Bad Dominoes: The Bellingham Plan Falls Short

By Rodd Pemble, Oct. 22 2026

Remember as a kid, setting up long, black rows of curving dominoes, so you could tip the first one and watch the momentum zip down the line with a clickity-clack sound? Super fun!

Unfortunately, the Bellingham Comprehensive Plan, proposed by the mayor and adopted by the City Council last December, would work the same way, with policies set up like dominoes, just waiting to tip over, one after another, leaving us with a big mess on the floor for at least the next 10 years.

Let's start with Lake Whatcom and the neighborhoods around the north end of the lake, Silver Beach primarily. Despite years of participation and work by the neighborhood residents, and written plans in place to protect water quality, the latest Bellingham Plan took a big step backward and increased the recommended number of new housing units in Silver Beach from 98 to 354. How exactly do 4 times as many new housing units protect the lake? 

Even the City agrees that more units equals more run-off which equals greater negative impacts to water quality in the lake that is the ONLY source of drinking water for over 120,000 local residents and businesses. The state’s Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) report said in order to meet state legal requirements to protect the Lake, 87% of the city neighborhoods draining to the lake must cut their run-off to levels as if the neighborhoods were still a natural forest.  That goal is not helped by City dominoes tilting toward MORE polluted run-off.

The Silver Beach proposals in the Bellingham Plan are just one example of bad housing dominoes proposed all over town, poised to start a chain reaction of negative consequences – thousands of homes planned for low-density areas, like East Bakerview, King Mountain and Cordata, creating more neighborhoods with only 3 or 4 homes per acre, far below the level required to support frequent mass transit, and usually unaffordable for families making average wages. They might as well say “cars live here,” since most of these neighborhoods are a long walk or (safe) bike from most anything a family might need – groceries, pharmacy, the gym, places of work or worship. And as these no-bus and no-bike dominoes fall, they tip into ones labeled “vehicle miles travelled” (VMT).

Honey, Where Are The Car Keys?

“VMT,” as it’s known in planning circles, is a measure the state uses in the Growth Management Act (GMA) to determine if cities and counties are actively making progress on required climate and growth management goals. The GMA requires that VMT must decrease each planning cycle, and that the City include in the Plan the active steps the City will implement to achieve that goal.  Fewer miles driven = a healthier community.

But the City didn’t include any action steps to reduce VMT, and their VMT projections show a steady INCREASE over time.  That violates the GMA, plain and simple.  They did not include practical guidelines from the WA State Dept. of Commerce to support transit-oriented development and reduce vehicle miles traveled. Like more run-off into the lake, more vehicle miles traveled equals more traffic congestion, more air and water pollution, more greenhouse gases contributing to climate change (i.e., floods, storms, salmon extinction), more injuries and costs from accidents, more reliance on cars instead of buses and bicycles, and on and on.  It’s a cascading, negative impact domino train for sure.

Moving On Up

On the other end of the housing plan, urban villages found favor with the consultants hired by the City to research the best practices to achieve the City’s Climate Protection Plan goals, and avoid further suburban sprawl.  We have seven urban villages now – Barkley, Fountain District, Old Town, Waterfront, Downtown, Samish Way, and Fairhaven. While denser than most neighborhoods, they are still far below the housing densities necessary to really reduce those negative effects of sprawl. The City of Bellingham projected average Urban Village density at 13 units per acre, but established Urban Villages across the nation are more like 50-150 units per acre – we have a long way to go, and the City’s dominoes are falling in the wrong direction.

That is why the City’s consultants’ recommendation was crystal clear – 90% of ALL new Bellingham housing units built from 2025-2045 should be in Urban Villages, and only 10% in other low to high density housing types.  So what domino did the City stand up in the Plan after reading the consultants’ conclusions?  

The City actually CUT the percentage of units in Urban Villages over the next 20 years, with just 34% allocated there, instead of the 90% recommended by the experts.  They actually allocated a higher share of new housing at the LOWEST density – that is, single family dwellings – which as we’ve seen, sets off a train of dominoes with negative impacts across our community, not the least of which are massive public costs for new roads, sewers, water lines, fire stations  and police to serve suburban sprawl.

Furthermore, neither the mayor nor the City Council proposed a single new urban village over the next 20 years, even though most people could suggest quite a few – e.g., Cordata, the area just north of Costco, Birchwood, Sunset Square, Irongate/E. Bakerview.  Why pay for expert recommendations, then ignore them? Why fail to follow the clear statutory direction from the GMA?  The Bellingham Plan is full of bad dominoes.

Just Call It Methane

I mentioned greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions above, one of the obvious impacts from City policies that essentially encourage more pollution from car and truck trips.  But the City itself has also failed to address their largest municipal greenhouse gas impacts, despite their own Climate Plan laying out a vision and goals around reducing GHG emissions.  

The largest single source of City greenhouse gases are our ancient sewage sludge incinerators at Post Point, accounting for about 40% of all GHG pollution by municipal operations.  They have burned methane – a GHG that heats the atmosphere 80 times faster than carbon dioxide – day and night for the last 50+ years, which also generates toxic pollution in the air we breathe and the water of Bellingham Bay, from which comes seafood for our tables. 

The Climate Protection Action Plan Update was adopted by City Council in December, 2019.  It suggests best management practices at Post Point and addresses past modifications to the equipment, briefly mentioning a future plan to explore alternatives, including  bio-digestion and other disposal methods. That process did begin with robust public participation, but due to health and environmental concerns, and excessive costs, was cancelled by Mayor Fleetwood in August, 2022.

Much state legislation, from the GMA to the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), and many state regulations (like those from the Dept. of Ecology and the Dept. of Health, for instance) require the City to protect, improve, and restore surface water and groundwater, air, and soil resources in the community through its policies and actions. Local groups and citizens (and once again, an expert City consultant) have been calling for the City to seriously look at alternative technologies to sludge incineration, but the mayor proposed, and Council recently approved the status quo –  a contract to spend $40 Million (that’s just Phase 1) of tax money to upgrade incinerators that are over 50 and 35 years old respectively. This is technology so old (designed in the 1930’s), that staff have acknowledged they had to search for parts on eBay.  

The City wouldn’t waste public money trying to retrofit a Public Works work truck it bought in 1972 to use today, or a computer system it bought in the 1990’s – so why are they spending tens of millions of dollars to prop up aging equipment that pollutes our community, when safer and cheaper options exist?  

The current Bellingham Plan says nothing about reducing or eliminating the Post Point pollution and the poisons it spreads in our air and water, and as a result violates numerous state and Federal requirements to reduce such pollution. The current Plan does not have a single mention of sewage, incineration, methane, or Post Point.  It pretends to meet the Growth Management Act, but its vague, aspirational statements do not meet the law. 

The City 2018 Climate Action Plan stated that “Bellingham would have to reduce its annual  community emissions by 1.2 million [tons] or 72% [by 2030] to stay on target.”  According to the City’s 2023 emissions inventory, the City is not on track to meet that 2030 goal. The City’s 2023 Climate Protection Plan update (due every 5 years) has yet to be completed.  

See You In Court

The Whatcom Environmental Council looked very carefully through the many sections of the Bellingham Plan and decided that it failed in multiple ways.  We submitted detailed recommendations during public comment, and when those were ignored, we decided to challenge the Plan before the Growth Management Hearings Board.  Our dominos are lined up to protect Lake Whatcom, preserve our drinking water quality, fight suburban sprawl, encourage housing affordability, improve our health and quality of life through reduced use of cars and trucks, and improve public participation and citizen voices in governing our community.  

Want to help? To help us in this and other efforts to protect the people and environment of Whatcom County, you can donate at www.whatcomenvirocouncil.org. And please contact your City Council members (360-778-8200, ccmail@cob.org) and the mayor (360-778-8100, mayorsoffice@cob.org) to let them know what you think about a Bellingham Plan that commits us for 20 years to some bad, but preventable, outcomes.

Learn more about WEC and our work at our Community Open House on Thursday, November 12^th, 530pm at Stemma Brewing West, 500 Carolina St.

PSE Plans to Escalate Emissions and Rates

The second in a three-part series on the role of methane ("natural gas) in global warming, how Whatcom County and Bellingham contribute to methane pollution, Puget Sound Energy's and the oil and gas industry's plans to ratchet up our use, and what WEC, working collectively with others, is doing to help them turn this ship around.

by Cynthia Mitchell

October 20, 2026

It’s time to sound the alarm on Puget Sound Energy’s (PSE) draft 20-year plan that makes electric and gas customers pay billions for continued Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions. As required by law, PSE has modeled how it will serve its electric and gas customers in the coming decades. Their model sets the stage for PSE’s 2027 Integrated Service Plan to be published early next year.

Cynthia Mitchell

For its electric grid, PSE proposes to build more than 5,000 megawatts (MW) (1) of new gas power plants (approximately 20 facilities) by 2050, the largest buildout of gas plants in the company’s history. PSE currently owns nine gas power plants, with one in Bellingham and three in Whatcom County.  

Our communities are likely on PSE's "build more gas genearation here" list. How is that compaitible with our City and County climate goals?

PSE already has the highest climate emissions of any utility in the state, by a factor of three. Nonetheless, in its current rate case, PSE has opted to invest in additional gas-fired generating resources. PSE proposes to spend almost twice as much money on building new gas generation capacity in the next three years as it spent on the incremental cost of complying with WA state clean energy requirements during 2022‒2025.  Resources that are not renewable or non-emitting incur additional compliance costs, increasing costs to customers beyond what could have been achieved with more long-term clean energy resources. (2)

This will come at significant cost to ratepayers, on top of already high rates. If PSE’s current rate case is granted in full, average rates of 16 cents per kilowatt-hour will exceed 22 cents kilowatt-hour, for a 37 percent increase in the cost of electricity.  Add on PSE’s projections of rate impacts for new gas generation, and that’s an additional 44% by 2030, 80% 2035 and 142% by 2050. 

PSE claims that “gas-fired power is safe, requires no disposal or storage of dangerous wastes and emits far less carbon dioxide than other power resources that use fossil fuels.” (3) While gas generation does emit about 50 percent less CO2  than coal plants, it still releases nitrogen oxides and methane, with far more methane entering the atmosphere before the gas ever reaches the power plant during extraction, processing, and pipeline transport of gas.

“Natural gas” is mostly if not entirely methane, a GHG up to 80 times worse than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere. (4)

That’s why the Washington state legislature has been clear that it wants to transition our energy grid off fossil fuels over the next 20 years.  Legislators passed three bills to accomplish this: the 2021 Clean Energy Transformation Act (CETA), the 2023 Climate Commitment Act (CCA) and House Bill 1589. (5) Under CETA, electric utilities are to eliminate coal generation by 2025 and meet specific percentages of utility load with renewable or non-emitting resources or renewable energy credits (RECs) by specific dates: 80% renewable or non-emitting target by 2030-2033; 100% renewable or non-emitting target by 2045.  

The CCA makes industries – including electric utilities and refineries -- pay for carbon allowances if they are short of their emission goals.  Those costs gradually increase over time to encourage compliance. 

A massive buildout of new gas generation means PSE will blow right through CETA and face billions in CCA non-compliance costs over time. But no problem for PSE: it intends to simply make customers pay for those costs!  

Bottom line: PSE plans on ratcheting up our rates and GHG emissions!

PSE’s draft 2027 resource plan starts with a hypothetical non-carbon emitting portfolio of 55,000 MW 4-hour Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) by 2050 This is a completely unrealistic clean energy plan. Not only would it be hard to buy that many batteries and site them, it would be extremely expensive. Regardless, PSE quickly declares the legal requirement to transition clean energy “won and done” and pivots to its preferred plan, 5,000 MW of new gas generation. (5)

PSE needs a balanced and diverse portfolio (6) starting with a coordinated load management strategy, providing a roadmap for scaling up peak-oriented conservation, demand response, and distributed energy resources. Data center load can be managed via flexibility or curtailments, and data centers could drive innovations in next generation clean technologies. If subject to flexibility requirements, data center customers will face the long-duration reliability challenges first and will have an incentive to solve them. 

PSE must also recognize that BESS is a game changer in clean energy. BESS technology has gone beyond 4-hour to 8- , 12-, 24-, hour storage systems, to Google’s 100-hour battery system in Minnesota. BESS extends the usability and reach of wind and solar power by storing surplus energy during peak generation times and dispatching it when weather conditions fail or demand peaks. Similarly, BESS sited at distribution substations and industrial complexes can store surplus power and discharge at high load / low energy conditions. At the local level, BESS provides energy by storing surplus rooftop solar, community wind, and other distributed resources.

If PSE doesn’t do a credible job of modeling a clean energy alternative, then the UTC should require that a clean plan be modeled and independently validated. And, if PSE doesn’t do a better job of implementing a clean energy plan, the UTC should shift CCA non-compliance costs from ratepayers to shareholders.  Letting PSE out of CCA costs to try and mitigate rate impacts is like rewarding a child for bad behavior. These are the prudent things to do before we are charged billions of dollars to build the system PSE prefers because it maximizes returns for its shareholders.

A more detailed version of this article will appear in the November issue of Whatcom Watch.

References and Notes

(1) A megawatt (MW) is a unit of measurement for electric power that equals one million watts or 1,000 kilowatts. One MW can power for one year about 1000 homes in the PNW.  

(2) PSE Rate Case, Response Testimony of Lauren McCloy for the Joint Environmental Advocates, https://earthjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/260005-06-jea-exh-lcm-1hct-7-28-26-r.pdf.  

(3)  https://www.pse.com/en/pages/energy-supply/thermal-power  

(4) C. Mitchell, September 2026 Whatcom Environmental Council blog post, “Just Call It Methane Gas”, https://www.whatcomenvirocouncil.org/

(5) HB 1589 requires large, combined electric-gas utilities like PSE to transition away from natural gas and toward electrification. Cascade Natural Gas Corp. serves Bellingham and parts of Whatcom County.

(6) PSE’s hypothetical clean energy plan also includes some wind and solar; likewise for the gas buildout plan, with the addition of some BESS. PSE calls its new gas plants “flex-fuel peakers” because, in theory, they can burn non-emitting biogas. However, PSE’s own analysis finds renewable fuel supplies limited to 4–5% of the amount needed to run the peakers. 

(7) The Washington Clean Energy Coalition examined PSE’s data and assumptions and found the basis of a plan that eliminates any need for new gas generation, is CETA compliant, and costs less than PSE’s preferred plan. https://wacleanenergy.org/

Just Call it Methane Gas

The first in a three-part series on the role of methane ("natural gas) in global warming, how Whatcom County and Bellingham contribute to methane pollution, Puget Sound Energy's and the oil and gas industry's plans to ratchet up our use, and what WEC, working collectively with others, is doing to help them turn this ship around.

by Cynthia Mitchell

September 15, 2026

Everybody’s doin’ it, ventin’ it, leakin’ it, methane gas, methane gas!  The energy industry has been very effective at convincing us that “natural” gas is environmentally safe, but you should know that “natural” gas is mostly methane. And methane is the culprit behind nearly 30% of our planetary warming, with over one-third of human-made methane emissions coming from the energy industry, mostly from the extraction, production, and transport of oil and gas. 

Cynthia Mitchell

The term “natural gas” originated in the 19th century to distinguish underground methane deposits from manufactured coal gas and whale oil used for lighting and heating. The need for that distinction is long gone. It’s time to call it what it is: methane gas, a prime contributors to our overheating planet. And there is nothing natural about a world on fire. Carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) are the two leading drivers of global warming, with CO2 acting as the long-term backbone of temperature rise and CH4 providing a shorter-term, but highly intense, burst of heat. Combined, it’s a one-two planet gut punch. 

Because methane is 80+ times more potent than carbon dioxide in heating up the earth’s atmosphere, and relatively short-lived compared to carbon dioxide(7-12 years vs. 100), curbing methane emissions should be the low-hanging fruit of the climate transition. And, because methane gas emits carbon dioxide when combusted/burned, cutting emissions from methane gas operations is our best near- and long-term climate solution. The potential for major reductions in the near term is huge: Around 40% of methane emissions from fossil fuels could be avoided at no net cost, using abatement measures that capture and sell otherwise wasted methane gas.  Key "no net cost" basic operations and maintenance abatement measures include: leak detection and repair, vapor recovery, compressor seal replacements, plugger lifts and wellhead recovery.  In other words, it’s time to kick methane gas from fossil fuels, period.

Methane emission events detected and tracked by satellite around the world grew 50% in 2023 relative to 2022. Of the methane emissions from fossil fuels, close to 70% come from the top 10 emitting countries. And the U.S. is the largest emitter of methane from oil and gas operations. U.S. oil and methane gas wells, pipelines, and compressors are spewing three times the amount of methane as previously thought prior to satellite monitoring.

EXTRACTION – THE “ROOT” OF THE PROBLEM

The technology of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, commonly referred to as “fracking,” set off a boom in oil and gas production across the U.S. and Canada starting in the early 2000’s. In his 2014 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama said that: “If extracted safely, natural gas is the ‘bridge fuel’ that can power our economy with less of the carbon pollution that causes climate change.” While that entire sentence is highly questionable in its assertions, there’s no doubt that, as it turns out, “fracking safely” is no easy thing. The widespread use of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling is a highway to hell, releasing methane into the atmosphere through leaking, venting and flaring. Nearly 85% of methane emissions come from extraction, production, gathering and processing at both onshore and offshore facilities.

THE HALTING TRANSITION TO SOLAR AND WIND 

In the early years of fracking, new gas supplies did displace some existing coal mining and burning for electricity. However, globally, coal generation is being displaced primarily by wind and solar, which, in the first half of 2025, for the first time generated more electricity than coal. And now wind and solar are displacing gas generation. For the first month ever, in April 2026, wind and solar together generated 22% of global electricity, compared with 20% from methane gas.

Washington State and our local communities contribute to global warming via (1) burning of methane gas (creating mostly CO2 and some CH4) to generate electricity, (2) power oil and gas refineries that produce and distribute liquified natural gas (LNG) and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), (3) other industrial processes such as municipal waste processing (like Bellingham’s Post Point wastewater treatment incinerators), (4) space and water heating to homes and businesses, (5) internal combustion engine vehicles, and (6) agriculture production.

Washington state does not have any commercial oil fields or active crude oil production, relying on crude oil and methane gas imported via pipeline, marine vessel, and rail from Alaska, Canada, and the Bakken fields in North Dakota. There are twelve interstate pipelines in Washington split evenly, with six carrying methane gas and six carrying hazardous liquids like gasoline and jet fuel. As Bellingham learned tragically in the Olympic pipeline explosion, pipelines carry their own special hazards of explosions and hazardous spills.

Unlike solid coal, which is easy, and relatively safe, to transport, methane gas has the potential to leak into the atmosphere from rail tanker cars or pipelines or any transfer points between source and destination.  Beyond the global warming effects, more methane gas moving via rail or pipelines means increased risk of spills and explosions. 

If you think our state and local numbers on methane emissions, or even CO2 emissions, don’t add up to much in the national and global scheme—guess again. We are not some two-bit player. State and local CH4 and CO2 emissions, while important, are only a small portion of our state’s contribution to the greater global harm from oil and gas  extraction, production, and transport via fracking. For instance, we choose to drive more miles and demand more electricity, which increases economic signals to the oil and gas industry to push for more extraction and combustion, which increases warming, smog, congestion, and sprawl, which then lead to more driving and demand for electricity and gasoline. It’s a fire feeding on itself.

Know that the industry is emboldened to take production to record levels and is depending on Washingtonians to use more methane gas for electricity generation, to heat homes and businesses and power industries, and produce more LNG and LPG. That makes us all enablers to the industry. 

Per Bill McKibben, noted environmentalist and writer, solving the climate crisis requires moving beyond individual lifestyle changes into organized collective action. WEC is here working with others to help navigate the way forward—one that protects our environment, keeps our communities safe and healthy, and fosters economic prosperity.  In part 2 and 3 of this blog series, I will discuss PSE’s proposed massive buildout of new gas generation, and the oil and gas  industry’s proposed expansions in oil and gas pipeline transport capacity.  

References and Notes

Global methane tracker 2022

Global methane tracker 2025, Gas transportation and other downstream operations are responsible for the remaining 15%. Most downstream emissions come from gas transportation, including emissions from transmission and distribution via pipelines or as liquefied natural gas (LNG) and regasification. Other downstream sources include storage, refining and oil transport.

Global methane tracker 2024 This is because the required outlays for abatement measures are less than the market value of the additional methane gas captured and sold or used. The share is higher for oil and natural gas (50%) than for coal (15%).

Global methane tracker 2026, "...still no sign that methane emissions from fossil fuel operations are falling, despite well-known and proven mitigation pathways. Oil, gas and coal production output reached record highs in 2025…”

“Love is a Glorian – resistance and insistence – our refusal to be numb to a world on fire.” Terry Tempest Williams, “The Glorians”, p. 278, 2026.

C2ES Global Emissions: According to the IEA, CO2 accounts for roughly 74% of total global man-made GHG emissions, while CH4 accounts for approximately 19%. 

Fast Facts on Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions The agriculture and waste sectors are also major sources of methane emissions, but fossil fuel supply offers the greatest potential for immediate reductions in methane emissions.” The transportation sector is also one of the largest contributors to anthropogenic U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 

2015 Methane Regulartions: Obama’s EPA knew early on that they needed to cut methane emissions for his climate plan to work, issuing a new rule aimed to limit leaks from new oil and gas  operations.

EIA Today in Energy: Leaking, venting, and flaring are three ways gases—mainly methane—escape during oil and gas operations. Leaking is accidental escape through cracks or loose seals, venting is the intentional release of raw gas into the air, and flaring is burning waste gas off into a flame.

Note that flaring also emits methane because flares often malfunction, remain unlit, or burn gas inefficiently. Flares can go out and release raw gas directly into the air 3% to 5% of the time they are in operation. Even when a flare is burning, it does not destroy 100% of the gas. Studies show average flare combustion efficiency is around 91%, meaning nearly 9% of the methane escapes unburned.

"For the First Time Wind and Solar Genearated more Electricity than Gas"

2021 Final Refinery Report, Research Council: Washington state ranks 5th in the U.S. for total petroleum refining capacity, operating five major refineries. The state is a net exporter of petroleum, consuming only about 51% to 53% of its refined output. [If WA consumes more than half of its refined output, how is it a net exporter?]Its five refineries produce a surplus, exporting roughly 40% to 47% of finished fuels—primarily gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel—to neighboring states like Oregon and California, as well as foreign markets.

"Olympic Pipeline Trajedy"