The global warming potential of a greenhouse gas (GHG), as classified by the Department of Ecology (Ecology), is measured in terms of the equivalence to the emission of an identical volume of carbon dioxide over a 100-year timeframe (CO2e), and is also known as a carbon dioxide equivalent. The Washington Clean Air Act requires facilities and fuel suppliers whose annual emissions exceed 10,000 metric tons of CO2e, and all electricity suppliers, to report their emissions to Ecology annually.
The Climate Commitment Act (CCA) establishes a Cap-and-Invest Program. The CCA defines those entities covered by the Cap-and-Invest Program (covered entities), those entities that may voluntarily opt in to coverage, and other persons that participate in auctions or allowance markets by purchasing, holding, selling, or voluntarily retiring compliance instruments.
Except for no-cost allowances allocated to emissions-intensive trade-exposed facilities, electric utilities, and natural gas utilities, CCA allowances are distributed via periodic allowance auctions.
Compliance obligations under the CCA are currently phased in over the following four-year compliance periods:
However, if Ecology enters into a linkage agreement with another jurisdiction with a similar GHG emission cap program, Ecology may amend the CCA rules to synchronize Washington's compliance periods with the other jurisdiction.
The compliance obligation for most covered entities under the CCA began at the beginning of the first compliance period, in 2023. However, the owner or operator of a waste-to-energy (WTE) facility utilized by a county and city solid waste management program and with GHG emissions above 25,000 metric tons begins to be a covered entity under the CCA at the beginning of the second compliance period.
All WTE facilities are exempt from a compliance obligation under the CCA.
All WTE facilities must achieve the following GHG emission reductions associated with WTE facility operations:
The GHG emissions from solid waste diverted to a municipal solid waste landfill count towards the GHG emissions associated with the WTE facility.
By December, 1, 2030, the owner or operator of a WTE facility must submit a report to Ecology and the Department of Commerce. The report must contain a cost-benefit analysis of various options associated with future WTE plant management, including refurbishment, closure, or diversion of additional solid waste materials. The report must be carried out by an independent third party, and consider qualitative and quantitative costs and benefits, including impacts to overburdened communities and vulnerable populations. The report must also contain a GHG reduction, waste reduction, and material recovery plan for the facility to achieve the 2040 and 2050 GHG emission reduction standards, which may be achieved by any combination of GHG emission reduction strategies, and which incorporates zero-waste principles.
The owner or operator of the WTE facility must consult with local municipally created sustainability advisory groups and make the draft independent third-party contract scope and draft plan available for public comment prior to finalization. The facility owner or operator must submit the plan for Ecology approval and must implement the plan once approved. Ecology may adopt rules pertaining to WTE facility requirements, and may impose the following penalties:
Penalties are appealable to the Pollution Control Hearings Board and are deposited in the Climate Commitment Act's Price Ceiling Unit Emission Reduction Investment Account, to be used for GHG emission reduction activities that are real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, enforceable by the state, and additional to other GHG regulatory requirements.
Compared to the original bill, the substitute bill:
(In support) This Spokane WTE is a unique facility in a unique and exceptional situation. By next year, the facility would need to meet GHG reductions or pay allowances that would have a 20 percent impact on rates, which Spokane ratepayers cannot afford, especially as the median household income in the area is less than the statewide average. If the facility has to comply with this cost, it will lead to the closure of the plant. Without the bill, half of the waste would be trucked to landfills outside of the county. This bill would allow time for the facility to develop options for a solution and provide a pathway for compliance. There is a desire to find parity between this WTE facility and landfills, which are not covered by the CCA. The CCA should incentivize capturing and destroying methane, as methane is an incredibly potent GHG. Some version of this bill should advance to save the WTE facility.
(Opposed) This is an unfortunate situation and there is sympathy for the situation Spokane is in, but other WTE plants have closed for the same reasons. There are environmental justice issues with toxic chemicals. This WTE facility is a significant source of GHG emissions, and the bill gives the Spokane incinerator preferential treatment under the CCA with no guarantee that the facility will reduce pollution. An alternative approach would allow for compliance but ensure pollution declines, with zero-waste methods in the future. This bill is not aligned with the state's climate policies; it allows for free allowances without reducing GHG emissions and sets different targets. Even though the facility is unique it must reduce emissions and should do so on a similar trajectory as required by the Clean Energy Transformation Act. The alternative for the facility's waste would be worse for the environment, and it is critical that the good union jobs at this facility are protected.
(Other) There is recognition that this facility is unique, but the proposed GHG reductions are inconsistent with the state's emissions reductions targets, there is no requirement the facility pursue emissions reductions, the state is subsidizing the majority of the facilities reductions, and the facility could emit at 85 percent at no cost, which is not something any other CCA covered entity could do. By providing a WTE facility with no-cost allowances, which are only provided to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries and utilities, it sets a difficult precedent. The bill should not impact allowances on the market, which could exacerbate further scarcity and strain the Cap-and-Invest Program; Ecology should be directed to create additional allowances if the bill moves forward. There is support for the bill, with amendments. There should be environmental compliance and enforceable requirements on material recovery and waste diversion, and assistance with transitioning the region away from reliance on this WTE facility.
(In support) Representative Natasha Hill, prime sponsor; Lisa Brown, Mayor, City of Spokane; Chris Averyt, City of Spokane; Paul Dillon, Spokane City Councilmember District 2, Position 1; James Tieken, Vice President, AFSCME Council 2 County and City Employees; Carly Michiels, Washington Public Ports Association; Chris Jordan, Spokane County Commissioner, District 1; Logan Camporeale; Kelly Wright; and Schade Maghan.