In response to AWB's request for a partial veto of the climate change legislation, The News Tribune's David Seago asked for comments from Bill LaBorde, a former Tacoma Utility Board member now working for Environment Washington. Seago posts excerpts from our letter and LaBorde's response, on The News Tribune's editorial page blog.
LaBorde's key contention:
I think a simple reading of the bill shows that there are no regulations -de facto or explicit- in Sec. 2 of the bill, or any other section of the bill. Sec. 2 simply says that CTED will create a series of tools to make it easier for local governments that want to voluntarily incorporate climate considerations into their next comp plan updates.
In our letter, Don Brunell acknowledges
... the extent to which this bill has been scaled back from its original regulatory/prescriptive form ...
Nonetheless, we conclude
that [it] will create de-factor rules and regulations that will create another "Best Available Science" debacle, where issues have to be endlessly litigated at the local level...
There's more. Read the letter and the TNT blog post. I think there's little doubt that the language in ESSB 6580 sets the stage for increased regulation that will damage the economy. A veto here is appropriate.
UPDATE The TNT has more on environmental groups' opposition to the veto, expressed in their letter. We continue to believe the veto is justified and necessary.
