Environmental projects in Clark County stand to lose millions of dollars generated by the state’s cap-and-invest program if voters repeal it in November.
Washington’s 2021 Climate Commitment Act set a limit (or cap) on overall carbon emissions. Businesses must buy allowances equal to their emissions — basically, pay to pollute — at quarterly auctions held by the state Department of Ecology.
Conservative political committee Let’s Go Washington sponsored Initiative 2117, which would repeal sections of the Climate Commitment Act. Supporters of the initiative claim the state program is driving up energy and gasoline prices yet fails to do anything to curb carbon emissions.
The state and opponents of the initiative say the cap-and-invest program provides key funding for transportation, clean energy, clean air and water, climate resiliency and green building programs, as well as programs that support low-income residents.
An estimated $43 million has been allocated to projects in Clark County. They include electric vehicle charging stations, improvements to fish habit, free transit for youth and school-based bicycle programs.
Nearly $8 million is at high risk of being lost if the initiative passes, according to Clean and Prosperous Institute, a Washington Business Alliance project. Local organizations receiving funding include Fourth Plain Forward, C-Tran, Clark County, Vancouver Housing Authority and Clark College.
Clark Public Utilities has participated in three programs created by the Climate Commitment Act: the State Home Energy Assistance Program, the Washington Families Clean Energy Credits Program, and the Home Electrification and Appliance Rebates Program.
The utility won’t comment on the merits of the initiative but did confirm it has received grant funding. The Home Electrification and Appliance Rebate grant, for example, was for $470,000. The utility is doling it out on a first-come, first-served basis to eligible customers to buy and install high-efficiency electric equipment and appliances, utility spokesman Dameon Pesanti said.
The city of Vancouver received a $1.3 million Department of Commerce grant for appliance rebates. In September, the Vancouver City Council took the unusual step of announcing its opposition to I-2117, as well as three other initiatives on the November ballot. Vancouver councilors agreed I-2117 would undermine the city’s commitment to reducing carbon emissions, advancing climate equity and protecting residents from the impacts of climate change.
Of the 30 electric vehicle charging stations planned for the county, two are slated for the Cowlitz Indian Tribe reservation, with more than $860,000 in Climate Commitment Act grants paying for the construction. One will be at ilani and the other will be on Northwest 31st Avenue. The Cowlitz Tribe was one of 16 Washington tribal nations to publicly oppose I-2117.
“Our people have been dedicated stewards of our lands and waters since time immemorial. We believe that I-2117 threatens the progress we’ve made together as Washingtonians to protect our communities from the devastating impacts of climate change,” Tribal Chair William Iyall said in a news release Monday.
Another project slated to receive money generated by the Climate Commitment Act is Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership’s habitat reclamation project on the East Fork Lewis River near Daybreak Regional Park. The organization wouldn’t comment on the initiative but confirmed it was awarded $5.4 million through the state’s Floodplains by Design program. One partner in the project is Clark County.
“We don’t seek CCA funding directly, though it supports programs and partners we’re working with for several projects,” said Kaley McLachlan-Burton, spokeswoman for Clark County Public Works.
She said the county has also worked with the state’s Safe Routes to School program, which is supported by climate act money, to improve school crossings at Hockinson and Truman elementary schools.
If the initiative passes, funding from the climate act wouldn’t end immediately. However, organizations such as Clark Conservation District would have to cut back on projects and staffing or look elsewhere for money.
“Clark Conservation District is completely grant funded,” said Mary Kinney, communications director for the district.
Kinney said the district receives grants from the Washington State Conservation Commission and others, which are in turn funded through the climate act. The district received nearly $390,000 for prescribed grazing, pasture-health and virtual-fencing programs.
“We’re a small staff. We have about 11 folks on staff right now and 3.5 or so staff members are funded through Climate Commitment Act funding,” she said. “Can I tell you for sure that those folks, if the CCA funding goes away, that they won’t have work? No. Because we have other grants.”
However, she said climate act funding also helps pay for the district’s varied programs for wildfire prevention, sustainable farming, soil health and stream restoration.
Brush Prairie resident and environmental activist Don Steinke, a member of the Clark County Climate Project Community Advisory Group, said the impact would be greater than what’s already been set aside for local projects.
“I think we’d probably lose, in Clark County, about $500 million in funding for clean energy projects,” Steinke said.
He said he based his estimate on a per capita allocation of the $12 billion total in climate act funds he expects to be generated over the next 27 years.
“But it’s much more than just money,” he said. “It’s the jobs it would create and the clean air that we would benefit from,” he said.
