Our community can vote to keep or reject the Climate Commitment Act (CCA) this November. As we make this multi-billion-dollar decision, let’s consider diverse perspectives. Multiple energy policies in our state dictate the progression to innovative clean energy development. The primary intention of the CCA is to create a pathway to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from Washington sources by 95% by 2050. The CAA establishes a cap-and-trade system and funds environmental programs including wildfire prevention, salmon habitat restoration, and clean transportation initiatives. While the wide array of proposed projects benefits the environment and a portion of low-income households, the billions of dollars generated by the CCA to date have not reduced GHG emissions in Clark County’s energy sector.
California was the first state to establish a cap-and-trade program. “While it is difficult to establish causality between emissions reductions and any specific policy or market condition,” the California Center for Climate and Energy Solutions claims that “some of the estimated 5% reduction in GHG emissions from 2013-2017 can likely be attributed to California’s cap-and-trade program, which covers about 85% of the state’s emissions and invests billions of dollars in emission-reducing projects.” Coincidently, California electric rates are the highest in the continental US. Because costs associated with California’s program are passed on to consumers in electric rates and fees attached to the price of gasoline, these costs also ultimately “represent a regressive tax that disproportionately affects low-to-moderate income households.”
In Washington, utilities will look to CCA funds for the development of cleaner, diverse energy generation and reduced transmission interconnection lead-time, in addition to relief to its economically vulnerable customers. To avoid rate increases and pass-through charges for climate initiatives utilities need supportive energy policies and grants for distributed generation to meet growing demands. Utilities will become less affordable if the CCA funds are primarily diverted to monitoring pollution, supporting research for global implementation, and promoting sustainable agriculture. There must be transparency and accountability in CCA spending to meet future goals of carbon emission reduction and to justify costs passed onto rate-payers.
Low-cost energy has typically been an economic advantage in Washington due to the abundant generation of hydroelectric power. However, the Bonneville Power Administration is receiving a record number of interconnection requests as the region lacks sufficient capacity and the acquisition of additional renewable power supply is slow. As we face an energy and climate crisis, utilities will proactively shift demand with sophisticated rate structures and incentives to conserve energy during peak load and develop diverse clean-energy power portfolios that align with the target dates set forth by the Clean Energy Transformation Act. These strategies are independent of our decision to keep or reject the CCA.
We must remember that electric rates impact every household and business in Clark County. Affordable and reliable power encourages economic development. As we consider the cost-to-benefit ratio of the CCA we must do so with our eyes wide open to its potential to drive up electric rates while not meeting future goals of carbon emissions reduction. Project awards must be focused on the most efficient uses in terms of cost per GHG reduction. Otherwise, electric power plants, industrial plants, and fuel distributors will pass the burden to marginalized communities and Washington will follow California into an unaffordable cost-of-living with little air pollutant reduction.
Sherry Erickson, PE
Erickson Structural Consulting Engineers, PC
www.EricksonStructural.com
