Yesterday, the governor signed an executive order addressing global climate change. She establishes five goals:
• By 2020, reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state of Washington to 1990 levels, a reduction of 10 million metric tons below 2004 emissions;
• By 2035, reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state of Washington to 25% below 1990 levels, a reduction of 30 million metric tons below 2004;
• By 2050, the state of Washington will do its part to reach global climate stabilization levels by reducing emissions to 50% below 1990 levels or 70% below our expected emissions that year, an absolute reduction in emissions of nearly 50 million metric tons below 2004;
• By 2020, increase the number of clean energy sector jobs to 25,000 from the 8,400 jobs we had in 2004; and
• By 2020, reduce expenditures by 20% on fuel imported into the state by developing Washington resources and supporting efficient energy use.
And a stakeholders process:
The Director of the Department of Ecology and the Director of the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development shall include representatives from business, including transportation, forestry and energy sectors, agriculture, local, county and regional governments, institutions of higher education, labor unions, environmental groups and other interested residents as appropriate in the development of Washington Climate Change Challenge.
The group will report back in a year. Here's the policy brief and press release.
Warren Cornwall and Ralph Thomas report on the announcement and various reactions to it in today's Seattle Times.
The announcements, from Gregoire, Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, Sen. Erik Poulsen, D-Seattle, and King County Executive Ron Sims, excited environmentalists. ...
On the Republican side, Sen. Jim Honeyford, R-Sunnyside, Yakima County, worried that these initiatives could hurt Washington businesses and that Washington could be shouldering more of the burden than other states, or countries such as China.
Lawmakers continue to pursue their own agendas, however.
Meanwhile, the immediate focus in Olympia may be on the most detailed and potentially most controversial idea.
Poulsen said he will introduce legislation effectively barring Washington utilities from building new coal-fired power plants or from signing new long-term contracts for coal power, thereby preventing them from buying dirtier power from out-of-state power plants. That could mean higher rates for some power customers, as utilities are steered away from the cheap coal.
Avista is listed as a conditional supporter of the plan; Energy Northwest objects.
In the P-I, Lisa Stiffler and Robert McClure see the Times characterization of "excited environmentalists" and raise it one.
The announcements -- which followed gloomy projections released last week about the effects of global warming -- caused a practically giddy response from environmentalists, who called the proposals revolutionary.
AWB's Grant Nelson carefully avoids giddiness, providing a good assessment of next steps.
"We're certainly encouraged by Governor Gregoire's approach," said Grant Nelson, governmental affairs director for the Association of Washington Business, the overarching business lobby. "Certainly she set some ambitious goals around which, with involvement by all stakeholders, we can have thoughtful and deliberative discussions."
The governor's approach contrasts with more radical proposals under consideration.
State lawmakers have tackled global warming issues in previous years, including the adoption of California's strict vehicle emission rules, requiring the construction of energy-efficient buildings and requiring that in the future fuel contain at least 2 percent biodiesel and ethanol. ...
It's not clear how widespread the support is for the new rules. Senate Republicans declined comment, saying they needed more time and information. House Speaker Frank Chopp, D-Seattle, indicated that support might not come until next year.
It makes sense to wait for the stakeholders' recommendations before jumping the gun on an economy-damaging package that fails to accomplish its objective.
