State climate officials and an environmental justice organization disagree over how the state plans to spend cash from its highly lucrative carbon-pricing program.
At the center of the argument hangs something like $700 million.
The question at hand is whether Washington set aside enough money from the carbon-pricing market for the people and communities most vulnerable to climate change. When the legislature enacted the Climate Commitment Act in 2021, it set specific requirements for how much money must go to those “overburdened” communities and tribes.
“These are the folks who have generally done the least to contribute to the problem and, regardless, are hurt first and worst by the impacts of climate change,” said Becky Kelley, a senior policy adviser for climate in Gov. Jay Inslee’s office.
Cash from the program is budgeted for a wide variety of initiatives like vehicle electrification, greenhouse gas reduction, subsidies for heat pumps and electric vehicles, shoreline restoration and salmon recovery.
Kelley and other state officials say they’re committed to meet — perhaps exceed — legal requirements for overburdened communities. But representatives of a local nonprofit say they want greater assurances.
In all, the Legislature set aside more than $2.1 billion over the next two years and at least 35 percent must go toward those overburdened communities. Another 10 percent must go toward tribes.
So far, Washington’s carbon-pricing market has raised more money than initially expected, nearly $1.5 billion. And more is rolling in every quarter.
Kelley said an estimated 43 percent ($924 million) will go to overburdened communities. Another 7.3 percent ($155 million) will go to tribes, which are eligible to apply for even more in grant funding and will benefit from other projects in the budget as well, she said.
But an analysis published last month by the environmental justice group Front and Centered is far less generous.
Up to 10.6 percent of the money budgeted (about $221 million) is allocated specifically or loosely to overburdened communities and 6.2 percent is allocated to the tribes, the nonprofit’s analysis indicates.
Commitments
One of the reasons for the more than $700 million discrepancy is the way the budget lines are phrased, said Davin Diaz, policy coordinator for Front and Centered. Line items not specifically designated for overburdened communities or tribes were not counted. Other budget items merely indicate that 40 percent of the funds will be “assumed” to benefit overburdened communities, he noted.
“Based on historic injustices, it’s hard for us to assume those monies would flow,” Diaz said.
Kelley said she appreciates the nonprofit’s position but that its analysis misses hundreds of millions of dollars that will go to overburdened communities and tribes. Some programs that the report didn’t count were designed specifically for those communities, even if the budget doesn’t explicitly say so, she said.
Still, officials with Inslee’s administration do take the criticisms to heart, Kelley said. The governor’s office is writing a supplemental budget, which it does every other year, and with the analysis in mind they’re considering ways to be more clear and transparent as to where Climate Commitment Act money will go.
Mike Faulk, a spokesperson for the governor, reaffirmed the administration’s dedication to meeting the requirements set out by the Legislature.
“They’re not promises and goals, they’re requirements and commitments,” Faulk said. “They’re happening.”
