Climate Change

Subscribe to Climate Change via RSS

On April 29, 2014, Governor Inslee signed Executive Order 14-04, titled “Washington Carbon Reduction and Clean Energy Action.” This order supersedes two orders by Washington’s prior governor (EO 07-02 and EO 09-05) and will serve as the framework for Governor Inslee’s actions on climate change. EO 14-04 is a dense nine pages long, and was informed by the work of the Climate Legislative and Executive Workgroup, the University of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group, and other academic and policy information sources. Governor Inslee is taking ten measures to address the issues raised by current research into climate change. Here are some of the highlights:

1. Establishing a Carbon Emissions Reduction Taskforce: Convening for the first time on the day EO 14-04 was signed, this taskforce is being created to provide recommendations on the design and implementation of carbon emission limits and market mechanisms for Washington. The target for the taskforce’s work is legislation to be introduced by the Governor in the next legislative session. Governor Inslee has put some parameters around the carbon emissions reduction program he wishes to see in Washington, including (1) a cap on pollution emissions, with binding requirements to meet statutory emission limits; and (2) inclusion of market mechanisms needed to meet emission limits in the “most effective and efficient manner possible.”

2.  Coal-Fired Electricity: Continuing the trend that started with the phase-out of the TransAlta’s coal-fired power plant in Centralia, the Governor stated a goal of reduction and then elimination of electric power produced with coal. Besides the TransAlta plant, Washington receives some power from the Colstrip facility in Montana, and Governor Inslee is authorizing the Legislative Affairs and Policy Office to negotiate with utilities on the reduction of use of electricity generated from coal.

3.  Clean Transportation: The Governor sets a number of goals regarding the Washington Department of Transportation, including developing an action plan to advance electric vehicle use, programs related to transportation efficiency (including updating comprehensive plans to maximize transportation efficiency); and identifying increased investment opportunities in multimodal transportation. Nested in this action item is the a study on a low carbon fuel standard, contained in the Governor’s directive to the Office of Financial Management to perform a study on the “technical feasibility, costs and benefits, and job implications of requiring the use of cleaner transportation fuels through standards that reduce carbon intensity of these fuels over time.”

4.  Clean Technology: The Governor sets a number of goals related to clean technology. These include asking the Washington State Energy Program to work with the Utilities and Transportation Commission, the Department of Commerce and other state agencies to review statutes, rules, policies, and incentives for solar energy in Washington.

5.  Energy Efficiency: The Governor is asking the Department of Commerce to work with the Washington State University Energy Program, the State Building Code and other agencies to “develop, and implement to the extent possible and consistent with state and federal law, a new statewide program to significantly improve the energy performance” of both public and private buildings. This sounds like a lofty goal, but arguably is the area where Washington as a state can achieve the most gains from an energy consumption perspective. Reading the Governor’s goals made me think of Denis Haye’s comments on Earth Day with respect to shifting environmental policies, and the increased focus on energy efficiency in building codes.

The Governor also set goals in terms of state government operations, agency coordination, review of greenhouse gas emission limits, and coordination with legislative committees and members.Continue Reading Governor Inslee Signs Executive Order 14-04, Washington’s Carbon Pollution Reduction and Clean Energy Action Plan

Last week, when the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing en banc of the decision in Washington Environmental Council v. Bellon, it took what may be the final step to limit the role of courts in the debate over regulation to restrict carbon emissions. Bellon held that environmental plaintiffs do not have standing to sue to compel the Northwest Clean Air Agency (NWCAA) to set stricter standards for greenhouse gas emissions.

In Bellon, the environmental plaintiffs sought to compel the Northwest Clean Air Agency to adopt new RACT (Reasonably Available Control Technology) standards for the five oil refineries in Washington. The district court agreed and ordered NWCAA to determine RACT for the refineries within 26 months. Standing requires that a plaintiff show not just that it has been injured, but also that its injury can be remedied by a decision of the courts. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that the plaintiffs had not shown, and could not show, the required causality between their conceded injury from global warming, and any failure by NWCAA to adopt RACT rules, or that a judicial decision would provide them with any remedy for their injury.

The denial of rehearing en banc was supported by an opinion by Judge Milan Smith, joined by Judge Randy Smith, putting the issue succinctly:

Under Lujan [v. Defenders of Wildlife], it was Plaintiffs’ burden to come forward with evidence at the summary judgment stage demonstrating that injunctive relief would: (1) cause the Defendant-agencies to promulgate RACT standards that demand cleaner technology than the oil companies currently use; (2) that the oil companies would comply with these new standards; (3) that the oil companies’ compliance would reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and (4) that these lower emissions would mitigate global climate change in a way that would alleviate Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries.

Continue Reading The Courts Exit the Debate Over Regulation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

My partner Diane Meyers posted recently on the approval of the Keystone XL EIS, and that led me to thinking about the implications of this document with respect to the Pacific Northwest. The Keystone XL EIS may be an important precedent for energy projects in the Pacific Northwest, notably the efforts to export coal from…

The U.S. State Department issued its final environmental impact statement on the Keystone XL Pipeline project. The study, which raised no major concerns, clears the way for the 875-mile pipeline project to proceed and, as some have noted, gives President Obama some political latitude to endorse it. The route has changed since the State…