Senate Bill 5981, a cap and trade bill reintroduced this legislative session, came up for a public hearing Tuesday morning in the Senate Environment & Energy Committee.
The Morning Wire: Keeping you informed on politics, policies, and personalities of Washington State.
The bill, among other provisions, would establish a cap and trade program for greenhouse gas emissions and require the program to meet state-wide emissions levels by 2035 and 2050, respectively.
Notably, the bill makes the program contingent on the passage of a transportation package that furthers the reduction of emissions. Such a step, the bill’s sponsor said, is important to how the state approaches transportation and emissions reductions strategies.
“I think it’s important both literally and figuratively to send a signal that we’re very interested in an integrated, modernized approach,” said Sen. Reuven Carlyle (D-36th District). “We’ve had dialogue for a couple of years about different types of pricing of carbon and had conversation about de-carbonization within various sectors.”
The bill’s analysis stipulates gases like carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and hydrofluorocarbons, among other greenhouse gasses, are regulated under federal and state law as air pollutants. Federal regulations currently require emitters who produce an excess of 25,000 metric tons of greenhouse gasses a year to report their emissions to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, while state law regulating these gasses was suspended under a Thurston County Superior Court ruling stating parts of the state Clean Air Act were invalid. The Washington Department of Ecology appealed that decision to the Washington Supreme Court.
While the sponsors of the bill didn’t specifically address current state greenhouse gas regulations under review in the courts, advocates who testified in favor of the bill said they anticipated the type of cap-and-trade policy put forward by SB 5981 would see a large reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, as evidenced by similar policies enacted in other states.
“California has implemented over 400,000 projects with its cap funds,” said Kevin Tempest, research & development scientist for the Low Carbon Prosperity Institute. “Sixty-one percent of these are benefitting priority populations and are on track to deliver 100 million tons of GHGs [greenhouse gasses] avoided. Economic growth has been twice that of the country as a whole.”
Those who testified against the bill, however, were concerned the bill would result in higher costs for propane fuel, which representatives of the Pacific Propane Gas Association [PPGA] said was classified as a clean fuel under the 1990 Clean Fuel Act.
“This could mean higher bills for consumers who use propane to heat their homes, for commercial users and for school districts in Washington that use propane-powered school busses,” said Mel Sorensen, a spokesman for the PPGA. “We’re committed to greenhouse gas reductions and believe the appropriate use of propane can be a helpful component in that.”
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.
