Return to state-by-state climate policy map
This summary is part of Beyond the Beltway: A Report on State Energy and Climate Policies produced by the Center for Law, Energy & the Environment at Berkeley Law
Two-thirds of Washington’s energy comes from hydropower. Wind is another 6.5%. There’s a small amount of biomass and almost no use of solar. The state also gets5% from coal, 12% from natural gas, and 7% from nuclear. The state’s renewable portfolio standard calls for 15% renewables by 2020. The state has adopted specific targets for future years up to 2050.
Rather than using cap-and-trade, Washington thus far has adopted the “trade” but not the “cap,” in a distinctive hybrid of conventional regulation and emissions trading. The state’s Clean Air Rule went into effect in January 2017.[1] The rule requires major emitters of greenhouse gases to limit and reduce carbon pollution and incentivizes investments to reduce fossil fuel use and accelerate use of clean energy. Unlike California, Washington did not set a statewide cap on emissions. Instead, each facility is assigned its own emission reduction pathway, using its average emissions in 2012-2016 as a baseline. Thereafter, emissions must decrease at a rate of 1.7% per year. Every three years, a facility must demonstrate that it met its reduction goals or face penalties. There is also a reserve of emission reduction units (ERUs) to accommodate new facilities. (In effect, the sum of the targets for all individual plants still in operation plus the ERUs used from the reserve fund is equivalent to a statewide emissions cap, but the state itself never sets an explicit target for statewide emissions.) The state allows trading of ERUs and says that trading will also be allowed with out-of-state programs when those are approved.
The Washington scheme imposes lower costs on laggard firms that had high emissions in the baseline period, correspondingly penalizing those that had already started cutting emissions. On the other hand, because it is more focused on cuts at individual facilities, the Washington approach may be more appealing to environmental justice advocates than California’s more conventional cap-and-trade system (which critics argue can allow harmful pollutants to concentrate in disadvantaged areas).
Washington has the advantage that it only gets about 15% of its electricity from fossil fuels, while two-thirds comes from non-emitting hydro and almost all the rest from nuclear and biomass. Wind and solar are minor factors but the state has a goal of raising them to 15% by 2020. But emissions from industry and transportation are bigger issues.
As a result of an off-year 2017 election, the Democrats now have unified control of state government. It remains to be seen whether this results in further climate legislation, but that is certainly a possibility. There has even been some talk about a carbon tax.
- Washington State Department of Ecology, “Overview of the Clean Air Rule,” https://ecology.wa.gov/Regulations-Permits/Laws-rules/Closed-rulemaking/WAC-173-442,-441-Overview. The rule has been challenged by several generators and utilities. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/washington/articles/2017-05-28/carbon-cap-rule-in-washington-faces-legal-challenge.