Initiative 1631

 Initiative Measure No. 1631 concerns pollution.

 This measure would charge pollution fees on sources of greenhouse gas pollutants and use the revenue to reduce pollution, promote clean energy, and address climate change impacts, under oversight of a public board.

 Should this measure be enacted into law?
 yes
 no

 I’ve been studying 1631 since before it qualified for the ballot. It is long and complicated. This is a whole program which will change how a number of state agencies operate. The initiative itself runs to 38 pages. The Voter’s Guide which has now shown up in your mailboxes has a surprisingly good (and long) summary, particularly the ‘fiscal impact’ section. I recommend reading it.

 The basics: energy used in Washington State will pay a fee at the wholesale end, starting at $15.00/ton of CO2 emissions, into a special state fund. This means that pipelines bringing oil, trains hauling coal, and similar sources, will pay the fee. There is a complicated schedule of just who pays and when, in order to avoid either double payment or non-payment. There are, as the NO people tout constantly, certain exemptions. One of those exemptions is for fuels moving through Washington but not for use here. There is an exemption for PSE’s Centralia coal fired electric generation plant, with the rationale that it is scheduled to be shut down in 2025 anyway. There are also exemptions for certain power intensive industries which claim they could not continue to operate otherwise. I have some heartburn with that, but it is relatively small in the overall scheme of things.

 Yes, it is likely that some prices will increase, especially gasoline and propane, but probably also PSE, which generates some 60% of its electricity from fossil fuels. There is no mandate for retail price increases, and the fee is actually a very small amount compared to profits, but we can expect the industries to use the fee as an excuse to raise prices.

 Ok, that’s the down side. The up side is that the funds collected will go into a specifically designated fund – and here’s where things get a bit complicated. There are specific targets for how the funds are to be disbursed. Hold your hats. Here we go.
 70% of total expenditures must be used for clean air and clean energy investments.
  25% must be used for clean water and healthy forests investments.
 5% must be used for healthy communities investments.

 Don’t even try to add up the percentages because there is a whole lot of overlap.
The state agencies are directed to map out particularly contaminated and polluted areas of the state. Those will be designated as “pollution and health action areas.” and will have priority for cleanup funds.
A minimum of 35% must provide direct meaningful benefits to “pollution & health action areas.”

A minimum of 10% of funds must benefit one or more tribes. There is a provision that the tribes must be consulted on any project affecting either their lands or their usual and accustomed fishing sites.

There is a specific definition of what constitutes a benefit.

 This kind of says it all:
 §4. (1)  All funds must be used for programs, activities, or projects that yield or facilitate verifiable reductions in pollution or assist affected workers or people with lower incomes during the transition to a clean energy economy.

 Various state agencies, including Dept of Commerce, WSU Extension Energy Program, WSDOT, Utilities Commission, Ecology, DNR, Dept of Ag, and RCO (the Recreation & Conservation Office, which disburses funds for acquisition of lands for conservation) are all given pieces of the fund to administer, and are all directed to create procedures and criteria. The bottom line is that they all need to show to the new board how they plan to meet the CO2 reduction standards.

The plan must prescribe a competitive project selection process that results in a balanced portfolio of investments containing a wide range of tech, sequestration, and emission reduction solutions to reduce CO2 from 2018 levels by a minimum of 20 million metric tons by 2035 and 50 million metric tons by 2050 – while creating economic, environmental, and health benefits.

 There are very specific requirements for how to help poor people and those whose jobs will disappear.
Either Commerce or a utility, in consultation with poor people, will develop plans to carry out this section to maximize the number of poor people who will benefit. The plan must be submitted to the Board for approval. It anticipates:
    ~ bill assistance programs
    ~ reduce dependence on fossil fuel transportation via public and shared transportation
    ~ reduce household energy consumption via weatherization and/or solar panel installation
    ~ community renewables, owned by participants
In consultation with non-profits and tribes, design and implement comprehensive enrollment campaigns. The intent is to enroll 100% of poor people.

(5) within 4 years a minimum of $50mil/year must be set aside to maintain a worker support program for fossil fuel workers affected by the transition. Commerce may allocate additional funds as necessary.
    (a) worker support: full wage replacement, health benefits, pension contributions for every worker within 5 years of retirement. (there is a whole calculus of how long people have to have worked, etc). Up to 2 years of retraining costs, including tuition & related costs based on in-state community and tech college costs. Peer counseling services during transition, employment placement services, prioritizing employment in the clean energy sector, relocation expenses, and many other services deemed necessary.

§5. Clean Water & Healthy Forests
    Funding must be used to: restore and protect estuaries, fisheries, and marine shoreline habitats; prepare for sea level rise; address ocean acidification; reduce flood risk; restore natural floodplain ecological function; increase the sustainable supply of water; improve aquatic habitat, including groundwater mapping and modeling; improve infrastructure treating stormwater from inside UGAs.
    Healthy forests funds must be used to: increase resilience to wildfire; improve forest health; reduce vulnerability to changes in hydrology, insect infestation, and other impacts of climate change.
    DNR must set standards and create rules. These funds may not be used to violate tribal treaty rights or result in ‘significant long term damage’ to critical habitat or ecological functions. Investments must result in long term environmental benefit and increased resiliency to the impact of climate change.

§6 Healthy Communities investments. Creates a Healthy Communities account.
Funds will: enhance community preparedness and awareness before, during, and after wildfire; relocate tribal communities impacting by flooding as sea level rises; teacher professional training re environmental, social, & economic impacts of climate change; and strategies to reduce pollution.

DNR must develop procedures, criteria, and rules, which must prioritize benefits to communities with limited English proficiency and other vulnerable populations in communities at risk from wildfire.
    20% of the fund must be set aside to develop community capacity to participate in implementation, including teaching people grant writing. Funding is a competitive process, with a preference for vulnerable populations in Pollution and Health Action areas (defined elsewhere) and rural communities. Any tribe that applies must receive up to $200k/year to build tribal capacity to participate.

(9) "Environmental burdens" refers to the cumulative risks to communities caused by historic and current:
     (a) Exposure to conventional and toxic hazards in the air, water, and land, and;
     (b) Adverse environmental effects, which are environmental conditions caused or made worse by contamination or pollution or that create vulnerabilities to climate impacts.


    There will be created an Environmental and Economic Justice panel which will review funding proposals for consistency with the standards set. This is the “unelected board” the NO people are so upset about. That “unelected board” actually consists of 15 voting members, who must review and approve projects. It will consist of the Commissioner of Public Lands (DNR), directors of Dept of Commerce, Ecology, and Recreation and Conservation Office, 4 at-large positions and 6 co-chairs of the 3 investment panels. There are specific requirements for these positions. The governor appoints the chair and the 4 at-large positions, one of whom must be a tribal representative and one of whom must represent vulnerable populations in a polluted area. The Dept of Health, WSDOT, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction will be non-voting members. The chair is a full time staff position housed in the office of the governor. Board members serve 4 year terms. Those who are not state employees are entitled to compensation.

    The Clean Air and Clean Energy panel must be co-chaired by one business representative and a representative of labor. The panel may have a maximum of 9 members representing tribal, environmental, business, and labor communities.

    The Clean Water and Healthy Forests panel must be co-chaired by one tribal leader and one representative of statewide environmental interests. Again, a maximum of 9 panel members representing tribal, environmental, business, labor, and a “pollution and health action” area.

    The Environmental and Economic Justice panel must be co-chaired by one tribal leader and one representative of vulnerable populations, plus 2 union reps, and 5 other members of whom at least one is a tribal rep and two represent vulnerable populations.

    The duties of each of the panels are spelled out in great detail, including a schedule of deadlines for each of the many tasks.

    And on it goes. This is long, detailed, incredibly thought out, inclusive, and workable for poor people. There are parts of it I don’t like, for instance the part that says that utilities can take a credit against the fee for qualifying projects. I feel somewhat better about it when it says that Investor Owned Utilities (read that as PSE) may not take a profit from any fee exempt project.

    I was crabby about 1631 at first. I thought it was too little too late. After reading the thing I have changed my mind. This is going to be a major change in how Washington operates. It is a desperately needed major change. Most of you will have heard of the latest report by the International Panel on Climate Change, the one which gives us about a decade to clean up our act before the planet simply shrugs us off. 1631 is Washington’s attempt to take that warning seriously and do what needs doing – and trying to take care of those who could be hurt most in doing so.

    Here’s the financial picture:

Clean Air Clean Energy Washington (the coalition sponsoring 1631)        $11,215,526.13
Major donors include:
    The Nature Conservancy
    League of Conservation Voters
    Bill Gates
    Action Now Initiative
    Nick Hanauer
    Washington Environmental Council
    Washington State Labor Council
    Washington Conservation Voters
    NW Energy Efficiency Council
    Green Advocacy Project
    Front and Centered/Latino Community Fund
    Climate Solutions
    Audubon Washington

No on 1631  (sponsored by Western States Petroleum)                $22,127,179.90
And just in case you were under any illusions, the major donors to the No campaign are:
   Phillips 66
   BP America
   Andeavor (used to be Tesoro)
  American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers
  US Oil & Refining Co
  Koch Industries
  Chevron USA
  Valero Energy Corp
  PBF Energy
  Western States Petroleum Assoc
   

     I have been campaigning for 1631, writing about it, testifying for it, even going way out of my comfort zone and canvassing door to door for it. And now I’m blogging for it. If we want to continue living on a planet which continues to support us, we need 1631.

    I will be voting an enthusiastic and hopeful YES.