize the parents, just off to the side, nodding approvingly as their simpleton script was being offered.
The Adequacy Standard has moved into unacceptable territory, the probability of blackouts is increasing. Very cold & very hot power demand combined with scant water years and transmission/pipeline bottlenecks are real world events that can move the grid into demand exceeds supply.
nwcouncil.org "The Ninth Plan comes at a critical point with the region facing significant load growth and a shifting resource mix. This plan will put forward robust recommendations for how to cost-effectively meet those needs over the next twenty years....
The Council does this leveraging its new, innovative method to protecting the Northwest power grid’s resource adequacy. We now use multiple metrics to plan for resource adequacy.
Many electricity grids in the U.S. still use a one-day-in-10-years adequacy standard. While that gauges the potential frequency of an energy shortfall, it doesn’t provide information about its magnitude or duration, or the season in which it will occur. Under a one-day-in-10-years standard, we were concerned that a major energy shortfall could masquerade itself and be permitted to occur."
Sad commentary but true. Truth doesn't equal happiness or joy, unless it is discounted or ignored. Every day, hundreds of rail cars traverse from Montana/Wyoming through eastern Washington on their way to ports so coal can be shipped to Asia and Oceania locations where it is burned to support economies and processes overseas. Prevailing winds from Asia and the Pacific Ocean return CO2 back to North America. Is this comedic or planned insanity.
The scant CO2 created by Washingtonians while carrying increasing burdens to reduce that scarcity reminds me of an anorexic person who is self-inflicting themself to further reduce their consumption. Eventually, they will die.
And if Washingtonians are funding low-income assistance via mandated fees/taxes, shouldn't everyone who is paying these fees qualify for IRS state/federal tax relief (by virtue of the billions so far contributed)?
As Rahm Emmanel famously stated: "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
And it seems, that if there isn't a crisis, you find a way to create one (or more).
Great explanation! We need to break the decades old legislative deadlock with the I-5 machine opposing nuclear development, hydropower upgrade and natural gas capacity increase. Affordability and conservation compliment each other with eliminating public costs on these energy sources, prohibiting utility rate hikes to subsidize solar panels and low income programs, investing in hydropower upgrade, coordinating the site planning for data centers and new energy capacity to distribute capacity, and prohibiting environmental degradation by extensive wind and solar.
Washington’s Climate Policy Is Eating Its Own Tail
Washington State now operates under two flagship laws that are supposed to work together:
• The Growth Management Act (GMA), which governs land use, permitting, and local planning
• CETA and the Climate Commitment Act (CCA), which mandate rapid, deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
In theory, these laws should be complementary.
In practice, they are in open, irrational conflict—and the state has chosen to pretend this contradiction doesn’t exist.
The result is a climate policy regime that is loud, moralistic, and legally aggressive, but structurally incapable of delivering the infrastructure it demands.
Mandates Without Mechanisms
CETA and the CCA impose hard outcomes: electrification, decarbonization, and massive increases in clean electricity supply. They assume new generation, storage, transmission, water infrastructure, and transportation systems will appear—on time, at scale, and at tolerable cost.
But the GMA, as interpreted and enforced, actively obstructs the siting of almost all large-scale infrastructure required to meet those mandates.
Local governments are encouraged—often rewarded—for saying “yes” to abstract climate goals and “no” to every real project that might achieve them.
This is not a planning system.
It is a theater.
The Least-Conflict Fantasy
Under GMA practice, infrastructure proposals must navigate:
• Vague “rural character” protections
• Undefined visual impact standards
• Endless public hearings
• “Least-conflict” siting requirements that assume conflict can be eliminated rather than managed
• Appeals processes that reward delay, not solutions
The implicit assumption is that if we talk long enough, object long enough, and study long enough, a perfect site will magically reveal itself—one that offends no one, disturbs nothing, and costs nothing.
That site does not exist.
Yet counties are permitted—sometimes encouraged—to behave as if rejecting every proposal is not a decision at all, but merely a pause in progress.
Electrify Everything—But Build Nothing
CETA requires electrification of buildings, transportation, and industry.
The CCA assumes the grid will support this transition.
But under GMA land-use rules, counties routinely block or delay:
• Utility-scale renewable generation
• Battery storage
• Transmission upgrades
• Substations
• Water and wastewater infrastructure needed for growth and resilience
This creates a policy absurdity:
The state mandates outcomes that local governments are structurally empowered to prevent.
And when the grid strains, prices rise, or reliability falters, the blame is redirected—never to the planning framework, but to utilities, markets, or “insufficient ambition.”
Moral Signaling Is Not Infrastructure
Washington’s climate laws are rich in moral language: equity, justice, protection, stewardship.
But they are poor in implementation discipline.
There is no requirement that counties demonstrate:
• Where new power will come from
• How long permitting will take
• What happens if projects are denied
• How grid constraints are resolved
• What tradeoffs are acceptable
Instead, counties can adopt climate goals that are aspirational, contradictory, and unenforceable—while continuing to apply land-use codes that make compliance impossible.
This is not progressive governance.
It is bureaucratic avoidance dressed up as virtue.
The Iron Law of Delay
Every infrastructure project delayed by GMA process does not disappear.
Its costs compound:
• Inflation
• Financing risk
• Supply chain constraints
• Emergency replacements instead of planned investments
Ironically, delay almost always increases environmental impact—by forcing reliance on older systems, longer transmission distances, and emergency fossil backup.
Yet the planning system treats delay as harmless, even noble.
Who Pays for the Contradiction?
Not the activists who oppose projects.
Not the agencies that write mandates.
Not the planners who deny permits.
The costs fall on:
• Ratepayers
• Renters
• Fixed-income households
• Rural communities
• Small utilities
• Future taxpayers
Washington’s climate strategy has quietly become regressive—not because climate action is regressive, but because fictional planning always is.
You Cannot Regulate Your Way Around Physics
Electricity must be generated somewhere.
Water must come from somewhere.
Transmission must cross land.
No amount of process, equity language, or stakeholder engagement changes that reality.
A planning framework that allows every constituency to veto infrastructure—but requires no one to own the consequences—is not democracy. It is abdication.
The Question No One Is Allowed to Ask
At no point does Washington State require counties to answer a simple question:
If this project is denied, what replaces it—and on what timeline?
Until that question is mandatory, enforceable, and unavoidable, Washington’s climate policy will remain what it is today:
A set of laws that demand results while empowering failure.
Conclusion: Choose Reality or Choose Rhetoric
Washington does not have a climate ambition problem.
It has a governance honesty problem.
We can continue pretending that electrification happens without infrastructure, that decarbonization happens without conflict, and that saying “no” forever has no cost.
Or we can admit the truth:
A climate strategy that cannot be built is not a strategy at all.
It is just another document—perfectly aligned with our values, and completely detached from reality.
Ron Moore, the practical reality is that Washington's GHG reduction ambitions can only come about through an incentivized reduction in the consumption of all forms of energy, including electrical energy.
And the only means of doing that is to: (1) substantially raise the price of all forms of energy, thus incentivizing less consumption through the adoption of highly aggressive energy conservation measures; and (2) enforce a scheme of energy rationing on the Washington state economy.
I found myself nodding along in agreement with everything that you have written. I believe that Gridlock and Failure are not Bugs in the proposed documents (GMA and CCA), rather, they are Features. As long as the gridlock continues, the bureaucrats can shuffle papers merrily on their way to the bounty of well-earned pensions. The shuffle will continue until there is serious breakage: retail utility costs far exceeding what we see today, along with widespread blackouts and even, dare I say it, politicians and bureaucrats being brought to a level of significant physical discomfort.
R, if I might add, I've shared the link to this article on Gab. Hopefully, the more people that see this information, will cause a change. Based on our corrupt voting system, though, I'm not holding my breath.
R, thanks much for this enlightening article. The issue I have with WA St. climate numbers is they don't account for the damage WA St does by it buying stuff elsewhere (e.g., putting in electrical lines to get its electricity generated elsewhere as well as the making of the wind turbines & solar panels elsewhere. WA St "legislators" have no problem crapping up someone else's back yard & on the backs of its low income citizens. WA St+ takes a NIMBY approach & acts all innocent for climate change. The hypocrisy is nauseating.
R, btw, if you don't mind: "fossil" fuel is mentioned in the article yet I have yet to find an independent, peer reviewed, credible report that substantiates hydrocarbon fuels have fossils as their source/precursor. If you, or others, have access to such a report, would you please share it. Otherwise, to use the term "fossil fuel" corroborates falsely the climate Karens'/Kens' premise.
C, based on the lack of critical thinking skills coming out of the WA St. legislators+, am pretty sure it'll take WA St. citizens using pitchforks & torches on them & even then they'll "go down with the ship" that lines their pockets.
Here are several question for Rick Dunn which there wasn't time for me to ask at your October 2025 presentation in Kennewick:
=======
Question #1: Washington's Climate Commitment Law
As I interpret Washington's climate law, at some point in the future, it will become illegal for a power utility in this state to sell electricity sourced from fossil fuel generation, regardless of where that fossil generation is actually located, be it inside the state's borders or elsewhere within the Western Interconnection.
My first question: Is this interpretation correct; and if so, when does the sale of fossil-generated electricity become technically illegal?
==========
Question #2: Consumption of Fossil-Generated Electricity Sourced from Outside the State
A power consuming device attached to the Western Interconnection doesn't know where the electricity it uses comes from. It's just there, ready and available to be consumed.
If the sale of fossil-generated electricity in Washington becomes illegal at some point, then we might presume that no revenue sourced from Washington state electricity consumers could be allowed to flow to the operators of gas-fired or coal-fired power plants located in other states.
My second question: Is this how the climate law would be implemented in practice; and if so, what kinds of accounting mechanisms would be employed to prevent revenue sourced from Washington electricity consumers from supporting the operation of fossil-fueled power plants located in other states?
Thank you for the continued extensive research and effective communication with your readers, Rick. Many of the participants, in this forum, have been on page with your message since you began to synthesize your professional background, understanding of the Green Energy Narrative and ability to craft a cogent argument. We are right there with you, harmonizing on the content and delivery regarding the dangers of the current Washington State energy strategy and its implementation.
However, these words and the logic offered will fall on deaf ears -- the Climate Change Crisis is afforded by the Climate Change Charlatans and Climate Change Crusaders -- a joint effort pushed by those who will financially gain by advancing the Green Agenda, as well as the True Believers that have found a place to hang their hat. Advancing that a Carbon Tax can change the Climate is absurd, until you see those that will benefit as the gatekeepers to these taxes. As for the climate zealots, they now have a reason to get out of bed in the morning; to wit, I believe that a fate worse than death, is for an individual to become irrelevant. These zealots will champion their crusade to the ends of the earth, as this is more than just a Crisis, it is an Existential Threat. These useful dupes are, in their own simpleton minds, Saving The Planet. A belief that does not comport with reality is a delusion. The Crusaders are delusional simpletons, likely to never come to their senses as that would collapse their existence into the vacuum occupied by the irrelevant.
And the same people touting carbon-free hydropower are the same people pushing for breaching dams (while also pushing for covering the east side of the state in windmills and solar panels).
I would describe these people as simpletons. A simpleton has a low-resolution mind. As such, they can only think in low-resolution, they are incapable of differentiation and experience a level of thought purely at the level of perception. Windmills and solar panels are nice, because there is no smokestack. And, of course, tearing down the dams, "for the fish" is a win-win since the fish win and we get more clean green wind power.
The most outrageous example -- a few years ago, citizens were allowed a minute of time, each, to make their voices heard during a two hour phone / zoom session, related to the removal of the LSRD (Lower Snake River Dams). During two such citizen comments, the voice of a child was heard, reading a script as prepared by the parents... where the child insisted that they were "speaking on behalf of the salmon, who have no voice." This event disgusted me as it was the deliberate propagandizing of children incapable of thinking. I could visualize the parents, just off to the side, nodding approvingly as their simpleton script was being offered.
The Adequacy Standard has moved into unacceptable territory, the probability of blackouts is increasing. Very cold & very hot power demand combined with scant water years and transmission/pipeline bottlenecks are real world events that can move the grid into demand exceeds supply.
nwcouncil.org "The Ninth Plan comes at a critical point with the region facing significant load growth and a shifting resource mix. This plan will put forward robust recommendations for how to cost-effectively meet those needs over the next twenty years....
The Council does this leveraging its new, innovative method to protecting the Northwest power grid’s resource adequacy. We now use multiple metrics to plan for resource adequacy.
Many electricity grids in the U.S. still use a one-day-in-10-years adequacy standard. While that gauges the potential frequency of an energy shortfall, it doesn’t provide information about its magnitude or duration, or the season in which it will occur. Under a one-day-in-10-years standard, we were concerned that a major energy shortfall could masquerade itself and be permitted to occur."
What is the cost of a "Blackout"?
Sad commentary but true. Truth doesn't equal happiness or joy, unless it is discounted or ignored. Every day, hundreds of rail cars traverse from Montana/Wyoming through eastern Washington on their way to ports so coal can be shipped to Asia and Oceania locations where it is burned to support economies and processes overseas. Prevailing winds from Asia and the Pacific Ocean return CO2 back to North America. Is this comedic or planned insanity.
The scant CO2 created by Washingtonians while carrying increasing burdens to reduce that scarcity reminds me of an anorexic person who is self-inflicting themself to further reduce their consumption. Eventually, they will die.
And if Washingtonians are funding low-income assistance via mandated fees/taxes, shouldn't everyone who is paying these fees qualify for IRS state/federal tax relief (by virtue of the billions so far contributed)?
As Rahm Emmanel famously stated: "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
And it seems, that if there isn't a crisis, you find a way to create one (or more).
Great explanation! We need to break the decades old legislative deadlock with the I-5 machine opposing nuclear development, hydropower upgrade and natural gas capacity increase. Affordability and conservation compliment each other with eliminating public costs on these energy sources, prohibiting utility rate hikes to subsidize solar panels and low income programs, investing in hydropower upgrade, coordinating the site planning for data centers and new energy capacity to distribute capacity, and prohibiting environmental degradation by extensive wind and solar.
Great article, Rick! I am excited by the prospect of more articles on the topics you mentioned.
Fantastic article Rick. Very well done.
Washington’s Climate Policy Is Eating Its Own Tail
Washington State now operates under two flagship laws that are supposed to work together:
• The Growth Management Act (GMA), which governs land use, permitting, and local planning
• CETA and the Climate Commitment Act (CCA), which mandate rapid, deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
In theory, these laws should be complementary.
In practice, they are in open, irrational conflict—and the state has chosen to pretend this contradiction doesn’t exist.
The result is a climate policy regime that is loud, moralistic, and legally aggressive, but structurally incapable of delivering the infrastructure it demands.
Mandates Without Mechanisms
CETA and the CCA impose hard outcomes: electrification, decarbonization, and massive increases in clean electricity supply. They assume new generation, storage, transmission, water infrastructure, and transportation systems will appear—on time, at scale, and at tolerable cost.
But the GMA, as interpreted and enforced, actively obstructs the siting of almost all large-scale infrastructure required to meet those mandates.
Local governments are encouraged—often rewarded—for saying “yes” to abstract climate goals and “no” to every real project that might achieve them.
This is not a planning system.
It is a theater.
The Least-Conflict Fantasy
Under GMA practice, infrastructure proposals must navigate:
• Vague “rural character” protections
• Undefined visual impact standards
• Endless public hearings
• “Least-conflict” siting requirements that assume conflict can be eliminated rather than managed
• Appeals processes that reward delay, not solutions
The implicit assumption is that if we talk long enough, object long enough, and study long enough, a perfect site will magically reveal itself—one that offends no one, disturbs nothing, and costs nothing.
That site does not exist.
Yet counties are permitted—sometimes encouraged—to behave as if rejecting every proposal is not a decision at all, but merely a pause in progress.
Electrify Everything—But Build Nothing
CETA requires electrification of buildings, transportation, and industry.
The CCA assumes the grid will support this transition.
But under GMA land-use rules, counties routinely block or delay:
• Utility-scale renewable generation
• Battery storage
• Transmission upgrades
• Substations
• Water and wastewater infrastructure needed for growth and resilience
This creates a policy absurdity:
The state mandates outcomes that local governments are structurally empowered to prevent.
And when the grid strains, prices rise, or reliability falters, the blame is redirected—never to the planning framework, but to utilities, markets, or “insufficient ambition.”
Moral Signaling Is Not Infrastructure
Washington’s climate laws are rich in moral language: equity, justice, protection, stewardship.
But they are poor in implementation discipline.
There is no requirement that counties demonstrate:
• Where new power will come from
• How long permitting will take
• What happens if projects are denied
• How grid constraints are resolved
• What tradeoffs are acceptable
Instead, counties can adopt climate goals that are aspirational, contradictory, and unenforceable—while continuing to apply land-use codes that make compliance impossible.
This is not progressive governance.
It is bureaucratic avoidance dressed up as virtue.
The Iron Law of Delay
Every infrastructure project delayed by GMA process does not disappear.
Its costs compound:
• Inflation
• Financing risk
• Supply chain constraints
• Emergency replacements instead of planned investments
Ironically, delay almost always increases environmental impact—by forcing reliance on older systems, longer transmission distances, and emergency fossil backup.
Yet the planning system treats delay as harmless, even noble.
Who Pays for the Contradiction?
Not the activists who oppose projects.
Not the agencies that write mandates.
Not the planners who deny permits.
The costs fall on:
• Ratepayers
• Renters
• Fixed-income households
• Rural communities
• Small utilities
• Future taxpayers
Washington’s climate strategy has quietly become regressive—not because climate action is regressive, but because fictional planning always is.
You Cannot Regulate Your Way Around Physics
Electricity must be generated somewhere.
Water must come from somewhere.
Transmission must cross land.
No amount of process, equity language, or stakeholder engagement changes that reality.
A planning framework that allows every constituency to veto infrastructure—but requires no one to own the consequences—is not democracy. It is abdication.
The Question No One Is Allowed to Ask
At no point does Washington State require counties to answer a simple question:
If this project is denied, what replaces it—and on what timeline?
Until that question is mandatory, enforceable, and unavoidable, Washington’s climate policy will remain what it is today:
A set of laws that demand results while empowering failure.
Conclusion: Choose Reality or Choose Rhetoric
Washington does not have a climate ambition problem.
It has a governance honesty problem.
We can continue pretending that electrification happens without infrastructure, that decarbonization happens without conflict, and that saying “no” forever has no cost.
Or we can admit the truth:
A climate strategy that cannot be built is not a strategy at all.
It is just another document—perfectly aligned with our values, and completely detached from reality.
Ron Moore, the practical reality is that Washington's GHG reduction ambitions can only come about through an incentivized reduction in the consumption of all forms of energy, including electrical energy.
And the only means of doing that is to: (1) substantially raise the price of all forms of energy, thus incentivizing less consumption through the adoption of highly aggressive energy conservation measures; and (2) enforce a scheme of energy rationing on the Washington state economy.
I found myself nodding along in agreement with everything that you have written. I believe that Gridlock and Failure are not Bugs in the proposed documents (GMA and CCA), rather, they are Features. As long as the gridlock continues, the bureaucrats can shuffle papers merrily on their way to the bounty of well-earned pensions. The shuffle will continue until there is serious breakage: retail utility costs far exceeding what we see today, along with widespread blackouts and even, dare I say it, politicians and bureaucrats being brought to a level of significant physical discomfort.
Very good post. Thank you.
R, if I might add, I've shared the link to this article on Gab. Hopefully, the more people that see this information, will cause a change. Based on our corrupt voting system, though, I'm not holding my breath.
R, thanks much for this enlightening article. The issue I have with WA St. climate numbers is they don't account for the damage WA St does by it buying stuff elsewhere (e.g., putting in electrical lines to get its electricity generated elsewhere as well as the making of the wind turbines & solar panels elsewhere. WA St "legislators" have no problem crapping up someone else's back yard & on the backs of its low income citizens. WA St+ takes a NIMBY approach & acts all innocent for climate change. The hypocrisy is nauseating.
R, btw, if you don't mind: "fossil" fuel is mentioned in the article yet I have yet to find an independent, peer reviewed, credible report that substantiates hydrocarbon fuels have fossils as their source/precursor. If you, or others, have access to such a report, would you please share it. Otherwise, to use the term "fossil fuel" corroborates falsely the climate Karens'/Kens' premise.
I wonder how bad it has to get before the legislature wakes up to this reality?
C, based on the lack of critical thinking skills coming out of the WA St. legislators+, am pretty sure it'll take WA St. citizens using pitchforks & torches on them & even then they'll "go down with the ship" that lines their pockets.
Thanks Rick. Always appreciate your perspective. Best wishes in 2026.
Nice to hear from you Paul. All the best to you as well.
Here are several question for Rick Dunn which there wasn't time for me to ask at your October 2025 presentation in Kennewick:
=======
Question #1: Washington's Climate Commitment Law
As I interpret Washington's climate law, at some point in the future, it will become illegal for a power utility in this state to sell electricity sourced from fossil fuel generation, regardless of where that fossil generation is actually located, be it inside the state's borders or elsewhere within the Western Interconnection.
My first question: Is this interpretation correct; and if so, when does the sale of fossil-generated electricity become technically illegal?
==========
Question #2: Consumption of Fossil-Generated Electricity Sourced from Outside the State
A power consuming device attached to the Western Interconnection doesn't know where the electricity it uses comes from. It's just there, ready and available to be consumed.
If the sale of fossil-generated electricity in Washington becomes illegal at some point, then we might presume that no revenue sourced from Washington state electricity consumers could be allowed to flow to the operators of gas-fired or coal-fired power plants located in other states.
My second question: Is this how the climate law would be implemented in practice; and if so, what kinds of accounting mechanisms would be employed to prevent revenue sourced from Washington electricity consumers from supporting the operation of fossil-fueled power plants located in other states?
Thank you for the continued extensive research and effective communication with your readers, Rick. Many of the participants, in this forum, have been on page with your message since you began to synthesize your professional background, understanding of the Green Energy Narrative and ability to craft a cogent argument. We are right there with you, harmonizing on the content and delivery regarding the dangers of the current Washington State energy strategy and its implementation.
However, these words and the logic offered will fall on deaf ears -- the Climate Change Crisis is afforded by the Climate Change Charlatans and Climate Change Crusaders -- a joint effort pushed by those who will financially gain by advancing the Green Agenda, as well as the True Believers that have found a place to hang their hat. Advancing that a Carbon Tax can change the Climate is absurd, until you see those that will benefit as the gatekeepers to these taxes. As for the climate zealots, they now have a reason to get out of bed in the morning; to wit, I believe that a fate worse than death, is for an individual to become irrelevant. These zealots will champion their crusade to the ends of the earth, as this is more than just a Crisis, it is an Existential Threat. These useful dupes are, in their own simpleton minds, Saving The Planet. A belief that does not comport with reality is a delusion. The Crusaders are delusional simpletons, likely to never come to their senses as that would collapse their existence into the vacuum occupied by the irrelevant.
Rick, great explanation. I have been bewildered by WA State Legislative actions.
I asked my “AI Therapist” to help me understand. I’ll share the answer: