Seattle City Council Sustainability & Transportation Committee Special Meeting 9/10/19

Good morning, everyone.

Welcome to a special meeting of the Sustainability and Transportation Committee.

It's September 10th, 2019 at 1148 a.m.

My name is Mike O'Brien.

I'm chair of the committee.

Thank you all for being here today.

We have three items on this day's agenda.

The first is a discussion about An ordinance related to prohibiting natural gas piping systems in new buildings.

The second, we'll be discussing an ordinance related to heating oil, which put a tax on heating oil.

And 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 of my colleagues might be bringing, and I think it's going to make sense for us to have a discussion of some of those amendments.

and continue to work with some community members on that and come back for another discussion and possible vote a week from today.

So not planning to vote on the oil heat ordinance today.

Was definitely not planning to vote on the natural gas piping resolution or ordinance today either.

So both those will just be discussions.

And I'm hoping to vote on the resolution about drilling and getting oil from ANWR.

So we'll see how that goes with committee members.

So we'll start with public comment.

So folks will have up to two minutes each to provide public comment.

Kelly, give me those lists.

We have about a dozen folks signed up.

Eleanor Bastian is first, and Carolyn Logie, I think, and then Daniel Hammer.

Hi.

Good morning.

My name is Eleanor Bastian, and I am 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.

Big picture, again, we are all paying a high price for using fossil fuels in our daily life.

Getting off fossil fuels saves money and lives.

But in an economy where folks think about their budget week to week, we need policies that help manage upfront costs, even when there is a likely payoff in savings later years down the line.

The heating oil bill.

represents a targeted 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 common sense step towards our climate goals.

The science shows that all reductions in carbon and other greenhouse gases make a difference.

We know also that our building codes are already making buildings more efficient, and new construction is increasingly moving to all electric systems for heating, water, and appliances.

So this technological and market shift is happening fast.

And of course, there are some folks, including affordable housing developers who 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 here representing two organizations today on the Healthy Homes and Healthy Buildings proposal, the Washington Air Conditioning Contractors Association and the Northwest Hearth Patio and Barbecue Association.

Both organizations, first of all, 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 in their businesses and the jobs that they provide in the city.

But right now, neither of those organizations can support this proposal.

For the Washington Air Conditioning Contractors Association, they are very involved in helping customers with more energy, put more energy efficient systems in to reduce their carbon emissions and convert to new technologies.

But they are very concerned about customer choice cost, and they don't want to jeopardize the existing gas infrastructure.

For the Northwest Hearth Patio and Barbecue Association, we're very concerned about heating and cooking alternatives when the power goes out.

I'm concerned about how we deal with change-out programs, where conversion of wood stoves to natural gas has been a major part of our change-out programs that we're working with on the local air quality authorities.

We'd like to see a focus on incentives, a focus that looks at consumer education and conservation efforts, a focus that looks at helping people learn about how to maintain and adequately keep their gas appliances in good working order.

a focus that looks at what are the best resources and that type of thing.

We also want to make sure we keep a variety in alternatives as we sort through this new energy world that we're entering into and work with the people who are in that world right now, as you're talking about in the oil heating proposal, to kind of retrain and look at what happens with the jobs in the industry.

We also want to make sure that we don't lose the ability for new technologies to use an infrastructure such as gas lines into homes and businesses.

There are new technologies coming down the pike.

We don't think they're fully vetted yet.

The state just in their clean buildings has technologies like renewable natural gas, renewable hydrogen, how to deal and what kind of backup solar may need.

And we don't want to lose the ability to have technologies in there that can provide energy now but may also help provide energy in the future with a retrofit.

Thank you.

Daniel, you're going to be followed by Dan Caneloan and then Kevin Clark.

Hello, good afternoon.

My name is Daniel Hammer.

I'm here on behalf of the 25 people who I work with at Sutter-Ullman Hearth in Ballard and the thousands of other stakeholders who I feel weren't considered in the crafting of this proposed ordinance.

Sutter's been in business in Ballard for 40 years.

60% of our revenues come from the sales, installation, and support of natural gas appliances.

With those revenues, Sutter provides us a living wage, health care, retirement plans, paid vacation holidays, among other benefits.

We are stakeholders in this decision, and we, along with the many others who work in our industry and service the city, should be included in any plan that risks our livelihoods.

In addition to us at Sutter, we have thousands of happy customers who have natural gas fireplaces and love them.

Customers who tell us about reduced heating bills, which means a reduction in resource usage, whether it's electric, fuel, oil, or gas.

They are stakeholders, too, and like us, I feel they've not been consulted.

An all-electric Seattle may seem like a good idea on paper, because maybe it's carbon neutral, maybe it will make a measurable difference in our fight against climate change.

However, it seems to me there are a lot of assumptions and a lot less understanding of the overall long-term impact this will have, both in the positive for climate change and certainly in the negative for the stakeholders affected.

What happens when the power goes out?

What happens when people end up paying more for their heating bills?

What about salmon and the damming of our waterways?

What about the jobs and businesses that may be lost or leave the city if this 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'm opposed to this ordinance, I want to offer my expertise and experience to this committee.

They have been doing this for 20 years, eight of them in Ballard.

I'm here to help.

Thanks.

Thank you, Dan.

Dan?

Hi.

My name is Dan Kinelligan 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 heat customers that have expressed fear and confusion regarding the added tax and large cost they would bear 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 $0.24 per gallon tax would be a hardship to these residents, even worse would be the enormous cost 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 through the state's plea to get the tanks pulled or replaced by 2028. The tank funds, according to PLEA, just are not there.

Even if PLEA 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 18,000 tanks by the year 2028. This would put even a greater financial burden on the oil heat residents.

In closing, let's slow down this train.

Let's get better communication and outreach to the affected community using oil heat.

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.

Thanks Dan.

Kevin.

I'm sorry.

Today about Section 14 of the proposed heating oil tax bill, it declares a vague intent to require all heating oil storage tanks to be decommissioned or replaced by 2028 and calls for an implementation plan by next July.

OSC may think using the fire code this way will be an effective cudgel to force oil heat customers to switch to the city's electric monopoly.

But I believe it will backfire and actually slow down conversions from oil heat.

Your successors on the City Council will get the telephone calls from angry homeowners dealing with the costs and risks of digging up their old tanks, not only from the 18,000 homes still using oil, but also from the unknown tens of thousands of Seattle homes with abandoned tanks.

After voters approved the Model Toxic Control Act 31 years ago, the legislature had to step in when banks refused to mortgage homes that had oil tanks.

It created an insurance program called PLEA to pay up to $60,000 per home for leak remediation.

If you mandate tank decommissioning in Seattle, PLEA will be overwhelmed with leak oil, with oil leak claims.

And since 1996, PLEA has paid out over $42 million to 4,100 Seattle homeowners for such claims, an average of over 10,000 each, not including the fuel switch and the new furnace.

PLEA, and because of this proposal, PLEA has already taken steps to limit how much of this statewide fund can go to Seattle homeowners.

I started Seattle's 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 Seattle's surface waters.

Also, there are no drinking water wells in Seattle to risk human health.

Instead of an unsupported, intense statement now, I urge you to provide the next council a risk assessment of heating oil tanks to the environment, to homeowners like me, and to 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 SEPA requires 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, 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.

Thanks, Kevin.

Next up is going to be Kurt Swanson, followed by Shannona Usley, and then Brittany Bishbelay.

Thank you.

My name is Kurt Swanson.

I'm 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 that 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 that Local 17 workers working at SDOT may also lose some work due to this legislation.

I've heard that this bill is described as a modest first step to reducing carbon emissions.

While I'm here to say we think this is far from modest, this would have a huge impact on us.

My job would be in jeopardy, and so would the job of many of my members that I represent.

Aside from ignoring the impacts to workers, the development of this ordinance also did not involve a comprehensive study to ensure the feasibility of the electrical grid to handle the capacity.

of adding all new electric only residence and buildings.

We believe that moving forward in this ordinance without conducting a study would be irresponsible for those who live and work in Seattle.

We're 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 to develop a feasible, realistic energy policy on this matter.

Our members of contractors are continuously training and installing more efficient means of equipment and reducing our carbon footprint.

I would ask council members to oppose this legislation and please take the time to conduct a feasibility study and convene a stakeholder process.

We would look forward to working with the council once the study is completed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kurt.

Shenona?

Could be Sharona?

Shavonna?

All right.

Brittany Bush-Ballet?

followed by Steve Gelb, and then Zach Semke.

Good afternoon, council member.

My name is Brittany Bush-Bollet.

I'm 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've done a lot of really good work around establishing a conversation around our transportation emissions, around driving, around planes.

And we know how hazardous that is to our health, to the climate's health.

Unfortunately, we've been neglectful of the work that we need 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 extraction, during transport, and during storage.

And their use in the home creates air that is dangerous to breathe.

It's time to follow both science and morality, clearly establish our priorities, and move away from investment in dangerous, unhealthy fossil fuels.

Thank you.

Thank you, Brittany.

Steve?

Good afternoon, Councilmember.

I'm here to speak on the oil legislation as well as the Healthy Homes, Healthy Buildings.

Regarding oil, we are in support of this legislation.

I'm with Emerald City, Seattle.

And we like the fact that it reduces utility costs for homeowners, many of them low income and moderate income, improves health, reduces climate pollution as well as groundwater pollution.

And we're particularly excited that it addresses equity concerns in that transition for workers who 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 the conversions as well as tax remediation.

But something that I think is overlooked often is that they also worked out a loan program that allows moderate income and middle income folks to borrow money almost regardless of their credit scores, and pay it back on their electric bill.

And for them, overall, their cost of utilities will be lower by converting from oil to electricity.

And that's 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 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 that the transition for new buildings is already underway.

The majority of new buildings are already almost all electric.

And that for existing buildings, it's a very tough challenge, and there are many equity issues that need to be addressed.

the transitions of workers and low and 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.

Thanks.

Thanks, Steve.

Zach?

Zach, you're going to be followed by Thomas Hildebrandt and then Michael Gonzalez.

Good morning.

I'm Zach Semke.

I'm co-chair of Shift 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 advance zero carbon buildings for all communities in Washington State.

And I'm here to express our support for Council Bill 119640 and Council Bill 119607. So starting with 119640, the Healthy Homes and Healthy Buildings legislation, excuse me, this bill is a common sense step in our transition from fossil fuels.

Our building codes are already making buildings much more efficient, moving new construction toward all electric space and water heating technologies, and this policy acknowledges that shift and will accelerate market transformation of zero carbon buildings.

For most buildings, moving away from gas is a slam dunk.

We know how to do it.

It's good for the environment and healthier and cheaper for residents to live in all electric homes.

We recognize that for affordable housing developers making this transition, there are unique challenges in the way those projects are funded.

And Shift Zero is committed to help navigate this, working together to explore incentives along with concessions from the funding community to allow for any additional costs until they've moderated.

We want this policy to move forward in a way that ensures the benefits of healthy, high-performance buildings are available for all communities.

Regarding 119607, the heating oil legislation, this bill is a critical step in addressing carbon pollution and indoor air quality in Seattle homes.

It's a model policy that creates an equitable pathway for homeowners to transition from outdated, inefficient 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.

Thanks, Zach.

Thomas?

I'm Tom Hildebrandt, and I've come to talk to you about the recent ordinance that was passed by the city council requiring protected bicycle facilities to be constructed in connection with transportation renovation projects exceeding $1 million.

First of all, I'd like to thank the City Council for passing this resolution.

It's important to consider the needs of cyclists in any major transportation project.

But I'd also like to urge the City Council to or urge of the city to make sure that these projects are done right.

I've been a bike commuter for 44 years.

I've 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've used around the city, I find that I'm forced to slow down due to my sense of safety in these protected bike lane facilities.

It's nice to have this sense of protection.

It's nice to feel safe when you're riding.

But it's 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'd like to help the city and the Department of Transportation work out these details.

I've applied for a position on the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board.

And I look forward to helping the city in other ways as I can.

Great.

Thomas, thank you so much for coming out today.

Michael Gonzalez?

Michael, you're the last one who signed up.

If there's folks in the audience who I missed or who didn't sign up, please just queue up behind Michael, and you'll have a chance to go after he's done.

Go ahead, Michael.

I always like being the last person to testify.

I was the most popular person in the room, so I'll try and be brief.

Michael Gonzalez, Political Director of Teamsters Local 174, speaking out against this legislation today.

We represent about 50 drivers in the home heating oil business which would lose their jobs under this legislation.

Also, I believe there's about 50 more IBEW Local 46 members that would lose their jobs under this legislation.

And look, unions as a whole, we believe in climate change.

We understand that there has to be compromises made in order to make sure that our society moves forward.

And that climate change does not destroy everything that we have built.

That being said, we appreciate the conversations that we've had.

We believe that there's amendments that we've put on the table that not only addresses the concerns of people in this room that gets away from the carbon based fuel, but also addresses the concerns of our workers and the union workers to make sure they still have.

those jobs that pay good wages, that pay for benefits, and pays for the retirement.

Also, I would like to just mention the 18,000 people that would be also affected by this legislation.

Most of them low income, most of them working people, most of them retired on a fixed income.

And even though we understand that the legislation provides some sort of financial relief for them, it will not come close to covering the $15,000 it would cost to go to an electric heat pump and or any abatement costs that are also part of that, where they find asbestos and things like that when they start digging into these old homes that are primarily from the earliest century when they were built.

So I appreciate the chance to talk, and thank you very much.

Thanks, Michael.

Come on forward.

I see some folks just walked in, too.

So if other folks want to comment, you can get in queue after this woman.

Good afternoon, Alicia Ruiz with the Master Builders Association.

The Master Builders share your concern with our planet's growing climate crisis, but cannot support the proposal as written to discontinue new natural gas connections to buildings.

See, other builders are known for their consistent efforts to build local homes as energy efficient as possible, with many working with entities like Built Green to certify their environmentally conscious efforts.

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 home builders with the addition of MHA fees and bar restrictions.

Our 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?

Thank you.

Thank you, Lisa.

And come on forward.

And if you don't mind just stating your name for the record.

Shavonna Owsley.

Oh great, you signed up earlier.

Thanks Shavonna.

I am the office manager at Genesee Energy.

I was raised on Beacon Hill and I attended Cleveland High School.

2012 I was hired by Genesee as an entry-level customer service representative making $10 an hour.

Seven years later, I'm now the office manager, and I've been able to purchase my own home.

As lead customer service rep over the years, I've had firsthand interaction with our customers, many of whom are working families and elderly citizens living on a fixed income.

I understand that the tax will aid extremely low-income families, but most of these customers already receive energy assistance pledges from various programs.

It's the families that do not qualify for low-income energy assistance and who won't qualify for the subsidy generated by this tax, the working families, the elderly, those who started like I did seven years ago, young and early in my career.

They are the ones that will be directly impacted by this proposal.

I'm a mother of three, and while I was able to purchase my own home, I wasn't able to do so in Seattle because it was too expensive already for young families.

This bill will only make Seattle less affordable.

While I, like most people, want a lower carbon output, spending $15,000 on a heat pump would be a significant burden to many of the customers I've interacted with.

There has been another alternative.

I urge the council to reconsider this proposal, keeping in mind the impact of working families.

Thank you.

Thanks, Shabana.

Not seeing anyone else step forward, we'll go ahead and close public comment.

And we'll move on to agenda item number one.

I'll invite the presenter forward, Yolanda, and ask that Kelly read the item into the record.

Council bill one one nine six four zero an ordinance relating to prohibiting natural gas piping systems and new buildings adding a new chapter 22 942 the Seattle Municipal Code Quick introductions Yolanda Oh council central staff

Thank you for being here today, Yolanda.

So for the public's benefit, we had a discussion on this in committee last week.

The legislation at that point was what we call draft legislation.

It hadn't been formally introduced to the council.

We now have an actual piece of legislation here.

We had a conversation with a number of community members who've been kind of working on the policy yesterday at the table.

Today, I was hoping, Yolanda, that you could just kind of walk us through what is actually in the piece of legislation.

And I'll let you just proceed through that.

And as I have some questions or clarifying points, I'll jump in if that's okay.

Sure.

There is a long memo attached to the agenda that kind of provides some of the background.

And so I wanted to kind of frame at least some of where this policy comes from before diving into the details of the legislation, if that's OK with you.

So just to make sure everyone understands, greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, causing global warming, which in turn causes climate change.

And the most common greenhouse gases are, is carbon dioxide, but we also include methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases in that category.

And the council has had a long history of recognizing the threat posed by global warming and climate change beginning with the resolution 28546 in 1992. Fast forward to more recent years, the council adopted the goal through resolution 31312, establishing for the city to reach zero net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and setting intermediate reductions targets.

And so to that end, the council adopted the 2013 Climate Action Plan, which included a variety of 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 for 97% of Seattle's greenhouse gas emissions.

And the plan set intermediate targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from residential buildings by 32% and commercial buildings by 45% of 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, but based on the rates of reduction, it does not appear that we are on track to meet our net zero emissions goal by 2050 and would need to increase emissions reductions rate by sevenfold.

Further, spurred by the national movement to implement a federal Green New Deal, the council recently 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 to transition from natural gas and a strategy to transition from natural gas to non-polluting electricity.

The shorter time frame of 2030 reflects findings from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2018 report emphasizing the need for immediate reductions in greenhouse gas 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 electric utilities serving retail customers in the state supply electricity completely free of greenhouse gas emissions by 2045. So a statewide push as well.

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 a significant source.

Also- And so we know that- So direct combustion meaning like these are appliances in the building?

And heat, yeah, furnaces, things like that, yes.

And so there's the direct combustion which creates carbon dioxide, but also in addition to emissions related to those uses we just spoke about.

The drilling, extraction, and transportation of 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, up to maybe 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 specifically over addition to carbon dioxide.

So in the short term, that will be quite impactful.

And just 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.

And...

Do we have a sense of how that's quantified?

I mean, it seems like we're...

I'm hearing more and more about that, but it seems like it's a relatively new news story.

Yeah, there have been some studies.

There was one study I found that previous assessments of the natural gas supply chain have underestimated the amount of methane emissions possibly as much as by 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.

Okay.

And so when we calculate We do our inventory in Seattle for the climate pollution that's released when burning it.

It doesn't get our prorated share of methane that's leaked in production or distribution.

No, yeah, I believe, and we will have Office of Sustainability and Environment up here for the next agenda item, but we could certainly add some, but I believe it is just what is produced in the city due to operations in the city.

So it does not account for kind of these externalities of the supply chain impacts.

And so, you know, and as was discussed previously, you know, natural gas has been promoted as a less polluting alternative because it does in fact, you know, produce fewer emissions relative to coal, but taking, you know, kind of taking into account the fugitive emissions and the entire more holistic sense of what's happening with natural gas, the climate benefits are more dubious.

And I will also note that recent research has also noticed noted an acceleration in the amount of methane in the atmosphere after years of being relatively stable.

And while, you know, there's some speculation about where this is coming from, there was a recent study released that it links this to potentially the production of shale gas, which is extracted via hydraulic fracturing, or also known as fracking.

And the U.S. accounted for 89% of total global production of shale gas in 2015.

Almost 90% of the global frack gas is coming from the United States.

In 2015, that was the most recent number I could find.

So it's a sizable proportion.

Yeah.

So also, just kind of noting some of the challenges of natural gas.

And obviously, there's pros and cons.

But we just want to note that.

Seattle is in an earthquake-prone area.

Having natural gas infrastructure is a potentially significant source of fire and explosion during earthquakes and other fire events.

And while it's been noted that natural gas distribution pipes have been gradually switched over to plastic, so they're more flexible in the actual shaking, they may not stand up to kind of 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.

And in the event of an earthquake, liquid soil liquefaction could occur.

And there's not much that can hold up to that.

And the areas where that is are the Duwamish Valley, Inner Bay, and the Rainier Valley.

And also just kind of noting that fire has, historically, fire has resulted in more loss of life than collapsing buildings, which was noted by the Office of Emergency Management in their hazard identification and vulnerability analysis.

And even without an earthquake or other catastrophe, natural gas pipes can fail.

And I believe it was 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 damaged dozens of others and estimated $3 million in damages and some injuries to first responders who were investigating the reports of a leak.

And then more recently in 2018, while the explosion did not occur in Seattle, it was in British Columbia in Canada, a natural gas pipe cut off 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 recycling and compost pickup because the trucks used rely on natural gas.

So just kind of radiating effects of something like that.

I also want to note that research has found that cooking using a gas stove has been, can emit indoor air pollution if not properly ventilated.

And we know that these types of airborne pollutants can impact respiratory health of certain populations, particularly children, the elderly, and those with existing health conditions.

asthma being one of them.

And asthma is more prevalent in low-income households and African-American households.

So making it important to reduce exposure to possible triggers for asthma attacks for those households.

And in terms of electric buildings, we heard some public comment about that.

Sorry, can I just go back to one other point in that paragraph?

I released a version I have that says research found that 55 to 70% of the homes with gas stoves exceed the level of nitrogen dioxide that meets EPA's definition of clean air.

Correct, yes.

And that's from, there's a citation here, but I

So it was a Berkeley laboratory.

So this New York Times article is noting that I think it's a Berkeley, they do testing of these types of indoor air, like kind of common appliances.

And so they're pretty well known for their research on this subject.

Thank you.

Electric buildings.

Yes, on to electric buildings.

And there are some things I didn't have a chance to include in my memo, but I wanted to just make note of the most recent 2017 residential building stock assessment for Seattle found that the distribution of single family homes and how they were heated and how those homes are heated.

And so just wanting to note that currently 19% of homes are heated by electricity, 66% are heated by gas, 11% by oil, and 4% by wood.

So that's our most, I think, accurate data.

We also were looking at King County assessor data, which I have since learned is maybe not entirely reliable in terms of Because it doesn't reflect where people have converted from oil to something else, so they don't necessarily update it.

But I think the more recent data is more accurate in terms of the building, you know, the buildings that have been constructed more recently and noting how they are heated.

So the assessor data, when you go to the assessor page, it has information on square footage of house, lot size, zoning, and it also shows heat source on there.

I'm not sure if it's on the public facing, but there's a database that you can download from the assessor, which is what we were looking at previously.

But I believe that that does not evolve over time.

It's like a picture of that building was built in 1955. It's heated by oil or something.

But they're not going to come back in 2019 necessarily and say, oh, they converted to an electric heat pump.

So it's like a picture in time, so not necessarily an evolving photograph of where we are in terms of how homes are heated.

Something like 25% were heating oil.

Can you repeat the numbers?

So it's more, I believe 11% is what the residential building stock assessment for Seattle found.

And this was a report commissioned by Seattle City Light.

So 11% for heating oil?

Correct.

And natural gas is?

66%.

66%.

And then?

Electric is 19%.

And there's a couple little pieces there, geothermal, stuff like that probably.

And then wood.

Okay, great.

Thanks for getting that.

Yeah, I just wanted to correct the record for that.

And I also want to note that Seattle already has many all-electric buildings, mostly single-family houses, townhouses, and apartment buildings from what I've been hearing.

And going back to King County Assessor data, which I believe is an accurate picture for more recent years, in 2010, the share of houses heated with electricity was 15%, and now we're seeing a growing trend.

In 2018, it was 65%, so we're seeing a growing trend of homes heated with electricity versus natural gas.

15%?

15% in 2010. 65% last year.

So yeah, so in 2010 of the homes, single family houses built that year and listed with the assessor, as you know, given to the assessor, 15% of those use electricity to heat their homes.

And in 2018, 65% of homes were heated by electricity.

And I also provided some other examples in the memo in the attachment to the memo.

So all that being said we can now move on to the legislation.

I really appreciate your background on the bill and again appreciate the folks that were discussing this last week.

And just be clear I'm committed to doing everything we can as a city to figure out how we both lead on eliminating the climate pollution that we create from burning natural gas.

And then, of course, there's a host of other problems that it's creating, too, that we can eliminate with electricity.

So thanks for highlighting that.

So let's jump into the bill.

Yeah, so Council Bill 119640. This bill would amend Seattle's Building and Construction Codes, which is Seattle Municipal Code Title 22, to prohibit the installation of natural gas piping systems in new buildings described in a complete building permit application that is submitted to the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections on or after July 1, 2020. This prohibition would also apply to new detached accessory units, just noting that those are not necessarily a new building by the definition of SDCI, but in our minds that is a new building.

So the prohibition would exclude portable propane appliances for outdoor cooking and heating.

And the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections would have the authority to promulgate rules exempting natural gas piping systems necessary to power certain natural gas powered equipment and appliances such as commercial kitchen, commercial cooking appliances on an annual basis where suitable alternative electric appliances are unavailable.

Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections would also be given authority to support enforcement of the prohibition.

The legislation also includes a request to the Seattle Department of Construction Inspections to recommend amendments to technical codes and the Seattle Municipal Code by July 1st, 2020 to limit installation or expansion of natural gas piping systems in additions to existing buildings.

Substantial renovations where the existing mechanical systems are proposed to be removed and replaced and extensions to Existing natural gas piping systems in existing buildings.

So just giving a little more time to ponder the Explorer where that might make sense So the the legislation first of all joined by Councilman Pacheco.

Thank you for being here The legislation is clear that new construction meaning a new building that's built would be prohibited from hooking up to natural gas.

There's a path for exemptions.

My intention there was the one area that I'm aware of where I haven't seen that there's great alternatives at the moment is in commercial restaurants.

The vast majority of those 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 to continue to have a planet that we can live on.

So that's going to need to happen.

It's not a permanent exemption.

To the extent that the market has not found a solution yet, we need to figure out how we can accelerate that and work with restaurant owners to maybe run some pilot programs.

For the majority of other sources, we know that there are alternatives that exist, largely electric that work for us.

And then when we switch to significant remodels and those types of things, the bill as proposed doesn't specifically change it, but it does ask the department to look into that.

One of the areas that we typically get into on any regulation we do is around substantial remodels.

When does something stop being a remodel and become a brand new construction?

You know, if you leave one brick in place, does that make it a remodel?

So, you know, there's some folks that we have a series of rules, I believe, in our other regulations as to what is what.

So we're just asking them to look at some of those questions.

And then also recognizing that this is the first step.

We will need to transition off natural gas.

Existing buildings, that's not what this proposes to do, but to have the department be thinking about what that transition looks like is envisioned there.

And I would add that we have received some feedback from Seattle Department of Construction Inspections that we may want to consider in addition to the kitchen, the commercial kitchen example, there were emergency generators that use natural gas and some of them are required by code, others are not.

are for reasons of, one of their examples was a laboratory where they have an emergency backup generator so they can keep all their research intact and well in the event of a loss of power.

So that's something that you might want to consider.

Great.

I appreciate you highlighting that.

That's good to know.

Thank you.

Shall I move on to impacts?

That's great.

Council Member Chico, please let me know if you have any questions.

Nope, I'm glad you're going right into fiscal impacts.

Alright, so here we are fiscal impacts.

So Public Health Seattle and King County is responsible for administering Seattle's fuel gas code including permitting 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 natural gas piping permit revenues 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's utility permits.

On average, between 2013 and 2018, these permits accounted for about 9% of all street use permits, representing $2.9 million in permit fee revenues.

I will note that street use is projected to collect over $44 million in revenues in 2019. Of course, those revenues fluctuate with the economy.

So as there is lots of construction happening, there are lots of permits.

And if there's not a lot of construction happening, there are not a lot of permits.

We're in the lot of construction happening phase of things, so.

Correct.

So just to be clear, the natural gas accounts for about 6% of the permit fee revenue for the street use permits.

Yeah.

And I will also note, and I don't have a number for it yet, but there is, Seattle Department of Construction Inspections also has a gas piping mechanic license fee.

So I have reached out to the team there to just know how many licenses we have.

This is pertinent to other aspects of the impacts, but also there's that fee that we collect as a city for those doing that work in the city.

Prior to the effective date of July 1st, 2020, the city will probably want to conduct outreach to developers, property owners, contractors, and other stakeholders to ensure that they are aware of the prohibition on natural gas piping 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 regulations.

And so to that end, if this proposal is adopted, the council may want to consider appropriating additional resources for outreach and training during this year's budget deliberations.

The legislation also gives Seattle Department of Construction Inspections Authority enforced any regulations, and depending on the frequency of reported violations, the department may need to have additional staff, which would be funded through the general fund to support enforcement.

Just noting that executive commitment to having kind of a shared commitment with the mayor and city departments on this legislation will allow for successful implementation.

And as Seattle Department of Construction is responsible for updating technical codes to ensure consistency with the intent of this legislation, and they've signaled that, you know, The timing is appropriate given this 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 council by the end of the second quarter or beginning of the third quarter of 2020. And we also, as discussed before, have added a request to the legislation for Seattle Department of Construction Inspections to explore other means of limiting the installation or expansion of natural gas piping systems.

In terms of development costs, we have heard from a local developer saying that he has not noted any difference in development costs between all-electric homes and those that use natural gas.

Various studies, some mostly coming out of California, but there are others that did some cost comparisons, found that there are cost savings associated with all-electric versus natural gas systems, savings from not having to install ductwork, trenching, space efficiency, things like that that have been noted.

But as demonstrated by the list on the memo, it appears to be mostly residential, not so much commercial.

And so there probably is some differential in terms of the impacts on commercial development versus residential development and how those pencil.

And that kind of needs to be explored further, I think, to fully understand.

And obviously the big one, employment.

While this legislation would increase employment opportunities for electricians and related trades, it is likely to adversely impact those who supply natural gas and install natural gas piping systems.

And the city and its partner organizations may want to consider providing workforce development support for those who are likely to expect.

experience a loss of income as a result of this legislation.

In terms of electricity generation capacity, from what I understand, City Light has excess electricity and exports this surplus on the wholesale market, so it's possible that in the short term it could accommodate an increase in demand, although as long-term capacity constraints will 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've been working with Office of Sustainable Environment 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.

Great.

Yolanda, thank you so much for all your work on this.

I don't know.

have a master's degree in natural gas but I imagine you've learned a lot in the last month or so and I really appreciate you diving into this and it's really quite helpful for me and hopefully all of us to have this analysis.

Councilmember Pacheco, do you have any questions or comments on this bill at this point?

No, luckily Yolanda and I had an opportunity to discuss this legislation yesterday in my office briefly.

I'm likely going to be offering a few amendments.

I think the general direction is there's consensus that we need to be going in this general direction.

But I definitely am wanting to see this in terms of thinking about just those tradeoffs and those costs, like thinking about you know, what does it mean for the departments to lose 6% of the revenues?

You know, what is that?

How do we transition?

So I'm trying to better understand just on the fiscal side of what it means for the departments, but also think about just for us as a city and how we get there.

And so still trying to do a few more stakeholder meetings before I kind of have some amendments potentially to offer.

But thank you.

Well, so we will be back in committee a week from today discussing this further, and it sounds like we'll have a little bit more information.

I mentioned earlier my commitment to putting us on this new trajectory for achieving our climate objectives.

I want to be clear, these climate objectives aren't just something made up.

These are really driven by the reality we face from a science.

I want to also acknowledge that in public comment today and last week and other comments received and meetings I've had with stakeholders, continue to hear a set of concerns.

I won't get them all here, but I'll try to highlight some of them.

One is we hear from, you know, workers in the field.

As your memo highlights, they're folks that will likely gain We're hearing specifically from folks that are concerned about losing job opportunities as this moves forward.

And that's critically important for us to understand.

of what the transition looks like and how we do that in a way that's fair and just and doesn't put that on the back of workers.

And just, you know, I need to do more work with workers and labor unions that represent the workers to really understand that and help figure out how that map out what a transition looks like.

I've heard from folks that currently use natural gas.

I want to be clear, this legislation doesn't take away people that are currently using natural gas.

But when it makes up over 70% of our climate pollution emissions from buildings, not including the methane leaks that are happening elsewhere.

We clearly are going to have to address the existing use of natural gas.

That's a problem to be solved, hopefully in the near future, but not with this legislation.

We hear from folks that are in the natural, you know, in building or in the natural gas business.

So, obviously, folks from Puget Sound Energy, this would certainly affect their business.

We heard from a representative of the master builders' concern about the flexibility it would give their builders.

know, of at least one builder within the master builders who's been supportive of this because they've been building all electric homes and help in a data source for what the costs are on that.

But conversations with folks like that will be important.

Heard from business in Ballard today, you know, they sell, I don't know, the mix, but I imagine the vast majority of the appliances they sell are natural gas appliances for whether it's in the house or in the backyard.

And so, you know, again, It's hard for me to imagine, I can't imagine the science is gonna start decelerating on the urgency around this.

I think it's gonna continue to accelerate.

So we have to figure out what that looks like.

But I think it's fair to have conversations with folks like that to understand what a transition for a business that largely sells gas appliances looks like in a world where the reality is we can no longer use the product that their businesses support.

So there's 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 isn't gonna change the scientific reality that we're facing that these fossil fuels we're burning are devastating for our 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 because that would have given us more time for a transition and a better glide path.

I also wish that the science were such that we actually had till 2050, but it's such that we have till 2030. And so that reality, as we understand what's happening on our planet, also shortens that glide path.

And if we have 10 years to figure a transition, that's better than nine years or eight years.

And so the sooner we work on this and get this going, it'll be disruptive, but it'll be less disruptive if we have a little more time.

That's the urgency that I'm working with and my commitment to work with some of the folks that we heard from today and in the previous time about that.

So nothing else.

Thank you, Alondra, for your work.

And we'll see you again in a week.

Okay, well, I'm gonna be here.

I'm just gonna be here.

Well, this is a different Yolanda we're gonna see right now.

Kelly, would you read agenda item two?

Yes, would you read the short version in?

I would love to read the short version in.

Council Bill 119607, an ordinance relating to heating oil.

And inviting presenters forward.

Yes.

Hello, everyone.

Thank you all for being here.

We'll start with a new round of introductions.

Yolanda, you're back.

Would you start by introducing yourself once again?

Yolanda Ho, Council of Central Staff.

Christine Bunch, Office of Sustainability and Environment.

Jessica Finkhoven, I'm the Director of the Office of Sustainability and Environment.

Hello, Jennifer Labreck with the Seattle Office of Housing.

Thank you all for being here today.

As I mentioned in my opening comments, my original intent was to vote on this legislation at a committee today, based on some of the suggestions heard from community members.

Council Member Chico, you weren't here then, but I'm not sure what your intention is, but I think there's enough floating around there that I'd like to take another week to consider some of the concerns that have been raised.

Again, my commitment, as it is on natural gas, similarly for oil, You know, these fossil fuels are not consistent with our climate goals.

In what used to be long-term, I'll say now it's medium-term because of the reality we're facing.

But I do think taking another seven days to have some conversations may help us make this legislation a little stronger and a little more fair.

But why don't we jump in.

Yolanda, did you want to say some opening comments about this, where we are?

I, well, I have my memo and there were, it just kind of, as a reminder, we had the briefing, was that last week?

No, it was like a month ago.

I've lost all track of time.

And so I just, I will refresh for the record the, for the public, the intent, the kind of some of the background and the legislation itself, and then we can, start discussing potential amendments and any details and any questions you may have for the other folks at the table.

So Seattle has approximately 15,000 to 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 in the 1950s.

Over time, the tanks have deteriorated as a result of exposure to water and what else you have.

The steel was not meant to withstand, resulting in oil leaks that damage soil property and potentially 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.

In Seattle, over 4,100 claims have been made to Washington State's 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 percent by 2020. Phasing out oil heat by 2030 is estimated to reduce residential building greenhouse gas emissions by 16 to 18 percent, which equals a reduction of 8 to 9 percent of total building greenhouse gas emissions.

And the mayor also released her climate action strategy in 2018, identifying conversion from oil heating to electric heat pumps as a priority near-term action.

In 2012, through a grant from the US Department of Energy, the Office of Sustainability and Environment began offering rebates to encourage the conversion from oil heat to higher efficiency systems as part of the city's community power works program.

The council then added $200,000 of general fund in the adopted 2014 budget to provide ongoing support for the program, which continues to the present day.

This amount funds conversions of about 200 homes per year, providing up to $1,500 to any household choosing to convert from oil heat to a high efficiency electric heat pump system.

Just so everyone's aware, converting to an electric heat pump system typically costs between $10,000 to $15,000.

And currently about 1,300 homes are converting from oil heat to more efficient systems every year.

I think that's probably good background.

I appreciate that.

And what I'd like to do next is to give OSCE a chance to add anything you want to the legislation.

And then I'm aware of at least a couple amendments that are being considered, one that I'm likely bringing.

And I'd like to discuss some of those just so we can talk about that.

Would love to have, you know, OSC or Office of Housing's comment on those and we can discuss the content of those.

Yolanda, again, if you have any insight on that, that'd be great too.

The goal here would just be to kind of put on the table everything that we're aware of considering, have a discussion about kind of pros and cons and tradeoffs in there, and then take the next few days to use that information and have some more conversations and see what kind of refinements we can do.

Not actually vote on amendments today, but bring those back on next week.

So, OSC, do you want to add anything to what Yolanda just said or elevate any points you want or even just, you know, any other framing you have would be great.

Sure.

Yeah, so I just want to reiterate.

The fact that Yolanda, what Yolanda named was that we see between 13 to 1400 homes every year naturally get off of oil.

So at that rate, you know, doing the math, we know that by 2030, there will be no more oil in Seattle.

And I think what we're trying to accomplish in the intent of this legislation, I just want to kind of daylight a little bit more is that We don't want low-income households to be left behind in this process.

And so, similar to other, you know, Seattle City Light or Puget Sound Energy utilities who have low-income programs, we're creating parity with this tax so that we can really, truly ensure that low-income households are supported.

Have the, let me get the numbers, 12 to 1,400 houses switch off of oil every year.

Has that number been fairly consistent over the last decade?

Yes.

Yeah, we see dips and kind of looking at the data, it spikes when the heating oil costs are higher.

So back when we saw, actually when I had oil, it was $4.50 four years ago, we saw a spike there.

So it sort of goes with the market.

Got it.

And so do we have a greater sense of the split of that?

So some people will be responding to the price is too high.

I imagine some people responding to I don't want to spend $1,000 on a repair for my old furnace anymore.

It's time to replace it.

I imagine some of it is homes being torn down and new constructions probably not going with oil heat.

It's really everything.

It's hard to sort of say one thing is the main driver.

It's everything from homes being turned over to a new buyer.

Someone maybe in the community or the block has access to gas.

And so then they kind of pool together and say, hey, let's get gas.

And then they convert.

It could be an emergency replacement.

So the oil furnace breaks down, and then 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.

And then I would say, yeah, I think, honestly, I talk to people every day because we have our oil rebate program to get to electric heat pumps.

Folks just want to get off of oil.

They cannot wait to get off of oil.

And so they're asking about gas.

And we did do a survey to ask what some of the barriers were.

One of the biggest barriers was there's no access to gas in their street and environmental Concerns was also a big factor.

And then, of course, price.

So sorry, I'm kind of all over the place.

But 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're using the revenue to truly support people to make that transition to electric heat pump the most energy efficient system.

Well, that will save them money, but also give them air conditioning, as we're seeing higher frequency of cooling days that we need in the summer, and also systems that support better health.

And so all of those things that we think about have to be, they're not necessarily monetized, but how do we think about monetizing them?

We oftentimes compare the price of such and such gas to whatever other fuel, but we have to sort of consider all of the other non-energy benefits that come with that.

Got it.

Jessica, do you have anything else you want to add?

No, I mean, I think Christine said it well and Yolanda, great summary.

You're killing it with the summaries today.

You know, I will just reiterate our, how we're looking forward to working with stakeholders, working with both of you council members to answer any questions that you have and to look at any amendments that you might want to see.

So I have a few questions, and we haven't really prepped for these.

So if you are not the experts or don't have the answers, obviously, feel free to tell me, and we'll figure out how to get it.

Today in public comments, someone mentioned abandoned tanks.

So I don't know the exact state laws around tanks, but I imagine that there are tanks in the ground that years ago someone converted.

Maybe the old tank wasn't properly dealt with.

How would this legislation affect abandoned tanks?

Because this legislation is crafted around the tanks largely, right?

So there's two things.

There's the Pollution Liability Insurance Agency that covers the event of a leaking tank.

It does not apply to abandoned tanks.

So that's one thing.

And then in terms of our local policy with the Seattle Fire Marshal, they oversee decommissioning of tanks, which means you have to either fill the tank with sand or foam.

You can take out all the oil, of course, or you can remove it.

If it's abandoned, there's really kind of no way of the Seattle Fire Marshal knowing if it's abandoned, right?

Because you have to go back to the Fire Marshal and actually get a permit to decommission your tank.

And so it's done the right way.

Abandoning would be, you know, there could be oil still filled in the tank.

I believe there's nothing in this ordinance that addresses or would impact abandoned tanks?

I think we would That will be part of the discussion with SDCI and the Seattle Fire Marshal and others, but they Abandoned tanks we would assume that they would just be exempt from decommissioning right because we don't really want to Go back to those old abandoned tanks for someone to do something with it, and then suddenly You know there could be a leak that PLEA wouldn't actually cover.

So we're aware that there probably are some abandoned tanks out there.

Yeah, I imagine when someone abandons a tank.

That means they're not going through the decommissioning process.

They're probably not calling up any agency saying, I just let you know, for your record, there's an abandoned tank on my property now.

So I assume we don't have great data on the quantity of those out there.

I am, you know, if there's a tank that's half full of oil that's been sitting there for 40 years or whatever, 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 that they're any different really.

And it's not being refilled, so at some point, you know, that oil will dissipate.

The one concern about abandoning tanks and not decommissioning them appropriately is as the steel corrodes, it could cause somebody walks over the tank and it collapses.

And so I believe, Christine, please correct me if I'm wrong, but the legislation calls on OSCE to work with SDCI and the fire department to craft an implementation plan for how we will handle all of these tanks.

We will certainly engage a range of stakeholders in that implementation 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 aren't abandoned, that we know where they are.

And we certainly want to ensure that we have a plan for addressing them.

Great.

So let's pivot to that.

So PLEA is an acronym that's been thrown around.

Someone just said the actual name of it.

Can you say that again?

Yeah.

It's the Pollution Liability Insurance Agency.

OK.

And this is a state agency?

This is a state agency.

It was created, let's see, 1996-1997 to provide insurance for in the event of a leak.

And that's because independent private insurance agencies were not agreeing to do that.

And so homeowners had no way of insuring for leaks.

And so the state legislature passed legislation to insure insurance.

And I think, Yolanda, you had mentioned $42 million in claims over since 1996 through present, which is actually quite a bit of money when you think about the total impact.

PLEA, there are a lot of rules for PLEA.

Number one, it's a voluntary program.

And so you have to be registered in order to participate.

get the benefits.

Do you register or do you pay premiums?

It's free.

So you can simply go online and register.

So it's not like a typical insurance where they collect money from a bunch of people and pay out.

That's right.

This is really just a subsidy program, but you got to be signed up to get it.

That's right.

It's free to sign up.

And again, it doesn't pay for decommissioning.

It just pays the additional cost if there's a leak for decontamination or something.

So when we're talking about the amount of claims that PLEA has paid to Seattle, it's a, I think, good signifier of the amount of leaks that we saw in Seattle.

So the, I guess there might be a few exceptions to this, but in general, the act of decommissioning a tank is probably not going to create a leak.

It's just the tank is either leaking or not, and either we know about it leaking or we don't know about it.

That's right.

To the extent that there are tanks that are, and so if we choose to slow this down because we don't have enough insurance money, it just means we're just intentionally allowing those tanks to keep leaking.

And if it turns out that those tanks were leaking, then the fact that there wasn't insurance to clean up wouldn't have really mattered because they just would have been decommissioned at the regular cost and there would have been additional liability.

That's right.

And I think, you know, we've looked at the data PLEA has provided and we looked at the Seattle Fire Marshall data and we see the trend that it's a function of time, right?

As long as these things are underground, they just continue to corrode.

And our soil stays pretty moist.

And so once water gets into those tanks, it continues to exacerbate it.

Yeah, so.

And I, you know, I've heard today and other times kind of folks representing PLEA thinks this, PLEA said that.

I won't add to that by giving my own representation of PLEA, but we'll note that I believe PLEA wrote a letter providing official comment on this ordinance to council signifying their real willingness to work on this and, you know, 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's going to work for our residents with this ordinance.

That's great.

We should probably post that with our agenda for next week just so the public can see that too.

I wanted to note something.

I believe, Christine, please correct me if I was wrong, but in terms of decommissioning, the Seattle fire does not do any soil testing.

I think that's an important point.

So is that correct?

That's right.

They don't require it.

So they will certify that the tank was physically removed?

Removed or decommissioned in place.

Or there was filled with something.

The fire marshal does not want to get involved in requiring soil.

That's really up to the homeowner.

And the homeowner would know if they're registered with PLEA or not.

And so then they would go hire a decommissioning firm.

And there's a number of those in Seattle.

who would do that testing and who are certified to do that testing with the Department of Ecology.

And do we know how many Seattle residents are registered with PLEA right now?

We think they're about, so PLEA provided the data.

Off the top of my head, I think it's about 24,000 are registered, but that's higher than what we anticipate.

I still have, the reason is because they don't, they're not doing any data cleansing.

And if, like myself, so I, changed from oil to electric.

It didn't deregister?

It's not costing you anything?

I didn't call them and say, hey, I don't have a freight.

And so you just kind of want to keep it in place.

Well, it sounds like it's a pretty robust program.

And I imagine the oil suppliers in town certainly could encourage their customers and probably do encourage their customers to register.

I think my understanding from speaking with some oil dealers is that they are encouraging, some even are requiring before they fill the tank that the homeowner has plea.

And I believe this there was a state law passed a few sessions ago that requires the disclosure on the new real estate transaction the disclosure form Says if there is an oil tank on the property that the homeowner has access to plea.

So it's just like another opportunity to promote plea All right, I'm gonna pivot away from The tanks and contamination unless comes from a checker.

You have any questions on that?

I

Just really quickly, Yolanda, you and I had a brief conversation about this, but can you talk about just biodiesel fuels and what they would do?

Biodiesel oils, specifically.

Because eventually, I'm assuming we're going to transition to...

Yeah, yeah.

Let's pivot the conversation to biofuels.

So I will speak to what I have learned, but please pitch in when you feel ready.

So in terms of biofuels are another way of heating one's home that are not as is emissions heavy.

But one of the properties of biofuels is that they act as a solvent.

So as these tanks have been in the ground for decades using petroleum-based oil, there's kind of, the technical term would be deposits, I believe, but just gunk.

that kind of builds up on the insides of the tank and which may result in kind of caking 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 might inadvertently result in leaks from the tank because they are kind of breaking down, dissolving those deposits that have accrued over time.

And so the unintended consequence of a possibly good idea might be that a tank that was not in good condition is now leaking where there may not have been leaks before.

So that's one challenge.

And from what I understand, biofuels are also a bit more expensive than the regular heating oil.

But please feel free to.

So maybe we can talk about what we know about the science of biofuels as a solvent.

I've heard different angles on that and what we're seeing here.

If we can touch on the cost of biofuels to the extent you have information on that would be helpful.

I'm really interested in the carbon impact of biofuels and what we know about the science there too.

Sure.

So just sort of doing some of our 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 size tanks, but the larger underground storage tanks.

The requirement by the federal government is that those tanks have to be compatible if they're storing biofuels.

So, you know, The feds sort of recognize or definitely recognize with that federal order that there is a solvency issue and that any old tank won't do, especially steel.

There needs to be some like containment or plexiglass or other plastics or whatnot to ensure that there isn't a leak on a big, big scale.

And so knowing that, to me, it's sort of like, well, what is the difference between a large underground storage tank holding biofuels versus a smaller, 1,000 gallon tank that you would find on a residential property.

So that was sort of an indicator to me in my research that the federal government has recognized that there's an issue.

There's also been a number of studies even in the biofuel industry on biofuels and they have consensus that there's higher corrosion levels as well as biodegradability, if you will, of the material, especially as it, like, reacts to bacteria and other microbes that can come into play, and water, and water is a big factor.

I don't pretend to be an expert on this, but I have done, you know, just sort of review, literature review, and my understanding is that it's something that we probably can't ignore.

Some of the other things that I've read also is that the filter of the oil system, when you put this sort of detergent level biofuel into the new furnace, or the old furnace actually, the sludge gets kind of cleaned out, but then the filters get impacted and potentially the efficiency of the system is impacted, or may not even work at all.

And so the biofuel industry, from what I've read, is they're actually recommending sort of a step process for the homeowner to take.

First put B5, which is a blend of 5% biofuel, 95% diesel.

Then kind of go up from there, do a B20, and then up to a B50.

B99 being the highest percentage.

So the system isn't sort of shocked and causing.

So it's a gradual transition.

A gradual transition.

It flushes things out and you change.

I assume this requires maybe an increased diligence on filter changing and things like that.

Right.

There also is some information that I've 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 bit more And let me just offer a few general thoughts on biodiesel if that's okay and you know folks have

Now, worked with me for a long time, know that I have been a long proponent of policies 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 where you can have extremely low carbon biofuel.

But biodiesel biofuels, they can be a high carbon content or a low carbon content, completely dependent on what makes them.

So oftentimes, if you're using things like waste grease from restaurants here around Seattle, you'll have an extremely carbon beneficial product.

But if you're using something like palm oil from Indonesia to make your biofuels, you'll have an extremely high carbon content.

and could contribute to massive deforestation abroad.

So there can be huge indirect and agricultural impacts to these products as well.

That's why things like a low carbon fuel standard or a clean fuel standard like they have in California and Oregon, these products are highly regulated to ensure what the feedstock is, so you know if you're getting a carbon benefit from these fuels or not.

That type of monitoring doesn't exist in the home heating industry right now.

It could, so I want to show an openness to continue talking about this and seeing how we could make it work.

But we also want to make sure that products like the very high carbon, very destructive palm oil that cannot be sold in regulated transportation markets is not being dumped into our home heating market.

I think it's possible to do that, but I think it's incredibly important to do so.

We also want to make sure, you know, recognizing, again, I'm a strong proponent of the benefits of biofuels, but there is a finite number of sustainable feedstocks for biofuels.

So we also want to make sure that they're going to the highest value, things that you can't plug in, things like airplanes, things like fire engines right now don't have an electric alternative, unfortunately.

We recognize that home heating does have a readily available technology like heat pumps that we can transition to.

Again, that being said, I'm certainly willing to talk about the use of biofuels for home heating and just want to ensure that we're getting the sustainable biofuels and that we're not going to see unintended consequences like what Yolanda and Christine were talking about.

So in particular, any other questions on biofuels?

Well, my office has heard about potentially a desire for exemptions to biofuels.

And so I want to start kind of walking through just potentially what that would mean in relation to this bill.

If we were to pursue an amendment that would exempt biofuels, understanding what we know right now, that's separate, but kind of going a little bit into the financial analysis of this bill, what How much are we talking about if we were to exempt biofuels?

Right now, Christine, do you know the percentage of biofuel used?

I think it's very, very low.

Yeah, so it's challenging.

It would be challenging for me to know that because I don't know what the makeup of, for each oil service provider, what their makeup of biofuel distribution is.

And I think we'd also have to know not just the number of their customers getting biofuel, but also what blend.

So are they getting B5, B20, B99, and sort of understanding the ratio of the biofuel versus diesel.

So more analysis needed there.

because of a chicken 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, 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.

So let's just say it's a b5 and there's only 5% of biofuel and 95% diesel Now is that whole product exempt, or is it only just the small amount of biofuel distributed?

So I think it would be important to provide additional definition of what high quality, high grade biofuel is.

And we have some ideas around that.

I just want to address that comes member Brian your question about costs.

So just some recent data we received on the wholesale side of things for let's say like a B99 was a dollar twenty additional over diesel.

Again that's at a wholesale rate not at the retail rate per gallon.

Okay, so I don't know what the current is oil of three bucks a gallon or what's the current rate out there?

You know, it's been tracking I think average of like three dollars and twenty cents.

I think it may be recently kind of went down just because of some of the things and going on in the Middle East and

Yeah, commodity.

But so, whatever, 25-35% premium at the wholesale level.

I guess I'm transitioning wholesale to retail, but certainly the premium for biodiesel is significantly more than the tax.

We're talking about and that would have to be yeah, and if we're looking at from a carbon standpoint You know 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 70 75 percent reduction in carbon, but if we're just talking about like canola it's a 20 to 25 percent reduction, but the how to be b99 right so Yeah, thinking about the incremental cost a dollar twenty at least per gallon for I guess the cost benefit in our mind isn't quite there.

I just wanted to, just because my office had been engaging different stakeholders, I reached out to my office and so I just wanted to have that brief conversation or exchange more transparently with all of you and central staff.

You know, I think from my perspective, I acknowledge the cost of what it's going to take for us to build a more sustainable future.

And, you know, this is one area where it's going to cost money.

But hopefully, ideas like this can have cost savings for families over time.

And we know that those cost savings are realized over time.

So I'm just kind of curious to know if there are other weatherization efforts that your office might be looking to do, to pilot for other families, other low income or senior families that might potentially be able to say, you know, here's another idea that might be coming down the pipeline or maybe something we would like to explore if we had a wish list.

Because I do think that as we look to transition to that more sustainable future, What are those other ideas that we can do in people's homes?

And so I'm just kind of curious.

I love the question and would love to do more brainstorming with you of kind of what those ideas are.

I'll say that a high priority for our office, you know, we've been very lucky, knock on wood, this year to not have seen smoke events like we've seen in the last few years.

We know that those smoke events have disproportionate impacts on certain segments of our population, particularly our seniors.

really interested in how we get more heat pumps to seniors in ways that, because we know it helps protect them during smoke events, that it helps protect them during hot weather events, and that we can see these carbon benefits.

So transitioning to heat pumps from either oil or natural gas right now, you see significant carbon benefits and we think significant health and quality of life benefits.

So we're really interested in continuing to think how do we pilot to help more homeowners, more renters, but more residents who could disproportionately be impacted by the health impacts of climate change?

How do they have the heat pumps that can really help keep them safe?

And I would love to add to that too.

I manage our low-income weatherization and home repair programs at the Office of Housing.

We have a lot, the city has a long-standing weatherization program serving low-income homeowners and rental buildings, multifamily buildings with low-income tenants, including a robust program for ductless heat pumps, really focused historically on being able to convert households with baseboard heating or other forms of inefficient heat to heat pumps.

We are really excited about this opportunity or this potential fund source to be able to help people convert from oil to electric heat.

And we are also excited about being able to bring other resources to any homeowner that we help provide a heat pump.

And that includes sort of all the tried and true weatherization measures, like insulation and air sealing.

that together can deliver a really powerful package to a homeowner and not only significantly decrease their heating bills and have all the other benefits of moving away from oil, but can also just deliver a much more comfortable, healthier, and safer environment.

And can you just elaborate further?

Because I appreciate what the city is doing for low-income families.

But more specifically, what we can do potentially for middle income families.

Because I hear, at the budget town hall I had this past Saturday, I had some seniors and some folks talk to me specifically about this, of how they're feeling squeezed and pinched.

And this is a $15,000 expense that If you don't qualify, and I know, appreciate Council Member O'Brien's amendment, and they're also feeling a bit of a squeeze, and 15,000 is the cost of a car.

And so, I want to be potentially mindful about what we're doing to support just folks who, you know, they're not doing well, or too well, but they're not struggling.

And so, how are they, what can we do to help those people right in the middle?

And I think, you know, some of our ideas there, first bridging this question with your last one, kind of brainstorming on things we could do to help more families.

I think one of the things we'd really love to do is take some of the offerings that the Office of Housing provides to our residents with lower incomes and make those available to a wider swath of our residents who could really use those benefits.

We don't need to come up with wild new ideas because Office of Housing and others have really innovated products that are working for our residents.

And we just want to make sure that they're available to more people.

One of the ways that we've tried to do that at OSE, I think one of the folks in public comment mentioned this, is that we do, there are partners in the city who provide a financing offering for folks with quite a wide range of credit scores.

so that people aren't left out of the ability to finance some of these things.

I know when I transferred, transitioned to heat pump in my house, I utilized one of those financing tools, and it worked very, 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 really see those savings right away.

Have you done any kind of pro forma analysis on what those life cycle costs look like?

I mean, we know that, right here at least, that heating oil is more expensive.

And so if this is really a cash flow issue where it's really hard, obviously, for a lot of folks to come up with $15,000 up front, but if they're saving $1,000 a year and we can figure out how to finance it, they may actually be better off making the transition.

Yeah, so we have done analysis similar to how a utility will look at a cost-effectiveness test when they look at rebating, you know, insulation or ductless heat pumps or anything like that.

We take the similar methodology.

And we look at what is the incremental cost of a heat pump over what a baseline would be.

And that baseline is an oil furnace.

So assuming that someone's oil furnace at some point may conk out, and then they have to go out and buy something else, right?

So we look at the cost effectiveness of the heat pump.

And we use a 15,000 average cost to do that.

Basically, the bottom line.

Sorry, can I interrupt just to make sure?

That includes taking out the old furnace, decommissioning the tank, and installing the new ductless heat pumps.

So the $15,000 would be just for the equipment and the associated electrical panel work that might need to be done.

And then there is the decommissioning cost, which is roughly $700 to $1,000.

But I did include that in my analysis.

But also recognizing that on a baseline standpoint, oil furnace.

If you are going to get a new oil furnace, it's likely that you're probably going to have to replace the tank, right?

And potentially if you get biofuels too, you'll have to replace the tank.

And so looking at that, we basically identified that there would be a simple payback of just under four years using, you know, the savings that would occur from a going from oil to electric heat pump.

So factoring that in, that's a good payback.

And that's just a simple payback.

We also know that what we call our savings to investment ratio, so it's sort of like what you would get in savings versus what you put into the system, is 1.9.

So anything above 1, you're sort of thinking about you're breaking even.

We don't really think about, like if you have an oil furnace, do you ever think that you're going to get something back out of it?

No, but we are somehow applying that same approach to electric heat pump, right?

That we need to get something back.

The good news is that they would get something back, right?

It is cost effective.

There is a good payback.

There is good savings.

Well, I would love to see the support of that.

And maybe it's something we can publish with our agenda next week.

It would be great.

I want to move to wrap up here, but Council Member Chayko, we've talked a little bit about an exemption to the tax for biofuel.

Are there other things that you wanted to bring up on potential amendments that you're considering for this that we should get out there today to discuss?

No, I think Jessica very briefly talked about what new ideas potentially may be available in the future.

And so for me, that's kind of been just extremely helpful because I recognize and I realize that the cost of the transitioning to a more sustainable future, it's going to cost money.

I want to acknowledge the hardships that people feel and people face.

But also, as I say to many people, when I talked to them and I said to them at the town hall on Saturday, I not only have a responsibility to them, but I also have a responsibility to their kids and their grandkids.

And so in 2030, and Council Member O'Brien and I get to sit in some committees together, Vision 2050, and I want to be able to at least, when I'm a little more gray, say I try to do what I can to push us to be a little bit better so that the world's a better place.

Hopefully that's what we're all striving to strive for, and I know that's at least what I'm thinking in mind when I think of things like this.

So I'd love to continue to work with you, the team at OSE, Yolanda.

I'm certainly open to supporting an amendment that would provide a tax exemption for biodiesels.

My criteria would be one, the biofuel, we need to have a standard around it.

And so that's going to be a little tricky because it'd be great if our state had a standard, a low-carbon fuel standard, because we could just plug into that.

But I imagine we can mimic some other places.

And it may be that we'll see.

I'll lean on your expertise for something.

We definitely do not want to give a tax break to something like Indonesian palm oil.

that is actually making the system worse.

And, you know, again, no consumer would pay extra money for a product to make them worse if they knew about it.

So it's really important that there's actually transparency and information out there in the market.

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's not like you put a drop of biofuel in the tank and you wipe out the whole tax.

So a B-99 would get almost an entire tax break, and a B-5 would get 5% of the tax break, but they'd still be paying the tax on the other 95%.

That would be my objective from a kind of fairness standpoint.

I also have my own amendment that I'm interested in bringing, so I just want to talk about that.

One of the things we've heard in public comment is that I think universally people have said it's really great what we're doing to the lowest income folks, the, is it 1,100 people who qualify for the UDP that we estimate, who will get a full replacement covered by this.

But there's a missing middle and we don't need to define it today, but certainly the folks above that UDP level but still are going to struggle financially.

Actually, we can define it today because it's in the legislation here.

So somewhere between the UDP is triggered by 70% of state median income and maybe up to 80% of area median income.

And there's a, I don't know the exact gap there, Jen, you might know it, but we'd like to give some flexibility to direct some of the resources to help those folks, prioritizing the lowest income folks, of course, but also being, if there's an ability to help.

And so, Jen, I don't know, you've had a chance to see this, perhaps you even drafted it.

Maybe you can walk us through what that does and how you think that might work.

Yeah, I would agree that we agree that we would want to prioritize serving the lowest income households with these funds, which is consistent, really, with the other requirements governing our other sources of weatherization funding.

This would have a couple benefits.

It would allow us to provide the assistance to more households.

As we've heard, it can be a relatively expensive endeavor to do this.

And it would also allow this program to be consistent with our other weatherization programs, which do provide assistance to households up to 80% AMI.

So we'd really be able to bring sort of that full suite of resources to a home, even for somebody who is close to 80% AMI, which would include not just the change in their heating system, but other improvements like insulation, air sealing, even some of the weatherization plus health programs that we have that can address other health issues.

So overall, I think a positive change

Great.

Thank you for that.

So a couple things in the works here that I think those are all the only ones I'm aware of.

I don't know if anyone else is aware of anything else that they can share here, but not hear anything.

We'll figure out how to refine those and have some conversations and hopefully be back in committee.

We'll definitely be back in committee in a week and hopefully prepared to actually consider specific amendments and potentially vote this bill out of committee.

Looking forward to more conversation with community members between now and then too.

With that, why don't we excuse you all and we'll move on to agenda item number three.

Resolution 31903, a resolution relating to the procurement of 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 oil fields in the Arctic Refuge coastal plain.

Invite our presenters forward.

Very excited about this legislation.

I think it's going to be less controversial, at least in this room, than the last two items.

But why don't we start with a quick round of introductions?

Sure.

My name is Michelle Pignon.

I'm a political organizer with the Sierra Club.

Been in that position for about two years.

And I work specifically on issues related to the Arctic Refuge.

And I'm Robin Everett.

I direct the organizing program for the Sierra Club in Washington.

Great.

Maybe, well, I'm going to defer to you.

It'd be interesting to hear a little history of what's happened historically and more recently in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

What we see is some threats up there and then we can move on to the resolution and how we think this might help.

Absolutely.

And I'm happy to start with that context.

So I think it's always important at the beginning to acknowledge why should we care?

Why do I care?

Personally, I grew up in Los Angeles.

I've been living in Seattle for six years now, but most of my introduction to environmentalism is from a place of trying to reclaim what we've already lost.

And it was very fascinating to sit on these council meetings and sitting on other activism work and see how hard we fight to undo the wrongs that we've done in the past.

And with the Arctic Refuge, what's exciting, what's an opportunity, is that we actually have an opportunity to protect something and continue a way of life and not be fighting for something we've lost, but actually say, no, not every place in this world needs to be developed.

And we don't have to constantly be fighting to just have a little piece of green.

And I think there's a general sense and acknowledgment, but just to go over it, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the coastal plain in particular, provides a lot of ecosystem services.

There's birds there from all around the world.

Whatever happens in the Arctic related to climate is going to affect the rest of the country.

So there's those reasons to protect it.

But I think what resonates most strongly for me are the indigenous people of the coastal plain, the Gwich'in people, who practice a style of lifestyle that is incredibly rare in the world and pretty much unseen in the lower 48. They practice a subsistence culture, which basically means that 90% of their diet is still derived from the caribou, the salmon, the berries that they're able to pick.

So cost of living in rural Alaska is incredibly expensive.

And so for them, the only opportunity for them to live a sustainable life is really to just continue their cultures of thousands of years and live off of the land.

What we know is for sure is drilling in the coastal plain will permanently have effects on the ecosystem, particularly the porcupine caribou that rely on that place for their breeding grounds.

And as the Gwich'in say, the way the caribou go will be the way that the Gwich'in people go.

possibly losing a culture that is very special and very unique.

And that's kind of why I put a lot of my work and effort into protecting this place.

We have grave concerns on behalf of the Sierra Club and behalf of the environmental community about the way that the administration is pursuing drilling in the refuge.

Poll after poll after poll will tell you that most Americans are against drilling in the refuge, but yet there's still a consistent effort over the last 50 years to open it, largely on behalf of some of the state of Alaska's representatives that seem to not really represent the rights and the interests of the indigenous people of the coastal plain.

And so back in 2017, the Republicans that control the House and the Senate and the executive office, they rushed the tax bill through it.

And with that, they actually snuck in a provision that mandates a sale of the coastal plain within the next four or five years.

And we have seen them rush through processes, through environmental impact statements that generally take years.

And they're trying to get that done as soon as possible, recognizing the political opportunity that we have now.

And for us on the environmental field, we're trying to resist that because we think it violates our values of democracy and the due process.

And we're recognizing that the representatives in the federal government have limited scope in which they have influence.

And so we've also been having some conversations with corporations and trying to communicate with them that doing that is a risky investment and doesn't make sense for the long term, in addition to building some local resistance.

And Seattle is where I live, and so I've had an opportunity to host a couple of different events.

over the last two, three years, engaging a wide variety of folks, you know, nontraditional environmental groups, including Latino outdoors and outdoor Asian, in the protection of this wild place that a lot of us will frankly never get to know, but nonetheless we think is important to protect.

And so that's kind of what we come, this is the origin story of why we came here, and I'll let Robin speak a little bit about kind of her idea, because she kind of really pushed this forward.

Go, Robin.

Thank you.

Thank you, Michelle.

That was really great.

Yeah, basically where we're at is we're dealing with a hostile administration that wants to open up the Arctic Refuge.

And we've been here before.

We have seen threats to the Arctic Refuge over the years.

But this one is pretty darn hard.

And so we are facing down a potential lease sale by the end of the year.

to open up the coastal plain.

And so what Michelle kind of alluded to was we're really trying to show that there's not a market for this anymore.

That polling shows that people don't want this oil.

And we're trying to show local resistance to purchasing this oil as well.

This was done before about 15 years ago in the early 2000s.

A number of cities back when we were kind of facing another threat of opening up the refuge, a number of cities passed similar resolutions and we looked to them actually for And we have looked at where likely shipment of oil would go from the Arctic, if it were to happen.

And Washington and California would be kind of the two primary places where it would go.

So it's not just a, you know, Seattle can do this because it makes a lovely statement.

But it's actually a very prominent and important important political strategy for us in showing the oil industry that the markets in which they would likely put this oil, don't want it.

And we have found that actually public pressure has been really effective.

We just recently, Sierra Club did a lot of pressure tactics around BP in their drilling in the Arctic Refuge.

Greenpeace, if you remember, encased themselves in concrete in front of their London headquarters.

And BP just announced two weeks ago that they have sold all their assets in the Arctic, not just the refuge, but anywhere.

We can actually make a difference by making these statements.

And so this is part of a broader strategy to have both local folks say no, while now that we have the House back, the House will be passing a bill trying to reinstate the protections 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.

That's great.

I've never made it to the coastal plains of Alaska.

I hope someday I'll be able to get up there and see it.

But certainly it's something I've tracked for a number of years.

And it's great knowing that those places still exist on the planet.

It's, Michelle, I really appreciate your highlighting about the people.

We've had Gwich'in here testifying at city council in the past, and it's amazing to meet and work with people who are still living a lifestyle that resembles something that traditionally they've been doing for, for eons, and that that's still possible.

And it's crushing to think that we are perhaps on the fringe 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.

You know, it's one thing when we're talking about a park in our city or, you know, a new electric bus or a bike lane that we're also very excited about.

But to have the diligence to keep an eye on something that's so far removed and could easily slip out of the American consciousness, you know, obviously not for the people that are up there but for the rest of us.

And so, you're constant shining a spotlight and highlighting that and work over the years and with both setbacks and great wins.

And unfortunately, we're at this moment where it feels like, something really bad could happen and I'm excited to support this resolution.

I think it's very consistent with so many actions the city has taken in the past and I think it accurately represents what the vast majority of people in Seattle believe too.

Councilmember Pacheco, do you have any comments or questions on the legislation or anything else you would like to ask?

Thank you for making me aware.

I mean more aware, I should say, of what the Trump administration does, unfortunately.

Thank you for your work and your advocacy.

It's so important, especially nowadays more than ever.

I wish it wasn't so.

But no, I think it's reflective of our values and I'm happy to support.

Well, I'm prepared to move Resolution 319. I will move 319, Resolution 319-03.

Is there a second?

Second.

Great.

All in favor of supporting this resolution, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Great.

Thanks again for all your work.

This resolution now passes out a committee with a recommendation for a yes vote.

It'll be at our full council meeting next Monday, which is the 16th.

And so, we will make sure that our colleagues are aware of that.

if you're welcome to be here, and there's an opportunity to testify at the beginning of that meeting too for folks to hear.

But thank you for all your work on this, and I hope we can, through multiple different 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's anything that we need to answer in the meantime, if any of the other council members have questions, please just direct them to me and Michelle, and we'll make sure and get those questions answered.

Great.

And you'll be not the only city that'll do this.

You will be inspiration for many more cities that we'll be working with around on the West Coast to pass these sorts of resolutions.

That's great.

That's good to hear.

Hopefully LA.

Yeah, that's next.

I met with a council member from L.A.

yesterday.

I'm from L.A.

too, so that's why I'm like, tell him I said it.

Council Member Pacheco sent you.

That's good.

Will do.

Thank you very much.

Thanks for your time.

And if there's nothing else, we will be adjourned.

Thank you, Kelly.

Oh, wait.

One last thing.

You guys can go.

I want to, I see the cameras are still on, so I'm assuming that we're still recording.

I want to just acknowledge one of my staff members, not you, Kelly, but you'll get this someday, too.

I have a whole team of largely new staff members, including Lavinia, who is going to be leaving my office in the next week.

And so she's worked a lot on the Green New Deal for me, so the first two pieces of legislation that we had here today.

And she's been amazing to get to know her, amazing to get to work with her.

She'll be moving on to doing other policy work at the federal level instead of the local level.

So I'm excited for that opportunity.

But I'm sad that we'll miss her.

I will certainly miss her personally in my office.

And I think the whole city will miss the great work she's done in her short time here at the city with the City of Seattle.

So, Lavanya, if you're listening or someday you can go back and look at this, thank you so much for your support.

Thanks.

With that, we're adjourned.