Vote no on I-2117

To the editor:

Your recent article (“General election just a month away, Oct. 2, 2024) about the election that is coming up soon is a good reminder that there are a number of very important issues that will be on the ballot.

Of course the presidential vote is a huge one, but so is Initiative 2117. And that may not be something on everyone’s radar. This initiative would be devastating because it would shut down our state’s Climate Commitment Act, just when we need it most.

It is critically important that we defeat I-2117. We want to protect our health, have more clean air and water, and clean energy transportation, in the face of undeniable climate change. So, let’s speak up loud and clear: No on I-2117 means yes for health.

Bobbie Morgan

Bainbridge Island

No on initiatives

To the editor:

One of the challenges voters face with Initiatives like 2066 and 2117 on our November ballot is that very complex policy issues are boiled down to misleading slogans. Don Brunell offers a great example of that by claiming that I-2066 allows “choices on clean energy.” It does not. It would in fact make illegal current and future incentives for homeowners to move to far more energy-efficient (and therefore less costly) heating and appliance options.

The initiative would ban any policy that “discourages” natural gas, so incentives like those PSE and the Inflation Reduction Act offers for electric heat pumps, solar and other options would become illegal. Nor does the initiative reverse a “natural gas ban” as proponents falsely claim. Instead, the law I-2066 targets encourages large utilities like PSE to investigate and prepare a plan for fully electrifying the grid.

Utilities are required to provide natural gas to their customers under the Utilities Commission’s principle of “Obligation to Serve,” regardless of what I-2066 supporters falsely claim. Current and future laws I-2066 targets are intended to encourage the transition to clean energy, but will not simply cut off existing customers’ gas.

Just as I-2066 is not a “natural gas ban,” I-2117, which would repeal our state’s main climate law, is not about paying less for gasoline—it in fact says nothing about gas pump prices, but would blow a $2 billion hole in our state budget, including immediately eliminating over $450 million in funding for ferries.

I hope voters will see through the misleading slogans of proponents and vote no on both initiatives Nov. 5.

Mike Kelly

Bainbridge Island

Change appreciated

To the editor:

Those involved with Bainbridge Island Rowing appreciate that the city has shifted back to the three-hour parking time limit on Brien Drive from what had been changed to two hours. That change under police chief Joe Clark will make it possible for rowers and volunteers to, once again, complete their workouts/volunteer shifts without having to move their cars.

For years now-retired Parking Enforcement officer Ken Lundgren recognized “Senior Center” and “Bainbridge Island Rowing” stickers and allowed a grace period for parking.

Food for thought: How about reinstituting the recognition of those stickers for Senior Center volunteers who work four-hour shifts?

Johanna Vander Stoep

Bainbridge Island