The P-I reports, somewhat breathlessly:
OLYMPIA - Washington state just got one step closer to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.House Bill 1819, which has the backing of Gov. Chris Gregoire, passed out of committee this week. The bill would impose a cap and trade system, in which a cap would be placed on companies' emissions. They would be required to buy permits in order to emit at the acceptable level. Companies also could auction off their permits between each other, creating their own market system.
The cap and trade system would be a regional effort by a coalition called the Western Climate Initiative, which consists of six other states and four Canadian provinces.
Funny thing, it appears the bill has changed significantly. A read of the bill digest bill report [pdf] for the substitute language, which passed the House Ecology & Parks Committee, seems to shift a cap & trade system from near implementation back to late-stage study.
In layman's terms, the sections authorizing the Department of Ecology to move forward with such a system have been dropped. Key replacement components include a required economic analysis (which just might be an important part of the equation) and recommendations from a "Market Design Work Group" as to how such a system should be constructed in Washington state, given the host of variables at play. These reports would not be due to the Legislature until December 1, 2010, meaning the Legislature wouldn't debate it again in full until 2011.
That's my admittedly quick read. I've heard preliminary analysis from a couple sources along the same lines. We'll see where things go with the companion legislation in the Senate.
If it came to pass, a go-slow approach with a major nod to allowing full economic analysis of the issue is not a bad outcome for conservatives, and others with substantive concerns about cap & trade as originally proposed, given the current composition of the Legislature.
Meanwhile, I have emailed Rep. Dave Upthegrove requesting comment, and welcome additional feedback at ericearling at gmail dot com from readers more in the weeds on this issue - especially those on the ground in Olympia.
UPDATE: coverage from Rich Roesler at the Spokesman:
A controversial "cap and trade" plan that would put Washington at the forefront of efforts to combat global warming has been dramatically watered down under pressure from businesses and rural Republicans.
Read the whole thing, but the point of the original post stands, cap & trade is moving forward, but in dramatically scaled-back fashion.
Posted by Eric Earling at February 18, 2009 10:28 PM | Email ThisAs Eric noted, given makeup of the WA Leg this year; plus the fact that cap & trade legislation was requested by the Gov:
A ''less bad'' bill that kicks the issue down the road more is probably the best we're gonna get (which is a sad state of affairs, but there it is).
It's not too late to read ICECAP and WattsUpWithThat.com and start getting educated about the earth's climate. It's got nothing to do with man and everything to do with the oceans.
Even a package like this with its fangs and venom removed makes you representatives down in Olympia look like fools for failing to examine the real science. And don't you have bigger fish to fry with a $6 Billion deficit?
The release of the Western Business Roundtable report on Cap and Trade as envisioned by the Western Climate Initiative might be coincidental, but somehow I think not.
See the write up on the report at:
http://icecap.us/
or download the report at:
http://www.westernroundtable.com/Portals/1/Docs/WCI_Analysis_FINAL.pdf
Posted by: deadwood on February 18, 2009 11:47 PMWe all have seen how the consultants (who were going to get millions in design fees for the design of a new viaduct) cooked the books with respect to the magnitudes of cost difference in the retrofit costs.
Why would this be so different? The reason I ask that is I read somewhere on the net where one state or another predicted the cost not to implement cap and trade would result in huge costs to the companies being regulated.
In other words, the assumption was that the world was going to nearly end and those costs of no business would be offset by the cap and trade expenses. In their scenario, what is a little cost for cap and trade?
Who is going to judge the economic study? So, folks, be afraid- be very afraid.
Posted by: swatter on February 19, 2009 07:37 AMIn an economic re/depression put a politically motivated agenda in place that will only cost more to produce goods and services, and pass those costs onto the consumer more.
This dispite discrepancies by many scientists that have no tie to financial benefits from a cap and trade system, whether we are in global warming, climate change or CO2 mythology.
I am used to stupidity in government, but this group has taken stupid to a whole new level.
Posted by: Ze Energy Maan on February 19, 2009 07:44 AMFurthermore, the Dept. of Ecology will do the reports/analyses. Gee, they're also the ones responsible for oversight of the plan. What do you think will be their conclusions, especially given the pressure to cut State Government? Do you think they'll turn down a chance to increase their own staff and budget requirements?
This should be resisted by all means...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 19, 2009 07:51 AMYour comment about the $6 Billion helps to put light on budget accountability skills too. Just before the election, the deficit was "almost $2 Billion..." Then after the election it was "...just over $2 Billion." Then around Christmas it was up to $4 Billion...then $6 Billion (as you rightly point out)and this morning its now $8.2 Billion. (KIRO News)
The jerks in Olympia can't even get their lies right. And they expect us to believe they can have their act together over this nonsense of Cap and Trade?
I wonder, would they be so quick to accept say...10 carbon credits at a re-election fund raising dinner as opposed to an envelope stuffed full of cash?
Ahem.
There are a majority of Democrats on Upthegrove's committee (9 Dems, 5 Reps). All of THOSE NINE Democrats supported Dave's changes to the bill. There was discussion about the substance of the bill, its strengths and weaknesses. Count the votes, guys. The bill was changed by the Democrats you so love to hate. For good reasons.
Further: to the extent that any cap on carbon emissions helps wean us off foreign fuel and re-establishes our economy independent of reliance on foreign governments ... well, that's a national security objective that even the readers of this blog ought to appreciate.
Posted by: Deb Eddy on February 21, 2009 03:36 AMAhem.
There are a majority of Democrats on Upthegrove's committee (9 Dems, 5 Reps). All of THOSE NINE Democrats supported Dave's changes to the bill. There was discussion about the substance of the bill, its strengths and weaknesses. Count the votes, guys. The bill was changed by the Democrats you so love to hate. For good reasons.
Further: to the extent that any cap on carbon emissions helps wean us off foreign fuel and re-establishes our economy independent of reliance on foreign governments ... well, that's a national security objective that even the readers of this blog ought to appreciate.
Posted by: Deb Eddy on February 21, 2009 03:38 AM