As you might guess, I’m talking about Washington state climate legislation. We’re going to start with the bills highlighted at Climate Lobby Day in Olympia on Jan 22nd 2018. It was hosted by Audubon Washington, Climate Solutions, CarbonWA, Washington Women CAN. Note that CarbonWA is now part of ACT Now. ACT NOW (Advocates for a Carbon Tax NOW) is a growing coalition of volunteers and more than 30 organizations including Carbon Washington, Audubon Washington, Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL), League of Women Voters, American Sustainable Business Council, Conservatives for Environmental Reform, and others that want to see a carbon tax pass here in Washington State.
Contact Info for 23rd District Legislators:
Talking Points from Climate Lobby Day:
Individual Bills and more information from a variety of sources:
- SB 6203 – Gov. Jay Inslee’s Carbon Tax page
- Original Bill
Senators sponsoring SB 6203 include: Carlyle, Ranker, Palumbo, Nelson, Pedersen, Frockt, Billig, Rolfes, McCoy, Keiser, Wellman, Liias, Hunt, Chase, Saldaña, Kuderer
- Thank Governor Inslee for his thoughtful proposal. This bill contains the right framework for effective state-level climate policy: it makes polluters pay, invests in clean energy, water and healthy forests, and it helps make sure low-income communities aren’t left behind. Also, if the legislative session, which ends March 8th, doesn’t result in the passage of this bill the Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy will develop an initiative for the ballot in Nov.
- Sizing up Olympia’s efforts to tackle carbon and climate issues
- Ballot Initiative Threat Has Energy Industry Warming to Governor’s Carbon Tax Plan
- Can Gov. Inslee deliver America’s first carbon tax?
- Ballot initiative threat has energy industry warming to carbon tax
- Sen. Carlyle said that he expects the #carbon tax bill to get a vote in committee within the next two weeks. Environmental groups including the Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy have repeatedly threatened to push to get a carbon tax initiative on the 2018 November ballot if the legislature fails to pass Inslee’s proposal. “If they can get it done well, great,” said Becky Kelley, president of the Washington Environmental Council and co-chair of the Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy. “If not, it’s our job to be ready to go.”
- Original Bill
- Gov. Inslee’s Carbon Tax Bill compared with other senate bills (from ACT NOW). Most people agree that parts of all three bills will be merged into one:
- Not everyone is happy about the Governor’s Carbon Tax Bill. Redefine Tacoma notes that PSE can keep 100% of the carbon tax if they invest in electric vehicle charging stations and the like as noted on twitter:
- SB 6253 100% Carbon-Free Energy (page) just had a public hearing on January 23rd. Senators who sponsor the bill: Ranker, Carlyle, Palumbo, Keiser, Liias, Frockt, Kuderer, Chase, Hunt, Saldaña
- Original Bill
- Sounds good on the surface but is silent on nuclear energy. While I completely support the goal of a 100% clean energy future, that future should not include nuclear. Also, the bill does not do enough to promote energy efficiency, and the bill’s target date of 2045 is too far into the future considering the urgency of the climate crisis.
- Hearing Notes from Jim Boldt
President, Duckabush Communications/Public Affairs:
During SB 6253’s January 23 public hearing of the Senate Energy, Environment & Technology Committee, its neutral stance on nuclear energy was roundly debated, with some utility providers say the carbon-free goal by 2045 could cost billions to attempt but is not attainable in that timeframe.“I know it’s a sincere goal … the question is, is it a realistic goal?” said Tim Boyd, a lobbyist for Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities, a nonprofit organization.If passed, the bill would set a timetable for public and private utility providers to eliminate electricity produced by coal and natural gas in favor of “carbon-free” energy, defined as a “resource that emits no greenhouse gas pollution as part of its generation activity” or is “a renewable resource.” That includes energy generated by hydro, wind, solar and nuclear power.Citing the state’s recent wildfire seasons and hurricanes in other parts of the country, sponsor Sen. Kevin Ranker (D-40) described the bill as “beginning the conversation we must have…to move us toward a carbon-free future.
“These issues must be addressed,” he added. “This is the direction that we must go as a state.”
The public hearing was preceded by a gathering the day prior of environmental activists and lawmakers backing climate change-legislation, including Governor Jay Inslee.
The state legislature in 2008 set the following carbon emission reduction goals:
• By 2020, reduce emissions to 1990 levels
• By 2035, reduce emissions to 25 percent below 1990 levels
• By 2050, reducing overall emissions to half of 1990 levels
“A zero-carbon future by 2045 is a laudable goal,” Boyd said. However, he added that it’s not attainable within the next 20 years unless new technology is developed. That was the conclusion of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s 2016 Seventh Power Plan.
Even if the state did try, it would ultimately cost ratepayers $20 billion, he said. “And we still don’t get there, unless a new technology comes along. If it doesn’t, we come up short of the requirements in this bill.”
He also noted problems with the bill’s treatment of natural gas, which utilities intend to use to transition away from coal. As written, the bill would keep it “off the table.”
Ranker noted that Hawaii, which in 2015 enacted a goal carbon-free by 2045, appears to be on track to meet the objective. He added “As far as natural gas, it is a decent transition and an important transition fuel that we should be looking at.”
Sharing Boyd’s concerns was Isaac Kastama, representing Franklin and Benton PUDs (public utility districts). He suggested pushing back some of the deadlines “to make this a more reasonable and achievable standard.”
“The bigger-picture issue is technical achievability and the least cost approach of 100 percent,” he said. “That’s a pretty high marginal cost for utilities. We’re 92 percent carbon-free. That seems pretty close to 100 (percent), and therefore we should be able to get there, but that’s done at a very expensive cost.”
Some of the bill’s strongest opposition in the room came from environmentalists who took issue with the inclusion of hydropower as a renewable energy source, while at the same time tacitly allowing nuclear power, which also emits no carbon. The testimony drew a response from Senate Republican Deputy Floor Leader Brad Hawkins (R-12), who said, “I just would like the folks testifying to understand and value the importance of hydropower. Sometimes the things I’m hearing don’t seem totally consistent with the ways things are in Washington state.”
He added that without hydropower or the nuclear energy produced by the Columbia Generating Station located in Richland, energy costs would be “out-the-roof high.”
No further action is scheduled for the bill.
ADDENDUM: Bill is not completely dead. If there is a majority of the members of the committee who will vote yes to pass it out of committee, they need to tell the chair they want it out. nothing is dead until the session is over, not matter what they tell you, nothing. votes can move dead bills.
- Original Bill
- HB 2338 Clean Fuel Standard page
- Original Bill
- Representatives who sponsor the bill: Fitzgibbon, Cody, Hudgins, Goodman, Tarleton, Santos, McBride, Stanford, Tharinger, Macri, Jinkins, Ormsby, Doglio
- This bill is about reducing the greenhouse gas emissions associated with transportation fuels. All of the nonprofits associated with Climate Lobby Day like this bill as well as Sierra Club because it would finally undo the poison pill included by Senate Republicans in the 2015 transportation funding package.