Climate Commitment Act.
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.
State law establishes the following limits on the emissions of GHGs in Washington:
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. A portion of the no-cost allowances allocated to gas utilities are consigned to auction for the benefit of gas utility customers, and Ecology is directed to adopt rules addressing the consignment of no-cost allowances to auction for the benefit of electric utility ratepayers.
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 covered and opt-in entities are required to submit allowances or offset credits in a timely manner to meet their compliance obligations in each compliance period. Most CCA violations are subject to a penalty of up to $10,000 per violation per day for noncompliance, although violations of certain CCA requirements are subject to alternative penalty amounts.
Solid Waste Management.
Under the state's solid waste management laws, counties are responsible for developing solid waste management plans. Under state laws addressing the local planning and management of solid waste, a waste management hierarchy is established for the collection, handling, and management of solid waste. This hierarchy prioritizes in descending order: (1) waste reduction; (2) recycling, with source separation of recyclable materials as the preferred method; (3) energy recovery, incineration, or landfill of separated waste; and (4) energy recovery, incineration, or landfill of mixed municipal solid wastes.
State law establishes requirements related to organic material management service requirements applicable to businesses and residential customers, including requirements that:
Exceptions to these organic material management requirements apply under certain circumstances, including if Ecology determines that there is no available capacity at solid waste facilities for additional organic material deliveries.
Under the 2025 Recycling Reform Act, producers of certain paper products and packaging are required to participate in and fund the operations of a producer responsibility organization related to the postconsumer management of paper products and packaging, and other recycling-related activities.
For the duration of the second compliance period, Ecology must allocate no-cost allowances to a WTE facility constructed prior to 1992 that becomes a CCA covered entity at the beginning of the second compliance period, if the facility is operated in compliance with federal laws and regulations and meets state air quality standards. Relative to the facility's baseline GHG emissions from 2021 through 2025, Ecology must allocate no cost allowance equal to 93 percent of baseline emissions for emissions year 2027, and must allocate no-cost allowances for the remainder of the second compliance period in an amount that declines by an additional 7 percent per emissions year. Fifty percent of the allowances allocated to the WTE facility must be consigned to auction, with proceeds to be used, with Ecology approval, for investments in projects or programs that reduce GHG emissions associated with the WTE facility.
Ecology may not allocate no-cost allowances to electric utilities for GHG emissions associated with electricity produced by a WTE facility that receives no-cost allowances.
By December 1, 2030, the owner or operator of the WTE facility constructed prior to 1992 must provide a two-part plan to Ecology and the Department of Commerce. One portion of the plan is a greenhouse gas emission reduction plan that must outline how the facility will achieve emissions consistent with the state emissions limits for 2040 and 2050 through any combination of GHG emission reduction strategies. The other portion of the plan is a waste reduction and material recovery plan that must be consistent with the state's waste management hierarchy, take into consideration the organic material management policies that apply to local governments and businesses and the expected impacts of the 2025 Recycling Reform Act, and align with the county's local solid waste plan.
The owner or operator of the WTE facility must consult with local municipally created sustainability advisory groups. The facility owner or operator must submit the plan for review by Ecology in consultation with the Department of Commerce, and must address comments received from the agencies within 90 days. The owner or operator of the WTE facility must take reasonable steps to implement the plan and to operate the facility and take actions consistent with the goals of the plan.
The Senate amendment:
(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) This bill would help ensure that Spokane's WTE facility meets the CCA by providing opportunities for planning and investment in waste reduction, diversion, and other technologies while balancing the impact to our state's ratepayers, many of whom are in overburdened communities. The bill creates an alternative framework for WTE facilities that do not fit into either the landlord law or the CCA. There is still work to be done, such as the initial reduction targets, but the framework encourages and accommodates a reasonable path towards carbon reductions. The bill maintains crucial grid power for Spokane residents.
(Opposed) None.
(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.
Katy Sheehan; Robert Duff, City of Spokane; and Jim Tieken, AFSCME Council 2.