Washington Energy Conservation, Initiative 937 (2006)

## Contents

* 1 Election results
* 2 Fiscal impact statement
* 3 Support
* 3.1 Supporters
* 3.2 Arguments
* 4 Opposition
* 4.1 Opponents
* 4.2 Arguments
* 5 Campaign finance
* 6 Path to the ballot
* 7 See also
* 8 External links
* 9 Footnotes

|  | Voting on Energy

Policy
Energy policy
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot | Local

Local utility taxes
Electrical aggregation
Ballot measures
in Washington State

Constitutional amendments
Initiatives to the People
Initiatives to the Legislature
Statutes referred by Legislature
Veto referendums
Political topics on the ballot
Laws • History • Constitution

State of Washington Initiative 937, or I-937, was on the November 7, 2006 ballot in the State of Washington as an Initiative to the People where it was approved. I-937 requires certain electric utilities with 25,000 or more customers to meet certain targets for energy conservation and use of renewable energy resources, as defined, including energy credits, or pay penalties.

See Energy policy in Washington for a full explanation of energy policy across the state.

## Election results[edit]

Washington Initiative 937 (2006)

Result| Votes| Percentage
a Yes|  1,042,679|  61.7%
No| 972,747| 48.3%

Election results via the Washington Secretary of State.[1]

## Fiscal impact statement[edit]

The State of Washington Office of Financial Management prepares a fiscal estimate for every ballot measure that goes on the statewide ballot in Washington. Their fiscal estimate for I-933 said:

"Initiative 937 would cost state government $2.34 million in administrative costs over 14 years or an average of $167,000 per year. The offices of the Attorney General, Auditor, Utilities and Transportation Commission, and the departments of Community Trade and Economic Development, and Labor and Industries each would have a role in monitoring or assisting compliance. The initiative’s fiscal impact on Washington’s local governments cannot be determined due to variables ranging from future fuel costs to changes in demand for electricity. For the same reason, the impact of electricity costs for state and local governments cannot be determined."

## Support[edit]

### Supporters[edit]

See List of supporters of Washington Initiative 937 (2006)

Groups and individuals that came out in support of I-937 included Washington State Senators Luke Esser (R), Dave Schmidt (R), Debbie Regala (D), Bill Finkbeiner (R), Erik Poulsen (D), Karen Fraser (D),Craig Pridemore (D), Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D), and Karen Keiser  (D) and state representatives Toby Nixon (R), Zack Hudgins (D), Brian J. Sullivan (D), Fred Jarrett (R), Pat Sullivan (D), Geoff Simpson (D), Rodney Tom (D), Dave Upthegrove (D), Brendan Williams (D)

I-937 was also supported by:

* League of Women Voters
* Washington State Democrats
* American Lung Association
* American Cancer Society
* SEIU Washington State Council
* The Olympian

### Arguments[edit]

Arguments made in favor of I-937 in the official voter guide include:

* "As Washington’s demand for energy grows, we can choose where we get our electricity."
* "We can either burn more fossil fuels like coal that pollute the air. Or we can use more clean, affordable renewable energy like wind and solar power – produced here in the Northwest."
* "It requires the largest electric utilities to get 15% of their electricity from new renewable energy by 2020."
* "It requires utilities to help consumers and businesses save money through energy conservation."
* "I-937 is an approach that’s already working in 20 states."
* "Pollution from fossil fuels contributes to thousands of cases of lung disease and asthma each year. Renewable energy helps protect our families’ health by keeping our air clean."[2]

## Opposition[edit]

### Opponents[edit]

Opponents included many small co-op electrical providers. as well as the following:[3]

* Big Bend Electrical Cooperative
* Boeing
* Boise Cascade
* Chamber of Commerces: Bellevue, Greater Seattle, Kelso Longview, Pasco, Spokane Regional, Tacoma-Pierce County, Wenatchee Valley, West Richland Area
* Modern Electric Water Company
* National Association of Manufacturers
* Peninsula Light Company
* PUDs of Benton, Cowlitz, Franklin, Lewis, and Mason County.
* Representatives Brian Blake (D) and Dean Takko
* Senators Jean Berkey (D) and Mark L. Doumit (D)
* Snohomish County PUD commissioner Kathy Vaughn
* Tanner Electric Cooperative
* U.S. Chamber of Commerce
* Washington Farm Bureau
* Washington Rural Electric Cooperative Association
* Weyerhaeuser

### Arguments[edit]

Arguments made against passing I-937 included:

* "It will increase electric rates and utility taxes."
* "I-937 will cause low-cost hydropower to be sold to California while local utilities buy higher cost alternative energy for our homes and businesses."
* "Mandates and fines proposed by I-937 are not the way to promote alternative energy. We are paying too much for our energy bills now."
* "Wind and sunshine are irregular energy sources. Hydropower or thermal plants are needed to supply steady power for homes and businesses. But hydropower resources are being cut to protect fish and may not be available to supplement alternatives.[4]

## Campaign finance[edit]

Donors to the campaign for the measure:[5]

* WASHINGTONIANS FOR CLEAN ENERGY: $1,674,310
* Total: $1,674,310

Donors to the campaign against the measure:

* NO ON I-937: $592,190
* Total: $592,190
* Overall Total: $2,266,500

## Path to the ballot[edit]

Initiative 937 was filed on January 925, 2006 by Robert Jay Pregulman. 337,804 signatures were collected to qualify it for the ballot. The measure was placed on the ballot as provided for by the state constitution.[6]

## See also[edit]

| Suggest a link

|

* Washington 2006 ballot measures
* 2006 ballot measures
* List of Washington ballot measures
* Energy policy in Washington

## External links[edit]

* State of Washington 2006 ballot measure election results
* Washington Secretary of State - Initiative 937
* 2006 Washington Ballot Measures Voter Guide
* WUTC: Initiative Measure No. 937

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ Washington Secretary of State, "2006 General Election Results," accessed August 6, 2013
2. ↑ Washington Secretary of State - Initiative 937
3. ↑ No on 937 endorsements
4. ↑ Washington Secretary of State - Initiative 937
5. ↑ Follow the Measure, "Donors"
6. ↑ Washington Secretary of State, "Initiatives to the People," accessed September 4, 2013

v • e

2006 ballot measures

• Alabama 2006 ballot measures • Alaska 2006 ballot measures • Arizona 2006 ballot measures • Arkansas 2006 ballot measures • California 2006 ballot propositions • Colorado 2006 ballot measures • Florida 2006 ballot measures • Georgia 2006 ballot measures • Hawaii 2006 ballot measures • Idaho 2006 ballot measures • Louisiana 2006 ballot measures • Maine 2006 ballot measures • Maryland 2006 ballot measures • Massachusetts 2006 ballot measures • Michigan 2006 ballot measures • Minnesota 2006 ballot measures • Missouri 2006 ballot measures • Montana 2006 ballot measures • Nebraska 2006 ballot measures • Nevada 2006 ballot measures • New Hampshire 2006 ballot measures • New Jersey 2006 ballot measures • New Mexico 2006 ballot measures • North Dakota 2006 ballot measures • Ohio 2006 ballot measures • Oklahoma 2006 ballot measures • Oregon 2006 ballot measures • Pennsylvania 2006 ballot measures • Rhode Island 2006 ballot measures • South Carolina 2006 ballot measures • South Dakota 2006 ballot measures • Tennessee 2006 ballot measures • Utah 2006 ballot measures • Virginia 2006 ballot measures • Washington 2006 ballot measures • Wisconsin 2006 ballot measures • Wyoming 2006 ballot measures •

v • e

State of Washington
Olympia (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2022 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy