Clean air rule timely but needs vetting

Gov. Jay Inslee has revived his effort to cut Washington’s share of greenhouse gas emissions, which scientists say are causing global warming.

This welcome move comes in the form of a rule proposed by the state Department of Ecology. If enacted, it requires major industrial polluters to cut their carbon dioxide emissions by an average of 1.7 percent yearly.

The rule would affect many industries, including oil refineries that produce gas and diesel fuels for cars and trucks; vehicles are the largest emitters of carbon gases in Washington.

Critics can ask why state legislators are not acting instead of the first term Democratic governor, who faces re-election this fall. One answer is that Inslee’s past efforts to put a price on carbon emissions ran into rock-hard opposition from Republicans in the Legislature.

Seeing few options, Inslee is proposing a rule under the Clean Air Act that imposes a cap on state industrial emissions and imposes fines for those defying it. A previous rule introduced by Ecology this year was withdrawn for fine tuning after objections were lodged from both environmentalists and businesses.

The new rule is similar. It would affect power plants and industries such as oil refining and food processing. But as officials outlined this week, the new approach gives credit to industries for past reductions in emissions, and it answers some objections raised by utilities.

Early reactions to Inslee’s proposal were predictable. Most, but not all, environmental groups hailed the step toward addressing the state’s share of a global problem. Business interests, fearing costs for industrial users, disliked it.

Kris Johnson, president of the Association of Washington Business and an advocate of incentives rather than binding rules, said economic damage could result from the regulations.

“Placing a cap on carbon emissions that targets Washington’s best employers sends the wrong signal to businesses of all sizes, both those that are here already and those hoping to relocate here, by driving up energy costs for employers and families at a time when we are already beginning to see signs of an economic slowdown,” Johnson said in a statement.

The state’s goal is to reduce emissions 25 percent below 1990 levels by year 2035. Ecology contends the rule gets the state nearer to that.

Under Ecology’s estimates, costs for the private sector could range from $1.4 billion to $2.8 billion over 20 years. DOE claims the rule could avoid some $14.5 billion in “social emissions costs” such as environmental and health damage.

All of these claims deserve scrutiny and tire-kicking by an informed public. There is a lot to consider.

And Inslee’s rule is sure to become a campaign issue,

Holding public hearings is typical for rule-making, and this proposal from Ecology is no different. The agency plans public hearings July 12 in Spokane and July 14 in Olympia.

But Ecology also plans a webinar — an online educational briefing — that residents can tap into by smart phone or computer to ask questions. It is planned for June 23.

Two other webinar events will also allow public comments. These are planned for July 7 and July 15.

Washington needs to put a price on carbon pollution. But it should act on proposals whose costs and benefits are well understood.

This story was originally published June 2, 2016 at 6:39 PM with the headline "Clean air rule timely but needs vetting."