Read NPI's rejoinder to The Seattle Times' endorsement of Initiative 2066
This past Sunday, The Seattle Times published an editorial that mostly read like it was going to be an endorsement opposing Initiative 2066, but disappointingly and confusingly ended with a recommendation to vote the other way. In response, on behalf of the NPI team, I submitted a letter to the editor critiquing the editorial and urging Washington voters to join our growing coalition in opposing this right wing scheme to help fossil fuel companies fatten their profits at the expense of Washington families, who would face higher energy bills if the initiative were to be implemented.
Today, The Seattle Times published the letter online. It’ll also appear in this Sunday’s print edition. Our thanks to the Times for giving us this space to respond.
Here’s the letter:
Re: “Vote yes on Initiative 2066: Insist on a better gas transition plan” [Oct. 6, Opinion]:
The Seattle Times editorial board did Washington a disservice by endorsing Initiative 2066.
Much of the editorial recommending a yes vote is devoted to a discussion of HB 1589, a planning bill legislators passed to help Puget Sound Energy keep gas prices stable as we transition away from fossil fuels. While the editorial board makes it sound like I‑2066 is an up-or-down repeal vote, it’s not. It is a proposed new law, not a referendum. Even proponents admit the initiative leaves much of 1589 untouched.
https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2024/10/a-recipe-for-more-pollution-and-higher-energy-bills-read-npis-rejoinder-to-the-seattle-times-endorsement-of-initiative-2066.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
