While federal courts hash out whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate carbon emissions under a seldom-used section of the Clean Air Act, Washington state is left with a regulatory conundrum of its own – how to move forward with implementing the EPA rule despite the legal challenges, and how to do so without unfairly penalizing the state’s economy.
A joint select committee comprising members of the House and Senate tackled those issues during a hearing Monday morning in the Capitol. Rep. Jeff Morris, D-Mount Vernon, noted that the rule, as it’s currently drafted, gives Washington the highest emissions reduction target in the nation, anticipates existing state plans to shut down its only coal plant and increase renewable energy goals.
Rep. Morris questioned the logic of imposing higher targets on progressive states like Washington, compared to the lower targets on states with higher emissions like Ohio.
The rule forces states to look at decreasing carbon from four broad sources – coal-burning power plants, using natural gas combined cycle displacement to supplant coal burning, increasing renewable energy use, and making energy efficiency improvements. EPA uses 2012 energy production totals for each state, and then sets a target to hit by 2030. Washington’s is the highest in the U.S. at 72 percent.
Under the proposed rule, Washington doesn’t get credit for phasing out coal energy produced in Montana but used in Washington, as Gov. Jay Inslee has called for – Montana reaps the benefits in terms of emissions reductions.
Puget Sound Energy and other utilities jointly own a coal plant in the town of Colstrip, which burns coal to produce 2,100 megawatts, making it the second-biggest coal plant in the west. Officials in Montana have criticized the push by Inslee and others to terminate “coal by wire,” saying that will cost Montana jobs.
Washington, out of any state, has the highest reduction target because EPA exempts hydropower – by far the most abundant source of energy in the state – although it doesn’t generate carbon in producing electricity.
Still, under the EPA rules much of Washington’s reductions can be accomplished by its already-in-place plans to phase out coal burning at the TransAlta power plant near Centralia, in the next decade. That alone should cover perhaps up to 60 percent of the emissions reductions target.
“We’re red because we have a big river that runs through it,” said Dave Danner, chairman of the Utilities and Transportation Commission, of how EPA maps have characterized Washington. “We have one coal plant.”
Danner said that leaves Washington in the position of finding ways to get credit for what it’s already doing under EPA’s rules.
“We’re not looking at a greater burden,” Danner said. “We are looking at different ways of doing the math.”
There’s also the crucial question of when the EPA measures the baseline, either using 2012 alone or a multiyear rolling average. This would influence the ultimate target for Washington, depending on whether it was a good hydropower year based on snow melt, or a poor one.
EPA is still in the process of drafting the rule, which won’t be in place until 2015 at the earliest. States would have until 2016 to submit compliance plans, unless they planned to band together in multi-state efforts to meet the emissions reductions targets.
EPA’s goal is reduce carbon emissions by 30 percent by 2030, mostly by targeting emissions produced at existing power plants. EPA’s authority to do so is currently under legal challenge after 12 states sued the federal agency, but it has some Supreme Court precedent backing its position.
The court ruled in the 2007 case of Massachusetts vs. EPA that carbon emissions fit under a wide definition of air pollutants, said Jasmine Vasavada, staff for the House Technology and Economic Development Committee.
EPA’s authority may be upheld ultimately, but it could take years for the cases to wind through the courts system, Morris said. Stuart Clark, program manager for air quality in the Department of Ecology, said Washington is confident it’s on the right path for hitting the necessary carbon emissions reductions.
“I’m pretty confident that the foundation is there,” Clark said.
Rep. Norma Smith, R-Clinton, said the state has to protect jobs at utilities and in the production side of the economy, which provide enough income to support families despite many workers not possessing college degrees.
“It’s in the production side of the economy where we buoy family wage jobs,” Smith said. “If we don’t pay attention to that we risk those family wage jobs.”
Danner said EPA was sensitive to those concerns.
“They’re listening to us,” Danner said. “They’re not going to give us something that is onerous to our state.”
State comments on the proposed federal rule are due to the EPA on December 1, and Washington State agencies will discuss their draft comments with stakeholders on November 12.
Your support matters.
Public service journalism is important today as ever. If you get something from our coverage, please consider making a donation to support our work. Thanks for reading our stuff.
