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.
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.
(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/
Comments