Missoula County opposes SB 208: Prohibit local governments from banning or limiting energy choices, up for second reading on the Senate floor this morning. This bill prohibits local governments from adopting an ordinance, resolution or policy that limits or impedes energy choices. While it is written to include any type of energy, it follows a trend of bills across the country that are a “ban on bans” focused on fossil fuel infrastructure (buildings that use natural gas or propane for heating or cooking, for example). Missoula County does not currently have the authority to adopt a ban on natural gas or propane infrastructure, but we do have the ability to incentivize cleaner and healthier options through education and offering financial resources.
The wide scope of the bill and its limitation on adopting resolutions and policies, not just ordinances, is concerning. This is especially true as an increasing amount of research has been found on the dangers of natural gas in homes. The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health recently published an article that found that 12.7% of childhood asthma is attributed to the presence of gas stoves in homes. Additionally, the New England Journal of Medicine wrote recently that new gas appliances should be removed from the market due to their health risks. Limiting a local government’s ability to adopt policies and resolutions that help inform residents of these health impacts limits a local government’s ability to protect the health and safety of its constituents.
While this bill will impact our ability to move forward on our climate goals, the impacts it will have on the health of Missoula County residents are more severe and immediate.
Missoula County opposes SB 208, Prohibit local governments from banning or limiting energy choices, up on the House floor Wednesday. The broad language of this bill poses operational challenges to Missoula County. Our understanding is that this bill is intended to pre-empt bans on natural gas and propane heating, cooling and cooking. To our knowledge, there are no local governments in Montana considering this type of ban. Missoula County does not currently have any plans to do so, though we do have regulations to ensure that these utility services are used safely and do not jeopardize other community values. This bill is concerning because of its potentially broad and unintended consequences, and we are concerned that it could interfere with our regulatory authority to protect the health, safety and welfare of Missoula County constituents.
Additionally, the word “impedes,” and phrase “has the effect of prohibiting or impeding,” are difficult to interpret and implement as it introduces a swath of grey area. For example, would water quality standards that regulate the placement of propane tanks “have the effect of prohibiting or impeding"? If so, then riparian zoning regulations could be undermined. Those regulations do not prohibit the use of that fuel source, but they do ensure they can be used safely without jeopardizing other important community values. Another example is wildfire safety. Could implementing regulations on utility connections to enhance wildfire preparedness be considered to be “impeding” or “have the effect of impeding”? If so, our communities will be less safe.
Senators,
ReplyDeleteMissoula County opposes SB 208: Prohibit local governments from banning or limiting energy choices, up for second reading on the Senate floor this morning. This bill prohibits local governments from adopting an ordinance, resolution or policy that limits or impedes energy choices. While it is written to include any type of energy, it follows a trend of bills across the country that are a “ban on bans” focused on fossil fuel infrastructure (buildings that use natural gas or propane for heating or cooking, for example). Missoula County does not currently have the authority to adopt a ban on natural gas or propane infrastructure, but we do have the ability to incentivize cleaner and healthier options through education and offering financial resources.
The wide scope of the bill and its limitation on adopting resolutions and policies, not just ordinances, is concerning. This is especially true as an increasing amount of research has been found on the dangers of natural gas in homes. The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health recently published an article that found that 12.7% of childhood asthma is attributed to the presence of gas stoves in homes. Additionally, the New England Journal of Medicine wrote recently that new gas appliances should be removed from the market due to their health risks. Limiting a local government’s ability to adopt policies and resolutions that help inform residents of these health impacts limits a local government’s ability to protect the health and safety of its constituents.
While this bill will impact our ability to move forward on our climate goals, the impacts it will have on the health of Missoula County residents are more severe and immediate.
Please oppose SB 208
Representatives,
ReplyDeleteMissoula County opposes SB 208, Prohibit local governments from banning or limiting energy choices, up on the House floor Wednesday. The broad language of this bill poses operational challenges to Missoula County. Our understanding is that this bill is intended to pre-empt bans on natural gas and propane heating, cooling and cooking. To our knowledge, there are no local governments in Montana considering this type of ban. Missoula County does not currently have any plans to do so, though we do have regulations to ensure that these utility services are used safely and do not jeopardize other community values. This bill is concerning because of its potentially broad and unintended consequences, and we are concerned that it could interfere with our regulatory authority to protect the health, safety and welfare of Missoula County constituents.
Additionally, the word “impedes,” and phrase “has the effect of prohibiting or impeding,” are difficult to interpret and implement as it introduces a swath of grey area. For example, would water quality standards that regulate the placement of propane tanks “have the effect of prohibiting or impeding"? If so, then riparian zoning regulations could be undermined. Those regulations do not prohibit the use of that fuel source, but they do ensure they can be used safely without jeopardizing other important community values. Another example is wildfire safety. Could implementing regulations on utility connections to enhance wildfire preparedness be considered to be “impeding” or “have the effect of impeding”? If so, our communities will be less safe.
Please oppose SB 208.