Our Climate Commitment Act
Full disclosure, part of my work as a consultant has been to write grants for energy projects made possible by the CCA.
This November, Washington voters will get to choose whether they want their state to keep doing something towards climate action. The Climate Commitment Act (CCA) is on the chopping block with an oppositional ballot initiative seeking to remove the act without offering any replacement for the climate work needing to be done.
For those tracking this type of policy in Washington, you’ll know that Washington voters twice rejected past ballot initiatives that sought to limit pollution through setting a price on polluter’s carbon emissions. This changed in 2021 when the state legislature, with strong support from a coalition of labor and front line activists, was supported in passing a bill that allowed for a ‘cap and invest’ program. The state established auctions to charge large polluters on a price per metric ton of carbon -roughly $50 per. This money is then directed to various funds and projects across the state with about 40% going to ‘overburdened communities’. Hundreds of millions have gone to support tribal investments and burgeon the ability for those most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Read the 2023 - 2025 CCA budget here.
In my small corner of this energy world, I see some of the projects getting funded and can witness first hand how important these projects are to the communities receiving the support. I have had the honor of working with the Tulalip Tribe, the Christian Aid Center of Walla Walla, the East African Community Services in Seattle, the Willapa Community Development Association in Raymond, and the Sno Valley Senior Center in Carnation. Each of these applicants won a grant for solar and battery project that will bring resiliency and revenue into these community organizations. These are a small handful of the many ‘Community Decarbonization’ grants that are being funded out of the $3 billion fund that’s been collected so far - I would estimate the entire program has claimed approximately 5% of the whole pie.
What are the reasons the CCA is under fire? Well, for starters and perhaps for ‘enders’, gas prices. The CCA is likely responsible for inspiring gas stations / oil companies to charge an additional $0.50 per gallon. Couple that with Governor Inslee’s mistake of claiming that the CCA would add only pennies to driver’s receipts and you’ve got a populist reprisal in the making. Beyond the heightened gas prices, critics are fundamentally distrustful of how the money is spent as it can go to pad the pockets of well connected groups around the state. To me, the latter critique holds more water and potential trouble. However, as someone who works directly with both clients and consultants around the state, I have not seen a single instance of a consultant not showing themselves to be worth their cost nor a client who did not absolutely need the outside professional assistance for their energy project.
Drilling into the actual cost impact on a driver, the ‘per fill up’ increase is about $6 if you take a $0.50 increase on the fill up of a standard 12 gallon vehicle. And while I can understand how for communities most economically burdened, an additional $6 can be impactful, I might also point out that the same political activists are not doing a whole lot to reduce their constituents bills otherwise, especially as the CCA has made it possible for millions of households in Washington to receive a no questions asked $200 energy credit which should cover the $6 cost increase at the gas station 33 times. This, nor the record profits that domestic oil companies are claiming, seem to make a difference for opponents of the CCA. If they could hold that reality in hand and perhaps propose a better policy, there would be something to consider here.
Transportation is the greatest source of emissions in our state. Considering that we need this policy to help clean our air, the CCA is supporting the build out of more transit development and car-free infrastructure (bike lands, sidewalks, free fares for youth, expanding accessibility). Most of transportation emissions are derived from single occupancy vehicles, or put another way, people driving by themselves! The emphasis on moving people around without driving cars is massive. It’s technical as well as cultural and it will take many years to build out a system that appeals to a critical mass.
Like most intractable issues, we should have started yesterday. If we didn’t do that, we need to start today. I want to see this program remain and become increasingly helpful. There are strong voices advocating for improvements - we need to hear them. Why stop our momentum before we’ve really gotten underway? Let’s go, Washington ;)
Read more on The Seattle Times about why we should vote NO on I-2117 this November.
Listen to Governor Inslee’s interview with energy journalist David Roberts.