Over the next eight years, Washington residents face critical changes in how we generate and use electricity. Additionally, salmon populations are not recovering as fast as we would like and the factors contributing to fish death rates are complex. Successfully addressing those problems will require improved research and data.

What environmental information does the governor think the legislature should have to tackle these issues? His veto of several studies and support for another demonstrate what information he wants legislators to have, and what he would prefer they not have.

First, the governor strongly supported spending $375,000 for a “study” on the impacts of destroying the four Lower Snake River dams. Indeed, when the funding didn’t appear in the legislative budgets, the governor wrote a letter to budget writers, telling them that he had already begun spending the money.

This is the second such study from the governor’s office on the Snake River dams in the last few years. The last study didn’t deliver a clear result, so this one assumes the result – the dams should be destroyed – and purports to look at how to manage the damage. This same question has been examined by others who support destroying the dams, like Congressman Simpson – who estimates the cost to mitigate the harm from removing the dams is $33.5 billion – and the NW Energy Coalition, whose study found that destroying the dams would reduce the amount of electricity on the grid, increase costs, and increase CO2 emissions.

This also ignores the previous, multi-year study of the science and economics by federal agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which recommended that the dams should remain. By way of contrast, this study is scheduled to be completed in just a few months and will talk only with select groups.

On other environmental topics, however, the governor vetoed studies that he doesn’t want.

For example, he vetoed House Bill 1623 which would have examined the future stability of the electric grid. The bill was sponsored by House Democrats and passed unanimously. In his veto message, the governor claimed, “the work outlined in the bill is redundant to, and its requirements do not align with, existing state government efforts on this important issue.” The governor also vetoed a section of the budget providing $400,000 to “Evaluate Washington's current and future electric grid resilience and reliability based on current and projected electric energy production, ability to produce energy in-state, reliance on energy production outside of the state, and energy grid interdependence with other western states.” And he vetoed sections of HB 1846 that would have required the Department of Commerce to contract with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to “Evaluate Washington's current and future electric grid resilience and reliability based on current and projected electric energy production, the state's ability to produce energy in state, Washington's reliance on energy production outside of the state, and its energy grid interdependence with other western states,” among other things.

The need for electricity generation is growing and becoming more complex as we add intermittent sources of energy, so information about grid stability is important. Rightly or wrongly, legislators feel state agencies are not providing them with the information they need, and the governor vetoed two efforts to increase the analysis of this important question.

The governor also vetoed a section of HB 1812 that would have studied rural energy problems, including the environmental harm of siting wind turbines and solar panels. The bill makes it easier to permit energy projects and many in Eastern Washington expressed concern that this would have a negative impact on their economy and lifestyle. Again, the governor claimed the study was redundant and also said no funding had been provided for the study. He promised to have the Department of Commerce offer a proposal in the next biennium.

It is ironic that the governor highlighted the redundancy of the studies when his rushed Snake River dams study duplicates existing research that is far more robust.

There were also two vetoes of studies related to salmon recovery.

The governor vetoed a section of the budget that would have required the Department of Fish and Wildlife, “to improve salmon population data analysis, improve salmon abundance modeling, better manage salmon fisheries policy, and collaborate with tribal co-managers on fisheries allocations.” It would also have made all state-generated documents from a process between state, federal, and tribal fishery managers to plan salmon fisheries known as “North of Falcon.” The governor removed all funding to improve the modeling and collaboration, claiming, “it is important for the state and tribal co-managers to have successful sovereign-to-sovereign negotiations. The requirements in this proviso will make this more difficult,” although he did not say how.

Finally, he vetoed a study of mortality caused by gillnets and other types of fishing gear on wild salmon. Wild salmon must be released if caught, and the proposed study by the Washington State Academy of Sciences would have determined how much accidental harm was being done by these types of gear. The governor said, “Although better estimates of commercial mortality could potentially be helpful, any review of fishing mortality rates should also include a review of mortality from recreational fishing.” This is a strange excuse. He acknowledges that we need more information, but then prevents the creation of useful science because it doesn’t study everything. Instead of some information, we get nothing. If we find that these types of fishing gear are doing serious damage to salmon runs, it will only come after years of unnecessary harm.

Not all studies are worth doing and many are wasteful – the governor’s Snake River study is a case in point. We already know a great deal about the benefit of the dams and the public harm of removing them. 

And while studies generally cost less than $1 million each, we shouldn’t ignore the cumulative cost. It is interesting how many places legislators of both parties feel they aren’t receiving adequate information from Inslee Administration agencies that oversee those areas. It is also interesting that the legislature admits it lacks information about the future of grid stability even as it is adopting laws that will have a massive impact on electrical generation and demand.

Washington state faces big challenges to meet the requirements of electrical generation and recover salmon across the state. To make sound decisions, it would be good to have the additional information these studies would have provided.