The years ahead for Washington will likely include ongoing drought and wildfire risk, surging demand for electricity, difficult or disappointing agricultural harvests, and the complicated task of further weaning the state off fossil fuels.
The state’s next governor will be forced to directly confront these challenges brought on by climate change, perhaps immediately. In fact, down the ballot from the gubernatorial candidates will be an effort to repeal the outgoing administration’s landmark achievement, the 2021 Climate Commitment Act.
Despite all this, Attorney General Bob Ferguson and former U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert, the leading Democratic and Republican candidates, respectively, have not made climate change a main pillar of their campaigns. And ballots are already arriving at voters’ doorsteps for Washington’s primary next month.
The candidates outline their top priorities online. Ferguson mentions climate almost in passing — and second to earthquakes — while Reichert doesn’t mention the issue at all.
Washington’s next chief executive will have big shoes to fill in this space, particularly because they will succeed Gov. Jay Inslee, who went to great lengths to brand himself as the nation’s climate governor.
Nobody on the ballot will be as “voracious” about the climate as Inslee was, said state Sen. Joe Nguyen, D-West Seattle.
Even so, where do they stand on the issues?
Ferguson differs — or even sharply disagrees — with Inslee on a topic or two but looks to continue in the same general direction. Reichert, on the other hand, has acknowledged climate change but has said he believes “the guy upstairs” is controlling the shift. Asked to clarify further, Reichert did say the state should aim to reduce carbon emissions.
A lack of focus on the climate among the campaigns came as a surprise to Aseem Prakash, a political scientist with the University of Washington, especially given the prominence of the Climate Commitment Act.
“It’s absolutely shocking to see that top issues in the state are not climate or environmental issues, even in the great state of Washington,” Prakash said.
Alternatively, Troy Abel, a professor of environmental policy with Western Washington University, said the omission might make sense. National polling indicates climate change ranks low among issues that motivate voters, he said. So there’s little to be gained by front-runners taking hard policy stances on the topic and they would risk alienating voters on the fringes.
To learn more about their specific priorities, The Seattle Times reached out to the leading candidates and the two trailing behind — state Sen. Mark Mullet and Republican Semi Bird. The Aug. 6 primary will officially narrow the field to two. Here’s a glimpse at where they stand.
The Climate Commitment Act
Since its inception, the Climate Commitment Act has been a lightning rod for controversy and now, well into its second year, it’s working pretty much as intended. It has raised more than $2 billion from the state’s top polluters for initiatives meant to cut greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for natural disasters.
The policy works by using a carbon marketplace to sell polluters allowances, each of which represent a metric ton of greenhouse gas emissions. That process has also contributed to Washington’s high gas prices, an expected (if originally understated) consequence.
State officials estimate that gas prices likely increased 25 to 35 cents as a result of the policy. Those hoping to repeal the CCA with Initiative 2117, however, have leaned heavily into innuendo throughout their campaign, pointing to the state’s historically high gas prices and laying most of the blame at Inslee’s feet.
Ferguson, whose office defended the CCA in court, has said he will vote against the repeal effort. Mullet said the same. Reichert, who voted for a federal cap-and-trade program in Congress, has said he will vote in favor of repeal, as will Bird.
Should voters reject the repeal effort, a spokesperson for Ferguson said in an email, his administration would look to support farmers and others disproportionately hurt by high fuel costs. Ferguson would also want to use CCA money on things likeenergy credits for ratepayers and working family tax credits.
Ultimately, the state Legislature is the body that decides how to allocate that money, though the governor does decide whether to approve the budget.
Ferguson said he would also consider whether to soften requirements for sharp carbon emission cuts in the coming years without changing the 2050 goal of a 95% reduction.
Mullet said he would also tweak the way the state handles future carbon allowance auctions to try to alleviate the financial pressure they put on people. He previously filed a bill to scale back Washington’s early emission reduction goals, though it did not pass through the Senate.
Reichert took a different tack.
“Written in the legislation the Governor has the ability to hit the pause button — right now,” he said in an email referencing the carbon market program. “When elected, I will hit the pause button so we can fix the broken pieces and promises.”
The bill does not appear to have a carve-out allowing the governor to unilaterally stop the policy, and Reichert’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for more information.
Bird’s campaign did not agree to an interview for this story by press time.
If 2117 passes, though, Washington’s next governor must still find a way to meet the state’s emissions reductions goals (set out by the Clean Energy Transformation Act) without the continued benefit of money raised by the CCA.
Ferguson said he would rely on Washington’s Clean Energy Fund for additional clean energy and sustainable infrastructure. Since the fund’s inception in 2013, the Legislature has appropriated $281 million to it for energy project grants, said Glenn Blackmon, who directs the Energy Policy Office at Washington’s Department of Commerce. For context, a full build out of the controversial Horse Heaven Hills wind farm in Benton County would cost an estimated $1.7 billion and only produce about 5% of the additional clean energy the state needs by 2035.
Similarly, Mullet said his administration would use up remaining CCA funds and look elsewhere in the state budget to fund new green projects.
Reichert said he would bring together stakeholders from a broad range of industries and communities to find compromise but offered no additional specifics on the topic.
Skyrocketing demand for electricity
Washington’s need for electricity is on the rise, particularly as people transition toward things like heat pumps and electric vehicles and companies move to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
The state’s energy demand could grow 20% by 2030 and nearly double by 2050. On top of that, an influx of data centers to power our increasingly online lifestyle is creating a tidal wave of additional demand.
Not only is demand soaring, but the supply of clean power is also struggling to keep pace. Ongoing drought is hampering hydropower production and calls to remove the Lower Snake River dams continue, which would benefit the natural environment — especially salmon — but would further clip Washington’s clean energy resources. Plus, other renewable projects, like the massive Horse Heaven Hills wind farm, face a gauntlet of red tape and local opposition.
Experts predict that during winter and summer spikes, demand for electricity could outpace supply as early as 2030.
While Ferguson noted that high energy costs are hurting Washingtonians, he was light on details as to how his administration would address the added costs and generate more clean electricity. Ferguson’s website mentions a desire to invest in research and development in the clean energy space and he briefly outlines a strategy of streamlining the regulatory process to expedite new projects, decarbonizing existing infrastructure and upgrading heating and cooling in homes and commercial buildings.
His website also mentions the need to build “resiliency as water level fluctuation and drought threaten hydroelectric reliability” but does not offer any further details.
Ferguson did not say whether he supports the removal of the Snake River dams.
Mullet said he’s not in favor of breaching the dams. Energy demand is surging too quickly to cut out any of the generation Washington does have. To meet the oncoming gap, the state should explore the use of modular nuclear reactors, he said.
Reichert also said he opposes breaching the dams but offered little other insight into how his administration would meet the rising demand for electricity.
“In Congress, I championed an all of the above approach to energy,” he wrote. “As governor I will do the same.”
Diesel or hybrid ferries?
The largest single chunk of Washington’s greenhouse gas emissions comes from the transportation sector, and one focal point in the category has been the state’s struggling ferry system.
State officials unveiled new designs for hybrid ferries last month but still needs to find a shipbuilder that can put them together by 2028.
But gubernatorial candidates are looking to move faster, even if that means continued reliance on full diesel engines.
Ferguson’s website says he would immediately request proposals for two new ferries to be ready as quickly as possible “including diesel ferries if this is the fastest solution.” He’d also issue another request for three hybrid ferries.
Mullet also expressed a willingness to continue with diesel. The state’s ferry system is in “total crisis mode,” he said, and now is not the time for any additional delays.
“You need to get boats in the water,” he said.
Reichert has said he’d fast-track up to five diesel ferries that could later be converted to hybrids.
