Washington Initiative 1631, Carbon Emissions Fee Measure (2018)

Elections in Washington, 2018

• General election: Nov. 6
• Voter registration deadline: Oct. 8 (mail or online), or Oct. 29 (in-person)
• Early voting: N/A
• Absentee voting deadline: Nov. 6

• Online registration: Yes
• Same-day registration: No
• Voter ID: N/A (Washington conducts all elections by mail)
• Poll times: N/A

---

On the ballot: U.S. Senate • U.S. House • State Senate • State House • Supreme court • Appellate courts • Local judges • State ballot measures • Local ballot measures • Municipal • Recalls • Primaries in Washington, 2018

Washington Initiative 1631
Election date November 6, 2018
Topic Environment and Energy
Status d Defeated
Type State statute	Origin Citizens
List of Washington measuresWashington Initiative 940Washington Initiative 1631Washington Initiative 1634Washington Initiative 1639Washington Advisory Vote 19Submit

Washington Initiative 1631, the Carbon Emissions Fee Measure, was on the ballot in Washington as an Initiative to the People, a type of initiated state statute, on November 6, 2018. It was defeated.

A yes vote supported the initiative to do the following: enact a carbon emissions fee of $15 per metric ton of carbon beginning on January 1, 2020; increase the fee by $2 annually until the state's greenhouse gas reduction goals are met; and use the revenue from the fee to fund various programs and projects related to the environment.

A no vote opposed the initiative to do the following: enact a carbon emissions fee of $15 per metric ton of carbon beginning on January 1, 2020; increase the fee by $2 annually until the state's greenhouse gas reduction goals are met; and use the revenue from the fee to fund various programs and projects related to the environment.

Election results

Washington Initiative 1631
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,340,725	43.44%
No		1,745,703	56.56%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What would Initiative 1631 have done?

The initiative would have enacted a carbon emissions fee on large emitters of carbon based on the carbon content of fossil fuels sold or used in the state and electricity generated in or imported for use in the state. The fee would have been $15 per metric ton of carbon beginning on January 1, 2020, and would have increased by $2 per metric ton each year until the state's greenhouse gas reduction goals of 2035 were met and the 2050 goals were on track to be met. Revenue from the fee would have gone into three funds: (1) a fund for air quality and energy programs and projects, (2) a fund for water quality and forest health projects, and (3) a fund for investments related to communities. Under Washington law, this measure was a fee and not a tax because the revenue could not have been spent on government expenses or public programs; rather, it would have been dedicated to specific accounts related to investing in climate and environmental projects.

Carbon taxes and fees in other states

As of 2018, no U.S. states had implemented a tax or fee on carbon. As of February 2018, carbon tax or fee bills had been proposed in the legislatures of seven states: Maryland, Washington, New York, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Maine. Additionally, proposals to study carbon taxes had been introduced in New Mexico and New Hampshire. If Initiative 1631 had passed by voters, Washington would have become the first U.S. state to have a carbon fee.

Initiative 732 of 2016

Washington voters defeated a carbon tax initiative—Initiative 732—in 2016, with 59.25 percent of voters rejecting it. I-732 was backed by Carbon Washington and would have established a tax on carbon emissions at $15 per metric ton of emissions in July 2017 and $25 in July 2018, increasing thereafter by 3.5 percent plus inflation each year until the tax reached $100 per metric ton. The tax would have been phased in more slowly for farmers and nonprofit transportation providers. The state's northern neighbor, British Columbia, implemented a carbon tax in 2008, and this served as a base model for Initiative 732.

Campaigns for and against the measure

Two committees were registered in support of the measure: Clean Air Clean Energy WA and Fuse Voters (also known as Fuse Washington). Fuse Voters reported $2,605 in contributions from Fuse Washington and had not reported any expenditures. The Clean Air Clean Energy WA committee reported a total of $16.4 million in contributions and $16.4 million in expenditures. The largest donor was the Nature Conservancy, which provided $3.4 million in cash and in-kind contributions. The Nature Conservancy is a charitable organization with a mission of "conserving the lands and waters on which all life depends." Other top donors included Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg, who each gave $1 million.

Two committees were registered in opposition to the measure: No on 1631 sponsored by the Western States Petroleum Association and I-1631 sponsored by the Association of Washington Business. Together, the committees raised $31.6 million and spent $31.5 million. The top donor in opposition to the initiative was BP America, which provided $13.15 million to oppose the initiative.

Supporting and opposing arguments

Supporters argued that the initiative would create thousands of jobs and minimize pollution, resulting in cleaner air, water, and natural resources. Opponents argued that the measure would not reduce global carbon emissions and that the fee could result in Washingtonians paying more per gallon of gas if oil refineries were to pass the cost of the fee on to consumers rather than limiting their pollution.

What other energy-related measures were on the ballot in 2018?

In 2018, voters in Arizona, Nevada, and Washington decided ballot initiatives designed to reduce the use of fossil fuels and increase the use of renewable resources. In Arizona and Nevada, the environmental organization NextGen Climate Action was financing ballot initiatives, Arizona Proposition 127 and Nevada Question 6, to require electric utilities to acquire 50 percent of their power from renewable sources. Arizona Proposition 127 was defeated, and Nevada Question 6 was approved, which means it goes on to the 2020 ballot where it must be approved again. In Washington, electors rejected Initiative 1631, which would have enacted a fee on carbon emissions from power plants, refineries, and other specified emitters.

Voters in Nevada considered a ballot initiative, Question 3, to eliminate electricity monopolies and require a competitive energy market. Question 3 was rejected. Although Question 3 would not have directly affected the use of renewable resources in Nevada, supporters and opponents of the initiative campaigned on the issue of Question 3's effect on the use of renewable resources, contending that deregulation would either increase or decrease the use of renewable resources.

Below are the most notable energy-related measures of 2018. For a full list, click here.

Measure	Description	Status
Arizona Proposition 127	Requiring electric utilities in Arizona to acquire 50 percent of electricity from renewable resources by 2020	d
Nevada Question 3	Requiring “an open, competitive retail electric energy market” and prohibiting state-sanctioned electrical-generation monopolies	d
Nevada Question 6	Requiring electric utilities to acquire 50 percent of their electricity from renewable resources by 2030.	a
Washington Initiative 1631	Enacting a carbon emissions fee with revenue going to fund environmental programs and projects	d

Measure design

Click on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of the different provisions of the amendment.

Carbon fee: the amount of the fee

The initiative would have enacted a carbon emissions fee of $15 per metric ton of carbon beginning on January 1, 2020, increasing by $2 per metric ton each year until the state's greenhouse gas reduction goals of 2035 were met and the 2050 goals were on track to be met.

Carbon emission reduction goals: the goals mandated by the initiative

The goals under the measure included reducing the state's carbon emissions from existing levels by a minimum of 20 million metric tons by 2035 and by at least 50 million metric tons by 2050. According to a report released by the U.S. Energy Information Administration in January 2018 covering carbon emissions data through 2015, Washington's energy-related carbon dioxide emissions were 75.7 million metric tons in 2015. Under the measure, the target level of carbon dioxide emissions would have been around 55.7 million metric tons in 2035, down to around 25.7 million metric tons in 2050.

Large emitters: to what the fee would be applied

The fee would have been imposed on large emitters of carbon based on the carbon content of fossil fuels sold or used in the state and electricity generated in or imported for use in the state. To calculate the fee on such emitters, the measure would have required the department of ecology and the department of revenue to adopt emergency rules by November 1, 2019. Under the measure, large emitters would have included the following:

Large emitters according to Initiative 1631

An importer of electricity that was generated using fossil fuels; A power plant in Washington that generates electricity using fossil fuels; A seller of fossil fuels to end users or consumers; A seller of fossil fuels sold for combined heat and power; A refinery facility for crude oil, crude oil derivatives and other fossil fuels consumed by or in a refinery facility; A light and power business; A gas distribution business; A log transportation business; An urban transportation business; and more.

Exemptions: exemptions from the fee

The following would have been exempt from the carbon fee:

Carbon fee exemptions
The carbon fee could not be applied to:
Fossil fuels brought into the state in the fuel tank of a vehicle, vessel, locomotive, or aircraft
Fossil fuels exported or sold for export outside of the state
Fossil fuels supplied to a light and power business to generate electricity
Aircraft and maritime fuels
Activities or property of Indian tribes and individual Indians that are exempt from state taxation
Fuel such as aircraft fuel, diesel, and biodiesel when used for agricultural purposes
Special fuel sales to the state of Washington or any local government when the fuel is used for street and road construction or maintenance purposes in vehicles owned and operated by the state or local government
Special fuel sales for use in publicly owned firefighting equipment
Special fuel sales to the United States government
Special fuel sales to a private, nonprofit transportation provider when the fuel is for use in providing transportation services for individuals with special transportation needs
Sales of waste vegetable oil if the oil is used to manufacture biodiesel
Special fuel sales to publicly or privately owned and operated urban passenger transportation systems
Motor vehicle fuel sales to the armed forces of the United States or to the national guard when the fuel is used exclusively in ships or for export from Washington state
Motor vehicle fuel sales to foreign diplomatic and consular missions, if the foreign government grants an equivalent exemption to missions and personnel of the United States performing similar services in the country
Motor vehicle fuel sales for fuel used exclusively for racing that is not legally allowed on the public highways of Washington
Fossil fuels and electricity sold to and used on-site by a designated energy-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE) facility
Pollution emissions from a coal closure facility

Clean up pollution fund: how the revenue would be spent

The measure would have created the clean up pollution fund in the state treasury to hold all revenue generated from the pollution fee. After administrative costs, the revenue would have been put into the following accounts and spent as follows:

• 70 percent to the clean air and clean energy account for investments related to air quality and energy such as programs, activities, or projects that:
  • assist low-income people with transitioning to an economy that uses renewable energy rather than fossil fuels;
  • reduce carbon emissions in the transportation sector such as investing in public transit, electric car charging stations, deploying zero-emission vehicles;
  • increase the energy efficiency of buildings and industrial facilities or create carbon-neutral buildings;
  • replace natural gas with biomethane and synthetic gas; and
  • sequestration of carbon through sequestration of marine and freshwater resources, agricultural land, forests, and more.

The clean air and clean energy panel would have been created and tasked with providing detailed recommendations to the public oversight board regarding investments and other matters related to air quality and energy projects and programs.

• 25 percent to the clean water and healthy forests account for investments related to water and forests such as programs, activities, or projects that:
  • Restore and protect fisheries and marine habitats;
  • Reduce flood risks and prepare for a rise in sea level; and
  • Increase water supply.

The clean water and healthy forests panel would have been created and tasked with providing detailed recommendations to the public oversight board regarding investments and other matters related to water and forest programs and projects.

• 5 percent to the healthy communities account for investments related to communities, such as programs, activities, or projects that:
  • Enhance community awareness and preparedness for, during, and after wildfires;
  • Develop and implement ways to provide support for tribal communities impacted by wildfires;
  • Relocate tribal communities that are impacted by a rising sea level; and
  • Develop and implement education programs to enhance awareness of climate change and its related impacts.

The environmental and economic justice panel would have been created and tasked with providing detailed recommendations to the public oversight board regarding investments related to the healthy communities account and related programs. The procedures, criteria, and rules for programs, projects, and activities in this account must prioritize programs and projects that benefit communities with limited English proficiency.

Public oversight board: the board responsible for implementation

The measure would have established a public oversight board responsible for implementing and overseeing the programs under the measure within the office of the governor. The board would have had 15 voting members, as shown below:

Public oversight board members and duties

Board members Members from the department of health, department of transportation, and the superintendent of public instruction The chair, appointed by the governor; Six co-chairs; Four at-large positions to serve staggered four-year terms appointed by the governor, to include one tribal representative and one representative from a vulnerable population area; The commissioner of public lands; The director of the department of commerce; The director of the department of ecology; and The director of the recreation and conservation office. Duties of the board Developing budget recommendations and handling the funding processes necessary to implement the measure; Adopting rules to implement the measure; Reviewing and approving the pollution reduction investment plan and the effectiveness report; Conferring with the state legislature and governor concerning the implementation of the measure; and Other duties related to implementing the measure.

Tribal relations:

Any project, program, or agency receiving funding under the measure would have needed to consult with Indian tribes on all decisions that could impact the Indian tribe or tribal lands with the goal of addressing concerns of the tribe and to obtain free, prior, and informed consent for the project. The board and the Indian tribe would have needed to work together to reach a consensus on whether or not a project should be funded.

Effectiveness report: a required report on the results every four years

By December 10, 2022, and then every four years, the department of commerce and other relevant agencies, in consultation with the panels, academic institutions, and other experts would have needed to submit an effectiveness report to the board describing progress made in achieving carbon reduction goals and implementing pollution reduction plans.

Text of measure

The ballot title and summary were challenged in court after a petition was filed arguing that the title and summary were misleading, inaccurate, and deceptive. After oral arguments, the court ruled that the title and summary needed to be changed. To see the original and revised title and summary, click here.

Ballot title

The final ballot title for this measure was as follows:

“

Initiative Measure No. 1631 concerns pollution. This measure would charge pollution fees on sources of greenhouse gas pollutants and use the revenue to reduce pollution, promote clean energy, and address climate impacts, under oversight of a public board. Should this measure be enacted into law?

”

Ballot summary

The final ballot summary for the initiative was as follows:

“

This measure would impose pollution fees on certain large emitters of greenhouse gas pollutants based on rules determining carbon content, starting in 2020. A public board would supervise spending the revenues on reducing pollution, promoting clean energy, and addressing climate impacts to the environment and communities. Utilities could receive credits for approved investments. Indian tribes would consult on projects directly impacting their land. There would be periodic reporting on the measure’s effectiveness.

”

Fiscal impact statement

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The summary section of the fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

Initiative 1631 imposes a pollution fee on large emitters of greenhouse gases. The fee will raise $2,295,785,000 during the first five fiscal years. The additional Utilities and Transportation Commission regulatory fee will raise $9,685,072 during the first five fiscal years. A public oversight board is established to supervise revenue expenditures to reduce carbon pollution, promote clean energy and address climate impacts to the environment and communities. Twelve state agencies and two higher education institutions are estimated to expend $27,178,592. The remaining expenditures cannot be estimated until the public board approves investment plans. Local government expenditures are estimated to be $158,623,072.

”

Explanatory statement

The explanatory statement from the Washington 2018 Voters' Guide was as follows:

The Law as It Presently Exists Under existing law, Washington has set goals to reduce greenhouse gases emitted in Washington. Those gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and other gases designated by the Department of Ecology. The goals are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state to 1990 levels by 2020 and to continue reducing greenhouse gas emissions to achieve fifty percent of 1990 levels by 2050. The Department of Commerce is responsible for developing a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reporting progress toward meeting the state’s goals. State agencies are required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by certain specified levels. Various laws and state agency rules relate to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. These include emission standards for certain power plants, renewable fuel standards, building codes, requirements for utilities to use renewable resources, converting state vehicles to clean fuels, motor vehicle emission standards, and land use laws such as the Growth Management Act, which encourage efficient transportation systems. Under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), state and local government must engage in a variety of public processes to review, avoid, or minimize environmental impacts. These processes include analyzing greenhouse gases and considering input from individuals and Indian tribes concerning environmental impacts of state permitting or other action. The Effect of the Proposed Measure if Approved This measure would impose a pollution fee on large emitters of greenhouse gases. Money raised by the fee would be used for certain environmental programs and projects. The measure would create a public oversight board to implement the measure and approve funding for programs and projects. It also sets forth procedures for proposing and approving the programs and projects that could be funded by money generated from the new fee. The pollution fee imposed by the measure would apply to fossil fuels sold or used within this state and electricity generated within or imported into this state. Fossil fuels include motor vehicle fuel and other petroleum products intended for combustion, natural gas, coal, coke, and any form of fuel created from these products. The pollution fee would be collected only one time on any particular unit of fossil fuels or energy. This means that the fee would not have to be paid again by subsequent sellers or users of the same fuel or energy. The fee imposed on fossil fuels would be collected from various persons or companies. For motor vehicle fuel and “special fuel” (diesel and certain other fuels), the fee would be collected from fuel licensees who currently pay the motor vehicle fuel taxes on those fuels. For natural gas, the fee would be collected from natural gas public utilities or entities that pay the state’s natural gas use tax. For refinery facilities, the fee would be collected from the refinery for fossil fuels consumed or used by the refinery. The fee may also be collected from a seller of fossil fuels to end users or consumers, a seller of fuel used for certain combined heat and power, or from other persons designated by the Department of Revenue. The fee imposed on electricity would be collected from importers of electricity generated using fossil fuels, importers of electricity generated from an unspecified source, or a power plant located in Washington that generates electricity using fossil fuels. The fee charged would be based on the amount of carbon content in the fossil fuels. In the case of electricity, the fee would be based on the carbon content of the fossil fuels used to generate the electricity. “Carbon content” means the carbon dioxide equivalent released from burning or oxidation of fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide equivalent is a measure used to compare emissions from various greenhouse gases based on their global warming potential. So the carbon content of a fossil fuel is a measure of the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are released when the fossil fuel is burned or otherwise consumed. For purposes of calculating the fee, the Department of Ecology is responsible for determining the carbon content of fossil fuels or inherent in electricity. Beginning January 1, 2020, the pollution fee is set at fifteen dollars per metric ton of carbon content. The fee increases by two dollars per metric ton each year and is also adjusted for inflation each year. The two-dollar annual increases continue until the state’s existing greenhouse gas reduction goal for 2035 is met and the state is on pace and likely to meet the 2050 greenhouse gas reduction goal. At that time, the pollution fee will be fixed, except for the annual inflation adjustments. The measure would not impose the fee in certain circumstances. For example, the fee would not apply to fossil fuels brought into Washington in the fuel supply tank of a motor vehicle, vessel, locomotive, or aircraft. It would not apply to fossil fuels exported or sold for export outside Washington. It would not apply to fossil fuels supplied to a light and power business for purposes of generating electricity. It would not apply to fossil fuels and electricity sold to and used by certain facilities designated by the Department of Commerce as within energy-intensive and trade-exposed industries. It would not apply to aircraft fuels, certain fuel used for agricultural purposes, and motor vehicle fuel or special fuel currently exempt from taxation. It would not apply to Indian tribes and Indians in circumstances where they are exempt from state taxation. The fee would not apply to facilities that generate electricity by burning coal, if those facilities are legally bound to close by 2025 or to comply with certain emission standards by 2025. The measure also allows for credits in certain circumstances. For example, a fee-payer may receive a credit if the fossil fuel or electricity is subject to a similar fee on carbon content in another jurisdiction and the fee-payer receives approval from the Department of Commerce. A light and power business or gas distribution business, also known as a utility, may receive a credit up to the full amount of the fee for investments in programs, activities, or projects consistent with a clean energy investment plan. But to receive that credit, the utility’s clean energy investment plan must be approved by the state Utilities and Transportation Commission (for investor-owned utilities) or the Department of Commerce (for consumer-owned utilities). The measure would establish a public oversight board to implement the new law. The board would have fifteen voting members: the chair; the Commissioner of Public Lands; the directors of the Department of Commerce, the Department of Ecology, and the Recreation and Conservation Office; four at-large positions; and six co-chairs of three investment panels. The three investment panels would be created by the measure and would provide advice and recommendations to the board and assist in developing criteria for approving spending on certain projects. There would be certain requirements for the at-large positions and the six co-chairs. The board would have numerous powers and duties. It would make decisions about which projects and programs to fund with the moneys raised by the pollution fee. It would review and approve rules developed by other agencies that set guidelines for the various programs required or funded by the measure. The board would consult with other agencies and government bodies, Indian tribes, and others in developing projects. It would report to the Governor and Legislature regarding progress and challenges in implementing the measure. The measure would require consultation with Indian tribes by any state agency implementing the law, or receiving funding for projects, on decisions that may directly affect Indian tribes and tribal lands. The board could not approve spending on projects that directly affect an Indian tribe’s lands or usual and accustomed fishing areas without first engaging in this formal consultation and following a mutually agreed timeline for the consultation. If a project is funded without this consultation and directly affects lands owned or controlled by an Indian tribe or affects lands where a tribe has a significant interest, action on the project must cease upon request by an affected Indian tribe. The measure would place all pollution fees collected in the state treasury in an account called the “clean up pollution fund.” Expenditures from the fund would be limited to certain investments defined in the measure. The measure includes certain criteria that must be considered when approving funding. The measure would allow money from the clean up pollution fund to be used for reasonable administrative costs. After administrative costs, the clean up pollution fund must be used for certain categories of investments: seventy percent of the clean up pollution fund must be spent on clean air and clean energy investments, twenty-five percent for clean water and healthy forest investments, and five percent for healthy communities investments. The board may allow different percentages in certain circumstances. The measure defines clean air and clean energy investments as programs, activities, or projects that reduce pollution or that assist affected workers or people with lower incomes. As noted above, seventy percent of the fund would be spent in this category. The measure identifies some programs that fit this spending category, including those that promote renewable energy such as solar and wind power; that increase energy efficiency; that reduce transportation-related carbon emissions through use of electric vehicles or public transportation; and that promote the capturing and storing of carbon in water, soil, forests, or other natural areas. At least fifteen percent of the clean air and clean energy investments must be used to reduce the energy burden of people with lower incomes through programs such as assistance with paying energy bills, promoting public or shared transportation, and reducing energy consumption. In addition, within four years, a minimum of $50 million would be set aside for a program to support fossil-fuel workers who are affected by the transition away from fossil fuels. The program may include wage replacement, health benefits, pension contributions, retraining costs, and other services. The Department of Commerce, in consultation with others, must propose rules and criteria for disbursing funds for clean air and clean energy investments. The proposed rules and criteria must be approved by the board. The measure includes certain requirements for the rules and criteria for disbursing funds and includes certain goals for reducing carbon emissions and global temperature increases. The second spending category for the clean up pollution fund is to address the impacts of climate change on the state’s waters and forests. Twenty-five percent of the fund will be spent in this category. Examples for this category include spending to restore and protect state waters, to address ocean acidification, to reduce flood risk, to reduce risk of wildfires, and to address other impacts of climate change. Various state agencies are responsible for proposing rules and criteria for eligible programs. The rules and criteria for these programs must be approved by the board. Finally, the third spending category for the clean up pollution fund is to prepare communities for the impacts of climate change and to help certain populations who are particularly affected by climate change. Five percent of the fund will be spent in this category. In this category, funds can be used for wildfire prevention and preparedness, relocation of communities on tribal lands affected by sea level rise and floods, and public school education about the impacts of climate change and ways to reduce pollution. A portion of this fund must be used to help communities participate in carrying out the measure, such as help in preparing proposals for projects. In addition to the spending requirements for these three categories, the measure imposes other requirements on spending. At least thirty-five percent of spending from the clean up pollution fund must provide direct and meaningful benefits to what the measure calls “pollution and health action areas.” The Department of Health designates those areas based on University of Washington analyses of vulnerable populations and environmental burdens. A particular area partially or fully within Indian reservations or other Indian lands would also qualify as a pollution and health action area. At least ten percent of funds must be spent for projects formally supported by a resolution of an Indian tribe, and ten percent must be spent for projects located in and benefiting a pollution and health action area.

Full text

The full text of the measure is as follows:

Initiative Measure No. 1631, filed March 13, 2018 AN ACT Relating to reducing pollution by investing in clean air, clean energy, clean water, healthy forests, and healthy communities by imposing a fee on large emitters based on their pollution; and adding a new chapter to Title 70 RCW. BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS. The people of the state of Washington make the following findings and determinations: (1) The intent of this chapter is to protect Washington for our children, our grandchildren, and future generations by quickly and effectively reducing pollution and addressing its negative impacts. (2) Fossil fuel consumption and related pollution contribute directly to climate change and the regional effects of global warming, which harm Washington's health, economy, natural resources, environment, and communities. This harm includes, but is not limited to, intensified storms, droughts, sea level rise, increased flooding, more frequent and severe wildfires, and other adverse impacts to forests, agriculture, wildlife, fisheries, rivers, and the marine environment. (3) Investments in clean air, clean energy, clean water, healthy forests, and healthy communities will facilitate the transition away from fossil fuels, reduce pollution, and create an environment that protects our children, families, and neighbors from the adverse impacts of pollution. Funding these investments through a fee on large emitters of pollution based on the amount of pollution they contribute is fair and makes sense. A pollution fee offsets and alleviates burdens to which those emitters directly contribute. (4) The transition to the clean energy economy will have tremendous economic and job growth benefits. Washington's tradition of innovation and technology development combined with the funding available under this chapter will increase economic opportunity, enhance economic and environmental sustainability, and create and support family-sustaining jobs across the state. The business community will play a critical role in leading this transition and in reducing pollution. (5) Both pollution itself and transitioning to a society that prioritizes clean air, clean energy, clean water, healthy forests, and healthy communities disproportionately impact some people, workers, and communities more than others, including communities within pollution and health action areas. The use of a pollution fee to offset and alleviate those impacts is appropriate to ensure a successful and just transition. (6) The investments authorized in this chapter constitute the purchase of pollution reduction and the protection of Washington's clean air, clean water, healthy forests, and healthy communities. NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. SHORT TITLE. This act may be known and cited as the Protect Washington Act. NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. CLEAN UP POLLUTION FUND. (1) The clean up pollution fund is created in the state treasury. All receipts collected from the pollution fee imposed by this chapter must be deposited in the fund. The department of revenue is authorized to create subfunds or subaccounts as may be necessary or appropriate to implement the purposes of this chapter. Receipts collected from the pollution fee imposed by this chapter may only be spent after appropriation into the clean up pollution fund. (2) After reasonable administrative costs: (a) Seventy percent of total expenditures under this act must be used for the clean air and clean energy investments authorized under section 4 of this act; (b) Twenty-five percent of total expenditures under this act must be used for the clean water and healthy forests investments authorized under section 5 of this act; and (c) Five percent of total expenditures under this act must be used for the healthy communities investments authorized under section 6 of this act. (3) The board may authorize deviation from the allocations in subsection (2) of this section if there are an insufficient number of interested or eligible programs, activities, or projects seeking funding or if the board otherwise determines that variance from the prescribed allocation is critically important to achieve the purposes of this chapter. (4) Compliance with the allocations required in subsection (2) of this section may be calculated based upon the average expenditures from the fund over any four-year period. (5) In addition to the requirements of subsection (2) of this section, each year the total investments made under this chapter must meet the following requirements: (a) A minimum of thirty-five percent of total investments authorized under this chapter must provide direct and meaningful benefits to pollution and health action areas. (b) A minimum of ten percent of the total investments authorized under this chapter must fund programs, activities, or projects that are located within the boundaries of and provide direct and meaningful benefits to pollution and health action areas. An investment that meets the requirements of both this subsection (5)(b) and of (a) of this subsection may count towards the requisite minimum percentage for both subsections. (c) A minimum of ten percent of the total investments authorized under this chapter must be used for programs, activities, or projects formally supported by a resolution of an Indian tribe, with priority given to otherwise qualifying projects directly administered or proposed by an Indian tribe. An investment that meets the requirements of both this subsection (5)(c) and of (a) of this subsection may count towards the requisite minimum percentage for both subsections. However, investments under this subsection (5)(c) are in addition to, and may not count towards, the requisite minimum percentage for (b) of this subsection. Programs, activities, or projects for which credits are authorized pursuant to section 4(6) of this act may, but are not required to, count towards the requisite minimum percentage for this subsection (5)(c). (d) For the purposes of this subsection, "benefits" means investments or activities that: (i) Reduce vulnerable population characteristics, environmental burdens, or associated risks that contribute significantly to the cumulative impact designation of the pollution and health action area; (ii) Meaningfully protect the pollution and health action area from, or support community response to, the impacts of climate change; or (iii) Meet a community need identified by vulnerable members of the community that is consistent with the intent of this chapter and endorsed by the environmental and economic justice panel. (6) The expenditure of moneys under this chapter must be consistent with applicable federal, state, and local laws, and treaty rights, including but not limited to prohibitions on uses of public funds imposed by the state Constitution. (7) Public entities, including but not limited to state agencies, municipal corporations, and federally recognized tribes, and not-for-profit and for-profit private entities are eligible to receive investment funds authorized under this chapter. (8) Funding under this chapter and credits authorized under section 4(6) of this act may be invested in pilot tests and other market and technology development projects that are designed to test the effectiveness of the proposed project, program, or technology. NEW SECTION. Sec 4. CLEAN AIR AND CLEAN ENERGY INVESTMENTS. (1) The clean air and clean energy account is created in the state treasury. All moneys directed to the account from the clean up pollution fund created in section 3 of this act must be deposited in the account. Money in the account must be used for programs, activities, or projects that yield or facilitate verifiable reductions in pollution or assist affected workers or people with lower incomes during the transition to a clean energy economy, including but not limited to: (a) Programs, activities, or projects that deploy eligible renewable energy resources, such as solar and wind power; (b) Programs, activities, or projects, including self-directed investments, that increase the energy efficiency or reduce carbon emissions of industrial facilities, including but not limited to proposals to implement combined heat and power, district energy, or on-site renewables, such as solar and wind power, to upgrade existing equipment to more efficient models, to reduce process emissions, and to switch to less carbon-intensive fuel sources, especially converting fossil fuel sources of energy to nonfossil fuel sources; (c) Programs, activities, or projects, including self-directed investments, that increase energy efficiency in new and existing buildings, with a goal of creating carbon neutral buildings across the state; (d) Programs, activities, or projects that reduce transportation-related carbon emissions, including but not limited to programs, activities, or projects that: (i) Accelerate the deployment of zero-emission fleets and vehicles, including off-road and maritime vehicles, create zero emission vehicle refueling infrastructure, or deploy grid infrastructure to integrate electric vehicles and charging equipment; (ii) Reduce vehicle miles traveled or increase public transportation, including investing in public transit, transportation demand management, nonmotorized transportation, affordable transit-oriented housing, and high-speed rural broadband to facilitate telecommuting options such as telemedicine or online job training; or (iii) Increase fuel efficiency in vehicles and vessels where options to convert to zero-emissions, low-carbon fuels, or public transportation are cost-prohibitive and inapplicable or unavailable; (e) Programs, activities, or projects that improve energy efficiency, including programs, activities, or projects related to developing the demand side management of electricity, district energy, or heating and cooling, and investments in market transformation of energy efficiency products; (f) Programs, activities, or projects that replace the use of natural gas with gas not derived from fossil fuels, including but not limited to biomethane and synthetic gas. Programs, activities, or projects may include investments that address the incremental cost of nonfossil fuel gas or investments that expand the manufacture or delivery of nonfossil fuel gas; (g) Programs, activities, or projects that deploy distributed generation, energy storage, demand side management technologies, and other grid modernization projects; or (h) Programs, activities, or projects that result in sequestration of carbon, including but not limited to sequestration in aquatic marine and freshwater natural resources, agricultural lands and soils, terrestrial, riparian, and aquatic habitats, and working forests. Funding under this subsection (1)(h) may not fund legally required land management responsibilities, such as requirements under the forest practices act or other pertinent land use regulations. (2)(a) The department of commerce, working with the panels, the Washington State University extension energy program, the department of transportation, and in consultation with the utilities and transportation commission, investor-owned and consumer-owned utilities, and other experts and agencies, and after review of other states' plans to reduce carbon pollution or investment strategies for greenhouse gas reduction, shall develop pollution reduction investment plans and proposed rules that describe the process and criteria to disburse funds from the clean air and clean energy account in compliance with this section. All investment plans and proposed rules required by this subsection must follow this same process. (i) The department of commerce shall propose and submit to the board for approval an initial investment plan, processes, and procedures for investments made under this section, which the board shall review and approve by January 1, 2020. The investment plan, processes, and procedures govern investments made under this section until the permanent investment plan required by (a)(ii) of this subsection is adopted by rule. (ii) By January 1, 2022, the department of commerce shall draft and submit to the board a permanent investment plan and proposed rules for the board to review and approve through the rule-making process. Upon adoption of the final rules by the board, the adopted investment plan supersedes the initial investment plan authorized under (a)(i) of this subsection. (iii) The department of commerce shall propose updates to the permanent investment plan and proposed rules every four years for review and approval by the board through the rule-making process. (b) The investment plans must prescribe a competitive project selection process that results in a balanced portfolio of investments containing a wide range of technology, sequestration, and emission reduction solutions that efficiently and effectively reduce the state's carbon emissions from 2018 levels by a minimum of twenty million metric tons by 2035 and a minimum of fifty million metric tons by 2050 while creating economic, environmental, and health benefits. The emission reductions to be achieved under the plan should, in combination with reductions achieved under other state policies, achieve emissions reductions that are consistent with the state's proportional share of global carbon reductions that will limit global temperature increases to two degrees centigrade and preferably below one and one-half degrees centigrade. (3)(a) For investments authorized under subsection (1)(h) of this section: (i) The department of natural resources shall develop proposed procedures, criteria, and rules for a program to sequester carbon through blue carbon projects. (ii) The department of agriculture shall develop proposed procedures, criteria, and rules for a program to increase soil sequestration and reduce emissions from the loss and disturbance of soils, including the conversion of grassland and cropland soils to urban development. (iii) The recreation and conservation office shall develop proposed procedures, criteria, and rules for a grant program that funds projects to prevent the conversion and fragmentation of working forests, farmland, and natural habitats of all types; expands habitat and working forest connectivity; promotes reforestation; funds the acquisition of permanent conservation easements or fee simple title with deed restrictions that result in increased forest carbon sequestration through the implementation of improved forest management practices that safeguard ecological benefits, protect habitat, and provide sustainable jobs in rural communities; and supports management activities that improve landscape-scale ecological functions to protect water, soils, and habitat for fish, wildlife, and plants and reduce potential for emissions of greenhouse gases. The program must prioritize and rank projects that effectively capture and store carbon and provide a diversity of additional ecological benefits. (b) Procedures and criteria for the programs, activities, or projects created under (a)(ii) and (iii) of this subsection must retain sufficient flexibility to serve as a source of matching funds from other sources and to allow for a portion of the funds awarded to provide for the long-term costs of stewardship obligations on lands protected under those programs, activities, or projects. (c) The proposed procedures, criteria, and rules for the programs, activities, or projects created under (a)(ii) and (iii) of this subsection must be developed in consultation with the panels and must be submitted to the board for final review and approval by January 1, 2020. (4)(a) There must be sufficient investments made from the clean air and clean energy account to prevent or eliminate the increased energy burden of people with lower incomes as a result of actions to reduce pollution, including the pollution fees collected from large emitters under this chapter. At a minimum, fifteen percent of the clean air and clean energy account is dedicated to investments that directly reduce the energy burden of people with lower incomes. Additional funds from the clean air and clean energy account must be allocated for program development, recruitment, enrollment, and administration to achieve the intent of this subsection. Investments are in addition to programs, activities, or projects funded through credits authorized under subsection (6) of this section. After the first effectiveness report is issued, the environmental and economic justice panel may make recommendations to the board on measures to better achieve the intent of this subsection. (b) The department of commerce or, for credits authorized pursuant to subsection (6) of this section, a light and power business or gas distribution business shall: (i) In meaningful consultation with people with lower incomes and with the environmental and economic justice panel, develop a draft plan that identifies programs, activities, or projects that achieve the intent of this subsection and maximize the number of people with lower incomes benefiting at levels appropriate to need. The draft plan must be submitted to the board for final review and approval. (ii) Prioritize programs, activities, and projects that create the following sustained energy burden reductions: (A) Energy affordability through bill assistance programs and other similar programs; (B) Reductions in dependence on fossil fuels used for transportation, including public and shared transportation for access and mobility; (C) Reductions in household energy consumption, such as weatherization; and (D) Community renewable energy projects that allow qualifying participants to own or receive the benefits of those projects at reduced or no cost. (iii) In consultation with community-based nonprofit organizations and Indian tribes as appropriate, design and implement comprehensive enrollment campaigns that are language and culturally appropriate to inform and enroll people with lower incomes in the assistance programs authorized under this subsection. The campaign must also inform people with lower incomes of other energy cost reduction programs for which they may be eligible. The campaign should strive to achieve enrollment of one hundred percent of people with lower incomes. The department of commerce may contract with third parties to carry out the requirements of this subsection. (c) Programs, activities, or projects that count toward the expenditures required by section 3(5)(a) of this act may not be counted toward the minimum expenditures required by this subsection. (5) Within four years of the effective date of this section, a minimum balance of fifty million dollars of the clean air and clean energy account must be set aside, replenished annually, and maintained for a worker-support program for bargaining unit and nonsupervisory fossil fuel workers who are affected by the transition away from fossil fuels to a clean energy economy. The department of commerce, in consultation with the environmental and economic justice panel, may allocate additional moneys from the fund if necessary to meet the needs of eligible workers in the event of unforeseen or extraordinary amounts of dislocation. (a) Worker support may include but is not limited to full wage replacement, health benefits, and pension contributions for every worker within five years of retirement; full wage replacement, health benefits, and pension contributions for every worker with at least one year of service for each year of service up to five years of service; wage insurance for up to five years for workers reemployed who have more than five years of service; up to two years of retraining costs including tuition and related costs, based on in-state community and technical college costs; peer counseling services during transition; employment placement services, prioritizing employment in the clean energy sector; relocation expenses; and any other services deemed necessary by the environmental and economic justice panel. (b) The department of commerce, in consultation with the environmental and economic justice panel, shall develop draft rules, procedures, and criteria, to identify affected workers and administer this program. These draft rules, procedures, and criteria must be submitted to the board for final review and approval through the rule-making process. (6)(a) A qualifying light and power business or gas distribution business may claim credits for up to one hundred percent of the pollution fees for which it is liable under this chapter. Credits may be authorized for, and in advance of, investment in programs, activities, or projects consistent with a clean energy investment plan that has been approved by the utilities and transportation commission, for investor-owned utilities and gas distribution businesses, or the department of commerce, for consumer-owned utilities. (b) Clean energy investment plans must be developed by a qualifying light and power business or gas distribution business in meaningful collaboration with stakeholders, including the board and the panels. The qualifying light and power business or gas distribution business shall solicit public input and submit the clean energy investment plan for review and approval by the commission, for investor-owned utilities and gas distribution businesses, or the department, for consumer-owned utilities. (c) To receive approval, the clean energy investment plan must: (i) Identify investments aligned with the pollution reduction investment plan, targets, and goals authorized under and identified in subsection (2) of this section. Eligible investments include: (A) Those categories listed in subsection (1)(a) through (g) of this section; (B) A customer education and outreach program to promote widespread participation by consumers and businesses; (C) The accelerated depreciation of a fossil fuel-fired generator owned by a light and power business, limited to thirty percent of credits authorized under a clean energy investment plan, if: (I) The accelerated depreciation schedule includes recovery of all plant-in-service costs of the light and power business that owns or controls the plant associated with the fossil fuel-fired generator; (II) The plant is replaced with renewable resources or demand side resources that emit no greenhouse gases; and (III) The accelerated depreciation schedule and replacement power plan is included in a clean energy investment plan approved by the commission; (D) Replacing all or a part of the debt financing portion of a capital investment made in the development of eligible renewable energy resources if doing so lowers the cost of financing and the construction of the capital investment commences after the effective date of this section; (E) For a qualifying gas distribution business, purchasing alternative carbon reduction units. Alternative carbon reduction units are available only if a gas distribution business demonstrates in its clean energy investment plan that it has pursued all other available investment opportunities. No more than ten percent of the pollution fee owed in a given year may be reduced by purchasing alternative carbon reduction units. A qualifying gas distribution business must demonstrate that any carbon reduction unit it purchased verifiably reduced carbon emissions within the state, created benefits, as defined in section (3)(5)(d) of this act, within pollution and health action areas, and was developed in meaningful consultation with vulnerable populations. Alternative carbon reduction units are available only during the ten years immediately following the effective date of this section; (ii) Identify sufficient investments to eliminate net increases in energy burden of customers that are people with lower incomes as a result of actions to reduce pollution, including the requirements of this act. At a minimum, fifteen percent of credits must be dedicated to investments that directly reduce energy burden on people with lower incomes. Additional funds must be allocated for program development, recruitment, enrollment, and administration to achieve the intent of this subsection. These investments must be consistent with subsection (4) of this section; (iii) Demonstrate how the requirements of section 3(5)(a) of this act have been met and the criteria in section 7 of this act, excluding subsection (1)(d) of that section, have been given priority in the development of the plan; (iv) Describe a long-term strategy to eliminate any fee obligation imposed by this chapter on electricity and minimize any fee obligation on natural gas; (v) Provide performance metrics, including performance metrics designed to measure pollution reduction achieved, energy burden reduction benefits supplied, and other indicators of progress in achieving the purposes of this chapter. Performance metrics must cover the life of the plan; (vi) Demonstrate that expenditures in the plan are in addition to existing programs and expenditures necessary to meet other emissions reduction, energy conservation, low income, or renewable energy requirements in the absence of this chapter and incremental to investments or expenditures that the light and power business or gas distribution business would have pursued in the absence of the plan and the requirements of this chapter; and (vii) Describe methods of addressing shortfalls of previous plans in achieving the requirements set forth in this subsection (6)(c). (d) The department and the commission may choose to approve the entire plan or only parts of a plan and authorize credits only for the approved segments. The department, the commission, and the board may confer with and provide recommendations to one another prior to the approval of a clean energy investment plan. The department and the commission may make determinations based on the efficacy of the plan, including appropriate comparison to carbon reduction and other outcomes that are projected to be achieved under the state's pollution reduction investment plan developed under subsection (2) of this section, results of the effectiveness report developed under section 12 of this act, and other criteria they adopt. (e) A light and power business or gas distribution business authorized to receive credits under this subsection must establish and maintain a separate clean energy investment account into which it must deposit amounts equal to the credits authorized under this section. Funds deposited into this account must be expended during the year in which the funds were collected from customers, the preceding year, or any of the three subsequent years, after which they must be remitted to the clean air and clean energy account. (f) Upon approval of a clean energy investment plan, a qualifying light and power business or gas distribution business must expend moneys from its clean energy investment account in accordance with the approved clean energy investment plan, with the oversight of the commission or department. A light and power business or gas distribution business must submit annual reports to the commission or department that include, at a minimum, the status of the plan and an evaluation of whether its investments have achieved the performance metrics identified in the clean energy investment plan. (g) If the commission or the department determines that a plan did not meet a performance metric, the commission or department may require the light and power business or gas distribution business to remit remaining credits dedicated for the nonperforming plan or components to the clean air and clean energy account and may deny future plans unless they meet the requirements of this subsection. (h) To maintain eligibility to receive a credit for fees, a qualifying light and power business or gas distribution business must submit and receive approval of an updated clean energy investment plan every two years. (i) An investor-owned light and power business or gas distribution business may not earn a rate of return from the portion of investments paid for with credits under this section. (j) Credits may not support programs, activities, or projects that are otherwise legally required by federal, state, or local laws, or that are required as a result of a legal settlement or other action binding on the potential recipient of the funds. Credits may not be used to supplant existing funding for related programs. (k) A qualifying light and power business or gas distribution business is authorized to use a reasonable portion of credits for necessary administrative costs related to the requirements of this subsection, including the development and implementation of an approved clean energy investment plan. (l) For the purposes of this subsection, a qualifying light and power business or gas distribution business may request that within one hundred twenty days the department of health designate additional pollution and health action areas located in the service area of the qualifying light and power business or gas distribution business. (m) Credited fees in the clean energy investment account are considered gross operating revenue for the purpose of RCW 80.24.010, and may not be considered gross income for the purposes of chapters 82.04 and 82.16 RCW. In addition to fees paid pursuant to RCW 80.24.010 on credited fees in the clean energy investment account, each investor-owned utility must pay an annual fee set by the commission annually through order of up to one percent of credited fees deposited in the clean energy investment account to pay for the commission's reasonable cost of administering this subsection. (n) The commission and department must adopt rules concerning the process, timelines, reporting, committees, standards, and documentation required to ensure proper implementation of this subsection. These rules must allow for stakeholder contribution to the clean energy investment plans and establish requirements for review, approval, performance metrics, and independent monitoring and evaluation of a clean energy investment plan of a light and power business or gas distribution business. (o) The amount of credits authorized and spent under this subsection counts towards the minimum percentage of investments required by section 3(2)(a) of this act. (p) The definitions in this subsection (6)(p) apply throughout this subsection unless the context clearly requires otherwise. (i) "Commission" means the utilities and transportation commission. (ii) "Department" means the department of commerce. (7) Funding made available for programs, activities, or projects under this section must be additive to existing funding and may not supplant funding otherwise available. (8) The expenditures of funds under this section may not support programs, activities, or projects that are otherwise legally required by federal, state, or local laws, or that are required as a result of a legal settlement or other legal action or court order binding on the potential recipient of the funds. NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. CLEAN WATER AND HEALTHY FORESTS INVESTMENTS. (1) The clean water and healthy forests account is created in the state treasury. All moneys directed to the account from the clean up pollution fund created in section 3 of this act must be deposited in the account. Moneys in the account are intended to increase the resiliency of the state's waters and forests to the impacts of climate change. Moneys in the account must be spent in a manner that is consistent with existing and future assessment of climate risks and resilience from the scientific community and expressed concerns of and impacts to pollution and health action areas. (2) Moneys in the account may be allocated for the following purposes: (a) Clean water investments that improve resilience from climate impacts. (i) Funding under this subsection (2)(a) must be used to: (A) Restore and protect estuaries, fisheries, and marine shoreline habitats, and prepare for sea level rise; (B) Increase the ability to remediate and adapt to the impacts of ocean acidification; (C) Reduce flood risk and restore natural floodplain ecological function; (D) Increase the sustainable supply of water and improve aquatic habitat, including groundwater mapping and modeling; or (E) Improve infrastructure treating stormwater from previously developed areas within an urban growth boundary designated under chapter 36.70A RCW, with a preference given to projects that use green stormwater infrastructure. (ii) Funding under this subsection (2)(a) proposed for projects in the Puget Sound basin must be reviewed by the Puget Sound partnership for consistency with the Puget Sound action agenda authorized under chapter 90.71 RCW. This review must be conducted in a manner that does not delay the approval of programs, activities, or projects under this subsection. (iii) The departments of ecology, natural resources, fish and wildlife, the Puget Sound partnership, and the recreation and conservation office must jointly develop draft procedures, criteria, and rules for the program authorized under this subsection (2)(a). (b) Healthy forests investments to improve resilience from climate impacts. (i) Funding under this subsection (2)(b) must be used for projects and activities that will: (A) Increase resilience to wildfire in the face of increased temperature and drought; or (B) Improve forest health and reduce vulnerability to changes in hydrology, insect infestation, and other impacts of climate change. (ii) The department of natural resources may consider supporting cross laminated timber and other mass timber technologies in support of this work. (iii) The department of natural resources must develop draft procedures, criteria, and rules for the program authorized under this subsection (2)(b). Funding priority must be given to programs, activities, or projects prioritized pursuant to RCW 76.06.200 and 79.10.530 across any combination of local, state, federal, tribal, and private ownerships. (iv) The department of natural resources must adopt rigorous performance-based criteria and objectives for funding decisions under this subsection (2)(b), such as the number of acres burned or thinned or otherwise treated to improve forest health, acres of forest for which wildland fire prevention measures have been implemented, and the number of communities in the wildland urban interface for which wildfire resilience and defense measures have been implemented. (3) Draft procedures, criteria, and rules required under this section must be developed in consultation with the clean water and healthy forests panel and must be submitted to the board for final review and approval subject to the rule-making process. (4) Moneys in the account may not be used for projects that would violate tribal treaty rights or result in significant longterm damage to critical habitat or ecological functions. Investments from this account must result in long-term environmental benefit and increased resiliency to the impacts of climate change. (5) Funding made available for projects under this section should be considered additive to existing funding and is not intended to supplant funding otherwise available for such projects. NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. HEALTHY COMMUNITIES INVESTMENTS. (1) The healthy communities account is created in the state treasury. All moneys directed to the account from the clean up pollution fund created in section 3 of this act must be deposited in the account. Moneys in the account must be used for programs, activities, or projects to prepare communities for challenges caused by climate change and to ensure that the impacts of climate change are not disproportionately borne by certain populations. Investments from this account may be used for the following purposes, with first priority given to programs, activities, or projects eligible for funding under (a), (b), and (c) of this subsection: (a) Enhancing community preparedness and awareness before, during, and after wildfires; (b) Developing and implementing resources to support fire suppression, prevention, and recovery for tribal communities impacted or potentially impacted by wildfires; (c) Relocating communities on tribal lands that are impacted by flooding and sea level rise; and (d) Developing and implementing education programs and teacher professional development opportunities at public schools to expand awareness of and increase preparedness for the environmental, social, and economic impacts of climate change and strategies to reduce pollution. (2) Funding under this section may not supplant federal funding or federal obligations otherwise required by law or treaty. (3) The department of natural resources, in consultation with the environmental and economic justice panel, shall develop draft procedures, criteria, and rules for the programs authorized in subsection (1)(a) through (c) of this section. The procedures, criteria, and rules for the program authorized in subsection (1)(a) of this section must prioritize programs, activities, or projects that benefit communities with limited English proficiency and other vulnerable populations in communities at risk from wildfires. (4) The superintendent of public instruction shall develop draft procedures, criteria, and rules for the program authorized in subsection (1)(d) of this section. (5) Twenty percent of the healthy communities account must be reserved for developing community capacity to participate in the implementation of this chapter, including the preparation of funding proposals. Funds for this community capacity program must be allocated through a competitive process with a preference for projects proposed by vulnerable populations in pollution and health action areas and rural communities. Any Indian tribe that applies must receive up to two hundred thousand dollars per year to build tribal capacity to participate in the implementation of this chapter. The department of commerce shall work with the environmental and economic justice panel to develop draft procedures, criteria, and rules for this program. (6) Proposed procedures, criteria, and rules prepared under this section must be sent to the board for final adoption, including through the rule-making process as appropriate. NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. INVESTMENT CRITERIA. (1) After applying the account-specific criteria in sections 4, 5, and 6 of this act, preference must be given to investments authorized under section 3 of this act and credits authorized under section 4(6) of this act that meet one or more of the following investment criteria: (a) Procurement and use of materials and content that have lower carbon emissions associated with their transportation and manufacturing, as determined through the best available reporting and assessment tools; (b) Support of high quality labor standards, prevailing wage rates determined by local collective bargaining, apprenticeship and preapprenticeship utilization and preferred entry standards, community workforce agreements with priority local hire, procurement from women, veteran, and minority-owned businesses, procurement from and contracts with entities that have a history of complying with federal and state wage and hour laws and regulations, and other related labor standards; (c) Reduction of worker and public exposure to emissions of air pollutants regulated under chapter 70.94 RCW, discharges of pollutants regulated under chapter 90.48 RCW, or releases of hazardous substances under chapter 70.105D RCW; and (d) Reduction of pollution through strategies that reduce vehicle miles traveled, including by reducing travel distances for people with lower incomes. (2) Projects that satisfy multiple criteria in subsection (1) of this section receive first preference under this section. NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. POLLUTION FEE. (1) A pollution fee is imposed on and must be collected from large emitters based on the carbon content of: (a) Fossil fuels sold or used within this state; and (b) Electricity generated within or imported for consumption in the state. (2) The fee must be levied only once on a particular unit of fossil fuels or electricity. (3) Beginning January 1, 2020, the pollution fee on large emitters is equal to fifteen dollars per metric ton of carbon content. Beginning January 1, 2021, the pollution fee on large emitters increases by two dollars per metric ton of carbon content each January 1st. The annual increase shall adjust for inflation each year. The pollution fee is fixed and no longer increases, except for annual increases for inflation, when the state's 2035 greenhouse gas reduction goal is met and the state's emissions are on a trajectory that indicates that compliance with the state's 2050 goal is likely, as those goals exist or are subsequently amended, as determined by the board. (4) In order to calculate the pollution fee on large emitters imposed by this chapter, by November 1, 2019, the department of ecology must, in consultation with the department of revenue, adopt emergency rules specifying the basis for the carbon content inherent in or associated with covered fossil fuels and electricity. In developing these rules, the department of ecology may consider, among other resources, the carbon dioxide content measurements for fossil fuels from the federal energy information administration and the federal environmental protection agency. The department of ecology may periodically update the rules specifying the carbon content of fossil fuels and electricity. (5) For the generation or import of electricity from an unspecified source, the department of ecology, in consultation with the department of commerce, must select a default emission factor that maximizes the incentive for light and power businesses to specify power sources without also unduly burdening the ability to purchase electricity from the market. (6) For power generated or imported by the Bonneville power administration, the department of ecology must publish a default emissions factor for sales into Washington state. (7) A credit for the fee owed may be authorized as provided in section 4(6) of this act. The utilities and transportation commission and the department of commerce shall ensure that resources are not reallocated between customers, customer classes, or geographies for the purposes of artificially reducing the application of this fee without reducing actual pollution emissions and, in doing so, must also not unduly burden the ability of a light and power business or gas distribution business to transact with the market. (8) The department of revenue is directed to collect the fee and is authorized to take actions it deems necessary to collect the pollution fee. (9) To carry out the purposes of this chapter, the state is authorized to issue general obligation or revenue bonds within the limitations now or hereafter prescribed by the laws of this state, and may use, and is authorized to pledge, the moneys collected under this section for repayment of those bonds. (10) The pollution fee owed by a large emitter may be assumed by a light and power business when it purchases electricity from that large emitter. (11) When a large emitter purchases power from the Bonneville power administration, the larger emitter must assume the pollution fees, if any. NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. EXEMPTIONS. (1) To ensure consistency with existing state and federal law and to facilitate the timely, feasible, and effective reduction of pollution under this chapter, the pollution fee imposed on large emitters does not apply to and may not be collected for: (a) Fossil fuels brought into this state in the fuel supply tank of a motor vehicle, vessel, locomotive, or aircraft; (b) Fossil fuels that are exported or sold for export outside of Washington. Export to a federally recognized Indian tribal reservation located within this state is not considered export outside of Washington; (c) Fossil fuels directly or eventually supplied to a light and power business for purposes of generating electricity; (d) Motor vehicle and special fuel currently exempt from taxation under RCW 82.38.080; (e) Fossil fuels and electricity sold to and used onsite by facilities with a primary activity that falls into an EITE sector, including any facility primarily supporting one or more facilities falling into one or more EITE sectors such as administrative, engineering, or other office facilities, after the department of commerce has validated a facility's designation within such sector or its supporting facility status in an EITE sector; (f) Aircraft fuels as defined in RCW 82.42.010 and maritime fuels; (g) Activities or property of Indian tribes and individual Indians that are exempt from state taxation as a matter of federal law and state law, whether by statute, rule, or compact, including but not limited to the exemptions listed in WAC 458-20-192. For motor vehicle fuel or special fuel sold on tribal lands, the fee may be included in any agreements under RCW 82.38.310; (h) Diesel fuel, biodiesel fuel, or aircraft fuel when these fuels are used solely for agricultural purposes by a farm fuel user, as those terms are defined in RCW 82.08.865; (i) Pollution emissions from a coal closure facility. For the purpose of this chapter, a "coal closure facility" is any facility that generates electricity through the combustion of coal as of the effective date of this section and: (i) Is legally bound to comply with emissions performance standards as set forth in RCW 80.80.040 by December 31, 2025; or (ii) Is legally bound to cease operation by December 31, 2025. (2) For any electricity or fossil fuels subject to the fee imposed by this chapter that are also subject to a similar fee on carbon content imposed by another jurisdiction, the payer may take a credit against the fee imposed by this chapter up to the amount of the similar fee paid to the other jurisdiction if the payer petitions to and receives approval for the credit from the department of commerce. (3) For electricity generated in Washington that is sold out of state to a jurisdiction that has a similar fee on carbon content, a large emitter may receive a credit equal to the amount of the fee in the receiving jurisdiction up to the amount of the fee owed under this chapter if the payer petitions to and receives approval for the credit from the department of commerce. NEW SECTION. Sec. 10. PUBLIC OVERSIGHT BOARD AND CONSULTATION. (1) The public oversight board is established within the executive office of the governor. The purpose of the board is to ensure timely, effective, and efficient implementation of this chapter. The board must ensure robust public involvement, accountability, and transparency in the implementation of this chapter. (2) The board has fifteen voting members, including the chair, the six cochairs of the panels, four at-large positions, the commissioner of public lands, and the directors of the department of commerce, the department of ecology, and the recreation and conservation office. The governor shall appoint the chair and the four at-large positions, one of which must be a tribal representative and one of which must represent vulnerable populations in pollution and health action areas, to achieve an overall board membership with appropriate expertise in pollution reduction. The at-large positions must serve staggered four-year terms. The department of health, the department of transportation, and the superintendent of public instruction are nonvoting members of the board. (3) The board has the following powers and duties: (a) Develop budget recommendations pursuant to the process set forth in chapter 43.88 RCW; (b) Work with appropriate state agencies to utilize, where feasible, existing programs to deliver funding made available under this chapter; (c) Evaluate the funding proposals developed by the state agencies and the panels and provide final approval of funding for programs and projects under this chapter at a public hearing; (d) Adopt rules under chapter 34.05 RCW as necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter; (e) Review and approve procedures, criteria, and rules developed under the provisions of this chapter, the pollution reduction investment plan developed under section 4 of this act, and the effectiveness report required by section 12 of this act; (f) Develop a tribal consultation process for programs, activities, or projects proposed for funding under this chapter consistent with subsection (9) of this section; (g) Confer with the governor and the legislature regarding implementation of this chapter; and (h) Carry out such other duties necessary for implementation of this chapter or that are delegated to the board. (4) The board must be led by the chair of the board. The chair is a full-time staff person appointed by the governor and should be housed in the office of the governor. The chair should have experience in management and administration and expertise in and a demonstrated commitment to reducing pollution and transitioning to a clean energy economy. (5) In addition to leading the board, the chair has, without limitation, the following duties and authorities: (a) Drive implementation of programs, activities, or projects in a manner that achieves timely and effective pollution reduction and the other purposes of this chapter; (b) Solicit analysis from any state agency or office on matters related to implementation of this chapter; (c) Convene and preside over a climate subcabinet, consisting of representatives of the agencies with responsibility to implement portions of this chapter and the cochairs of the panels; (d) Periodically brief the governor and legislative leaders regarding progress, challenges, and obstacles in implementing this chapter; and (e) Hire staff as necessary to support the work of the chair and the board. (6) Members of the board who are not state employees must be compensated in accordance with RCW 43.03.240 and are entitled to reimbursement individually for travel expenses incurred in the performance of their duties as members of the board in accordance with RCW 43.03.050 and 43.03.060. (7) All state agencies shall cooperate with and support the board as it implements this chapter. All state agencies shall complete their duties under this chapter and otherwise drive its implementation with a sense of urgency. (8) To ensure timeliness, efficiency, and effectiveness, the board and the joint legislative audit and review committee shall jointly develop a schedule for periodic review and reporting regarding the implementation of this chapter. (9) In furtherance of strengthening partnerships between the state and Indian tribes, achieving the goals set forth in this chapter, and to ensure mutual respect for the rights, interests, and obligations of each sovereign, this chapter must be construed to recognize and affirm the inherent sovereignty of Indian tribes, and to further the government-to-government relationships between Indian tribes and the state as follows: (a) Any state agency acting under the authority of this chapter or receiving funding under this chapter must consult with Indian tribes on all decisions that may directly affect Indian tribes and tribal lands including but not limited to activities such as rule making. That consultation must follow the agency's protocol for consultation with Indian tribes developed pursuant to the centennial accord and must occur independent of any public participation process required by state law or by the agency, regardless of whether the agency receives a request for consultation from an Indian tribe. (b) Any project proposed for funding under this chapter that directly impacts tribal lands or usual and accustomed fishing areas must be subject to meaningful formal consultation with Indian tribes before the board approves disbursement of investment moneys for the project. Consultation must include all consultation required under state or federal law and the provisions of this section. The goal of consultation is to share information regarding the project to ensure a complete understanding of the project and to identify and address tribal concerns. The process for consultation must be as follows: (i) Consultation with Indian tribes must be initiated when a project is being evaluated for funding by a panel. (ii) Consultation is initiated upon receipt of a letter from the board or panel to the person identified by Indian tribes under RCW 43.376.050. If an Indian tribe does not respond within forty-five days of receipt of the letter, the board may conclude that the Indian tribe has declined consultation on the project. The board shall provide notice in a manner that ensures actual receipt by the tribe and provides clarity as to the commencement of the forty-five day period outlined herein. (iii) Where an Indian tribe responds to the letter, the board must utilize the consultation process established by the board, including a mutually agreed timeline for completion of consultation. The consultation process runs concurrently with the panels' and board's evaluation of the project and must be completed prior to the date determined by the board to complete final funding decisions. (iv) The board and the Indian tribe must work in good faith during the consultation process to reach consensus on whether the project should be funded. (c) For programs, activities, or projects that directly impact tribal lands, the goal of the consultation process is to obtain free, prior, and informed consent for the project. For these programs, activities, or projects, consultation is complete when the Indian tribe's government provides the board with a written resolution providing consent or withholding consent by the deadline set for completion of the consultation process. (d) If any project that directly impacts tribal lands is funded under this chapter without complying with (b) and (c) of this subsection, upon a request by an Indian tribe, all further action on the project must cease until consultation with the Indian tribe is complete. (e) Nothing in this subsection precludes a panel or the board from evaluating similar programs, activities, or projects as a group or using existing programs, activities, or projects to provide preliminary funding recommendations. (f) Informal and early consultation between an Indian tribe and a project proponent is encouraged. (g) The utilities and transportation commission shall comply with this subsection in exercising its authority under section 4 of this act. NEW SECTION. Sec. 11. INVESTMENT ADVISORY PANELS. (1) Three panels are created to provide detailed recommendations to the board and state agencies regarding implementation of this chapter, including the development of proposed rules, criteria, procedures, and other program elements. The governor shall appoint members of each panel for four-year, staggered terms. At least one-third of the membership of each panel must be representatives of the interests of vulnerable populations in pollution and health action areas. (2) The clean air and clean energy panel must be cochaired by one business interest and a stakeholder that represents a statewide labor organization that represents a broad cross-section of workers. The panel may have no more than nine members, representing tribal, environmental, business, and labor communities and pollution and health action areas outside of tribal lands. The panel's membership must have expertise in carbon reduction programs, activities, and technologies. The panel shall work with appropriate state agencies to identify existing state programs that can be utilized to provide preliminary evaluations of grant applications, develop criteria and processes for evaluating programs, activities, or projects proposed that cannot be evaluated under existing programs, and prepare funding and other recommendations to the board for expenditures from the clean air and clean energy account, created in section 4 of this act. The clean air and clean energy panel may also develop, as needed, and recommend rules for the board's consideration. (3) The clean water and healthy forests panel must be cochaired by one tribal leader and one stakeholder that represents statewide environmental interests. The panel may have no more than nine members, representing tribal, environmental, business, and labor communities and pollution and health action areas outside of tribal lands. The panel shall work with appropriate state agencies to identify existing state programs that can be utilized to provide initial evaluations of grant applications, develop funding criteria and processes for programs, activities, or projects that cannot be evaluated under existing programs, and prepare funding and other recommendations to the board for expenditures from the clean water and healthy forests account, created in section 5 of this act. The panel may also recommend rules for the board's consideration. (4) The environmental and economic justice panel must be cochaired by one tribal leader and one person that is a representative of the interests of vulnerable populations in pollution and health action areas outside of tribal lands. In addition to the cochairs, the panel consists of two members representing union labor with expertise in economic dislocation, clean energy economy, or energy-intensive and trade-exposed industries and five members, including at least one tribal leader and at least two nontribal leaders representing the interest of vulnerable populations in pollution and health action areas. The purpose of the panel is to: (a) Prepare funding recommendations to the board for expenditures from the healthy communities account, created in section 6 of this act; (b) Develop draft procedures, criteria, and rules for evaluating programs, activities, or projects for review and approval by the board and make funding recommendations regarding people with lower incomes, affected workers, vulnerable populations, and pollution and health action areas; (c) Make recommendations regarding preventing or eliminating any increased energy burden of people with lower incomes as a result of actions to reduce pollution, including the pollution fees collected from large emitters under this chapter; (d) Define meaningful consultation with pollution and health action areas, vulnerable populations, and people with lower incomes, and provide opportunities for vulnerable populations to consult on the implementation of this chapter; (e) Evaluate compliance with the investment criteria in section 7 of this act; (f) Define qualifying events and workers for the allocation of funds authorized under section 4(5) of this act; (g) Review and comment on the analyses required under section 12 of this act and identify and recommend opportunities and measures to reduce burdens identified in the cumulative impact designation of pollution and health action areas pursuant to section 12(2) of this act, to increase economic opportunities, and to decrease risks, such as displacement; and (h) Administer, in cooperation with the department of commerce, the community capacity grants authorized under section 6(5) of this act. (5) Relevant state agencies shall cooperate with and support the panels as they implement this chapter. (6) Any single individual may serve on more than one panel. Members of the panels who are not state employees must be compensated in accordance with RCW 43.03.240 and are entitled to reimbursement individually for travel expenses incurred in the performance of their duties as members of the panel in accordance with RCW 43.03.050 and 43.03.060. Members of the environmental and economic justice panel may receive financial support from organizations and the governments of Indian tribes through approved community capacity grants awarded under section 6(5) of this act. NEW SECTION. Sec. 12. EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW AND POLLUTION MAPPING. (1)(a) By December 10, 2022, and every four years thereafter, the department of commerce, with support from relevant agencies and in consultation with the panels, the board, academic institutions, and other experts as appropriate, and taking into account scientific and community assessments of climate impacts, risks, and resilience needs, must develop and submit to the board a draft effectiveness report for final review and approval by the board. (b) The effectiveness report must describe progress in achieving the purposes of this chapter, including progress made in achieving the carbon reduction goals established in section 4(2)(b) of this act and in developing and implementing the pollution reduction plans and clean energy investment plans under section 4 of this act. In addition, the effectiveness report must also include information regarding the impact of the implementation of this chapter upon employment and jobs, including the number and nature of jobs created, worker hours, job quality, job access and demographics, cobenefits secured, and other employment and economic information as deemed appropriate. The effectiveness report must also identify and evaluate outcomes, risks, and recommendations for vulnerable populations, pollution and health action areas, people with lower incomes, Indian tribes, and affected workers. The effectiveness report must recommend improvements to the implementation of this chapter. (2) By July 31, 2019, the department of health shall designate pollution and health action areas. This designation must be at a minimum resolution of census tract scale and be based on the cumulative impact analysis of vulnerable populations and environmental burdens conducted by the University of Washington's department of environmental and occupational health sciences. The designation and ranking of census tracts in the cumulative impacts analysis and underlying data must be available for public review and may be integrated with or build upon other population tracking resources. The designation of pollution and health action areas and the cumulative impact analysis of vulnerable populations and environmental burdens must be periodically evaluated and updated by the department of health after meaningful consultation with vulnerable populations, the environmental and economic justice panel, and the University of Washington's department of environmental and occupational health sciences. NEW SECTION. Sec. 13. DEFINITIONS. The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise. (1) "Alternative carbon reduction unit" means a credit for one metric ton reduction in pollution that substitutes for an equivalent emission reduction in a qualifying gas distribution business's operations and is real, permanent, enforceable, verifiable, and additional to business as usual. The unit must derive from an action that reduces pollution. (2) "Board" or "oversight board" means the public oversight board created in section 10 of this act. (3) "Carbon content" means the carbon dioxide equivalent that is released through the combustion or oxidation of a fossil fuel, or that is associated with the combustion or oxidation of a fossil fuel, used to generate electricity. (4) "Carbon dioxide equivalent" has the same meaning as provided in RCW 70.235.010. (5) "Consumer-owned utility" has the same meaning as in RCW 19.29A.010. (6) "Eligible renewable energy resource" has the same meaning as in RCW 19.285.030. (7) "Energy burden" is the percentage of household income spent on road transportation and home energy bills. (8) "Energy-intensive and trade-exposed sectors" and "EITE sectors" mean: (a) Those sectors identified under "EITE covered party" in WAC 173-442-020(1)(m) as of April 22, 2017; and (b) Other sectors the department of commerce designates that have, on average across all facilities belonging to the sector in the state, both a greater energy intensity of production and a greater trade share of goods than the corresponding averages for any other EITE sector. (9) "Environmental burdens" refers to the cumulative risks to communities caused by historic and current: (a) Exposure to conventional and toxic hazards in the air, water, and land, and; (b) Adverse environmental effects, which are environmental conditions caused or made worse by contamination or pollution or that create vulnerabilities to climate impacts. (10) "Fossil fuel" means petroleum products that are intended for combustion, natural gas, coal or coke of any kind, or any form of solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from these products including but not limited to motor vehicle fuel, special fuel, aircraft fuel, marine fuel, still gas, propane, and petroleum residuals such as bunker fuel. For purposes of imposing the pollution fee on the carbon content of fossil fuels consumed by a refinery facility during the process of refining fossil fuels, "fossil fuel" also means crude oil and petroleum. (11) "Fund" means the clean up pollution fund established under section 3 of this chapter. (12) "Gas distribution business" has the same meaning as provided in RCW 82.16.010. (13) "Greenhouse gas" and "greenhouse gases" have the same meaning as provided in RCW 70.235.010(6). (14) An "Indian tribe" is an Indian nation, tribe, band, community, or other entity: (a) Recognized as an Indian tribe by the federal department of the interior; and (b) With its principal governmental office located within the geographical boundaries of the state of Washington or with treatyreserved rights retained within the geographical boundaries of the state of Washington. (15) "Inflation" means the percentage change in the consumer price index for all urban wage earners and clerical workers for the United States as published for the most recent twelve-month period by the bureau of labor statistics of the federal department of labor by September 30th of the year before the fees are payable. (16) "Investor-owned utility" has the same meaning as in RCW 19.29A.010. (17) "Large emitter" means: (a) For electricity: (i) An importer of electricity that was generated using fossil fuels or is subject to a default emissions factor under section 8 of this act; or (ii) A power plant located in the state of Washington that generates electricity using fossil fuels. (b) For motor vehicle fuel and special fuel, entities required to pay the tax specified in RCW 82.38.030(9). (c) For natural gas, entities required to pay the tax specified in chapter 82.16 RCW, or, if the fee is not paid by a gas distribution business under chapter 82.16 RCW, by the person required to pay tax as provided in RCW 82.12.022 (1) through (3) and (8) through (10). (d) For other petroleum products, persons as designated by rule by the department of revenue. (e) A seller of fossil fuels to end users or consumers. (f) A seller of fossil fuels sold for combined heat and power as defined in RCW 19.280.020. (g) A refinery facility for crude oil, crude oil derivatives and other fossil fuels consumed by or in a refinery facility. (18) "Light and power business" has the same meaning as provided in RCW 82.16.010, and includes a light and power business owned or operated by a municipality. (19) "Maritime fuels" means diesel, gasoline, and biofuel-blend fuels sold from fuel docks for use in vessels and bunker and other fuels sold for use in ships for interstate and international transportation. (20) "Motor vehicle fuel" has the same meaning as provided in RCW 82.38.020. (21) "Panel" or "panels" means any or all of the panels established in section 11 of this chapter. (22) "Person" means the state of Washington, political subdivision of the state of Washington, municipal corporation, the United States, and any individual, receiver, administrator, executor, assignee, trustee in bankruptcy, trust, estate, firm, partnership, joint venture, club, company, joint stock company, business trust, corporation, limited liability company, association, society, or any group of individuals acting as a unit, whether mutual, cooperative, fraternal, nonprofit, or otherwise. (23) "People with lower incomes" means: (a) All Washington residents with an annual income, adjusted for household size, which is at or below the greater of: (i) Eighty percent of the area median income as reported by the federal department of housing and urban development; or (ii) Two hundred percent of the federal poverty line; and (b) Members of an Indian tribe who meet the income-based criteria for existing other means-tested benefits through formal resolution by the governing council of an Indian tribe. (24) "Petroleum product" means hydrocarbons that are the product of the fractionation, distillation, or other refining or processing of crude oil that are used as, usable as, or may be refined as a fuel or fuel blend stock. (25) "Pollution" means, for purposes of this chapter only, the presence of or introduction into the environment of greenhouse gases. (26) "Pollution and health action areas" are those communities designated by the department of health based on the cumulative impacts analysis required by section 12(2) of this chapter and census tracts that are fully or partially on "Indian Country" as defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1151. (27) "Power plant" has the same meaning as in RCW 80.80.010. (28) "Special fuel" has the same meaning as provided in RCW 82.38.020 and includes fuel that is sold or used to propel vessels. (29) "Supplier" means a person that produces, refines, imports, sells, or delivers fossil fuels in or into the state for use or processing within the state. (30) "Tribal lands" means "Indian Country" as defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1151, lands owned by or held in trust for an Indian tribe, and sensitive tribal areas. For the purposes of this chapter, "sensitive tribal areas" are areas in which an Indian tribe has a significant interest, such as sacred sites, traditional cultural properties, and burial grounds protected under chapter 27.44 RCW. (31) "Tribal leaders" means persons identified by Indian tribes under RCW 43.376.050 or other designee formally appointed by the Indian tribe. (32) "Usual and accustomed fishing area" is any area adjudicated to have been reserved for fishing by one or more Indian tribe(s) through treaties as recognized by United States v. Washington, 20 F. Supp. 3d 899 (2008). For purposes of this chapter only, "usual and accustomed fishing area" refers to waterways only and not nearby uplands. (33) "Vulnerable populations" are communities that experience high cumulative risk from environmental burdens due to: (a) Adverse socioeconomic factors, such as unemployment, high housing and transportation costs relative to income, and linguistic isolation; and (b) Sensitivity factors, such as low birth weight and higher rates of hospitalization. NEW SECTION. Sec. 16. All departments and agencies named in this chapter may adopt rules, develop guidance, and create forms and other documents necessary to effectuate the provisions and purposes of this chapter. NEW SECTION. Sec. 17. As of the effective date of this section, chapter 173-442 WAC and associated amendments to chapter 173-441 WAC previously adopted by the department of ecology may not be enforced by the department of ecology. If this chapter is invalidated, the department of ecology is directed to enforce chapter 173-442 WAC and associated amendments to chapter 173-441 WAC. NEW SECTION. Sec. 18. If any provision of this chapter or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the chapter or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected. If any provision of this chapter or its application to any person or circumstance is held unconstitutional or unlawful, this chapter shall be construed to provide for the maximum application of the pollution fee and investments authorized in this chapter. Each exemption in section 9 of this act is severable and, if any exemption is held unconstitutional or unlawful, the remainder of the chapter is not affected. NEW SECTION. Sec. 19. The findings and determinations in section 1 of this act are an integral part of this chapter. The provisions of this chapter are to be liberally construed to effectuate the policies and purposes of this chapter. NEW SECTION. Sec. 20. The people find and determine that the pollution fee imposed in this chapter is not a tax in light of the purposes, benefits, and use of the fee. Nevertheless, if a court of final jurisdiction determines that the pollution fee imposed in this chapter is a tax, then that tax shall be deemed authorized, imposed, and exempt from the provisions of RCW 82.32.805 and 82.32.808. NEW SECTION. Sec. 21. Sections 1 through 19 of this act constitute a new chapter in Title 70 RCW.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The Washington Attorney General wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 9, and the FRE is 48. The word count for the ballot title is 44, and the estimated reading time is 11 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 13, and the FRE is 29. The word count for the ballot summary is 71, and the estimated reading time is 18 seconds. In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here.

Support

Yes on 1631 led the campaign in support of the initiative.

Supporters

Following is a list of individuals, businesses, and organizations that endorsed the Yes on 1631 campaign:

Elected officials Washington Governor Jay Inslee Pramila Jayapal U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) Individuals Bill and Melinda Gates Businesses A&R Solar AIA Washington Council Alice T. Hellyar Design LLC Ameresco Inc. American Alpine Institute American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) Architecture Arlington Electric & solar Artisan Electric Inc. Balderston Associates Batt + Lear Ben and Jerry’s Big Chickie BrightWork Builders LLC BYD Company C+C Camp Creative Carbon River Doors Cascadia Solar Cascadia Solar Chapter 3 Copyediting LLC Cheryl Heinrichs Chuckanut Builders Clean Technology Partners Collaborative Efficiency Columbia City Bakery Cypress Creek Derby Canyon Natives Digs Showroom Ducoterra Eco Consulting EcoPower Development Ecotech Solar Energy Efficiency Finance EVgo Fire Mountain Solar LLC Fremont Brewing Full Circle Environmental Inc Green Canopy Green Dog Enterprises Inc. Grounds for Change Groundwork Strategies Integrity Energy Services Jourdan HVACR Consulting LD Arch Design LMN Architects macdonald-miller facility solutions Mahlum Architects, Inc Main Street Alliance McKinistry Meadow Creature LLC Merrill Images LLC Microsoft Mighty House Construction Miller Hull Partnership NEOEN U.S. Inc. Nicholson Kovalchick (NK) Architects Northwest EcoBuilding Guild NorthWest Energy Efficiency Council Northwest Renewables Pepper Sisters Restaurant Power Trip Energy Proterra Inc PSR Mechanical Puget Sound Cooperative Credit Union Puget Sound Solar Pyramid Communications REI Renewable Energy Group RG Seattle Scope 5 Seventh Generation Shift Zero Solar Installers of WA Solar Washington SolTerra Solar STEINBRUECK Urban Strategies, LLC Sun Path Electric Sunbridge Solar Sunergy Systems Inc Sunshine Construction LLC Ten Directions Design, Architects. the American Institute of Architects Seattle Tutta Bella Washington Businesses for Climate Action Western Solar Inc Whitney architecture Organizations (APIC) 350.org Asian Counseling and Referral Service (ACRS) Asian Pacific Islander Coalition Statewide Organization Audubon WA Carbon Innovations CarbonWA Casa Latina Centro Latina CERES/BICEP Clark County Democrats Central Committee Climate Solutions Coltura Community Alliance for Global Justice Community to Community (C2C) Conservation NW Defenders of Wildlife Earthjustice Ecotrust Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Group Edmonds Mayors’ Climate Protection Committee El Centro de la Raza Fidalgo Democrats Forterra Friends of the Columbia Gorge Friends of the San Juans Friends of Toppenish Creek Front & Centered Fuse Washington Futurewise Green For All Green Party of Washington State Green Snohomish Indivisble Olympia Indivisible Project Irthlingz Arts-Based Environmental Education Last Real Indians Latino Community Fund of Washington League of Women Voters Mazaska Talks Methow Valley Citizens Council Moms Rising Mothers Out Front Puget Sound NAACP Spokane Chapter National Wildlife Federation Northwest Energy Coalition Northwest progressive institute Olympic Climate Action One America Orca Conservancy Our Climate Our Revolution San Juan County Our Revolution Thurston Our Revolution Pacific Forest Trust People For Mia Progreso: Latino Progress Protect Our Winters Protect Skagit PSARA Puget Sound Sage Puget Soundkeeper RE Sources for Sustainable Communities Refugee & Immigrant Services Northwest Renewable NW Sammamish Women’s March Huddle Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition Seattle Indivisible Sierra Club, WA Chapter Skagit County Democrats Snohomish Rising Spark Northwest Spokane County Democrats Stand.Earth Students for the Salish Sea Sustainable Connections Tenants Union of Washington State The Climate Reality Project The Climate Reality Project - Thurston County, WA The Lands Council The Nature Conservancy The Seattle Raging Grannies The Surfrider Foundation The Trust for Public Land The Washington Bus The Whidbey Environmental Action Network The Wilderness Society Thurston County Democrats Transit Riders Union Transportation Choices Coalition Union of Concerned Scientists Washington Association of Land Trusts Washington CAN! Washington Conservation Voters Washington Environmental Council Washington State Budget and Policy Center Washington State Democrats Washington State League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) Washington Women CAN West Seattle Democratic Women Young Democrats of Clark County Zero Waste Washington Faith groups Bishop Kirby Unti, Bishop of the Northwest Washington Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) Earth Ministry/Washington Interfaith Power & Light Edmonds Unitarian Universalist Congregation Faith Action Network Northwest Unitarian Universalist Justice Network Pacific Northwest Conference of the United Church of Christ Quaker Voice on Washington Public Policy Rev. Dr. Tim Phillips, pastor at Seattle First Baptist Rev. Mike Denton, Conference Minister of the Pacific Northwest Conference of the United Church of Christ Rev. Rich Lang, District Superintendent, SeaTac missional district of the Pacific Northwest Conference of the United Methodist Church Rev. Steve Davis, pastor at Plymouth Congregational Church Seattle First Baptist Church St. Augustine’s-in-the-Woods Episcopal Church St. Leo Parish - Tacoma St. Leo’s Parish The Rt. Rev. Greg Rickel, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Olympia Unitarian Universalist Church of Spokane Unitarian Universalist Voices for Justice University Christian Church University Unitarian Church, Seattle Healthcare organizations American Lung Association Institute of Neurotoxicology & Neurological Disorders King County Academy of Family Physicians board NARAL Physicians for Social Responsibility The Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest and Hawaii Toxic-Free Future Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility Labor organizations American Federation of Teachers (AFT) Seattle Local 1789 American Federation of Teachers Washington Labor Network for Sustainability OPEIU Local 8 SEIU Healthcare 1199NW Teamsters 117 The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees(AFSCME Council 28) UAW 4121 UFCW 21 Native amerian tribes and nations Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians Colville Tribe Hoh Tribe Makah Tribe Quinault Indian Nation Samish Indian Nation Suquamish Tribe Tulalip Tribes

Arguments

• Yes On 1631 featured the following argument on its website:

“

Initiative 1631 will: Protect our communities’ health and leave a better future for our kids; Invest in clean energy, like wind and solar, as well as healthy forests, and clean air and water; Create thousands of local jobs in our communities across the state while cutting pollution; and Establish a fee on the largest corporate polluters, to make sure we are all doing our fair share to protect our state.

”

• Got Green executive director Jill Mangaliman said, “Due to redlining and land use laws in our city. Seattle specifically, the placement of polluting industry are always near our neighborhoods. If you look at the life expectancy of people of color and people who live in these historically redlined communities have lower life expectancy. People of color and low-income people are affected first and worst by climate change. We’re focused on how do we ensure that the folks most impacted are part of the solutions.”

• United States Representative from Washington, Pramila Jayapal (D-7), wrote on Twitter, "I am proudly endorsing @Yeson1631 to achieve healthy communities and clean energy for all in Washington state. The neighborhood you live in should never determine if your air is clean and your water is healthy. I started the Congressional Climate Justice Task Force to find truly equitable solutions to the growing problem of pollution and this initiative is the exact type of environmental justice that we've been working towards. @Yeson1631 will clean up the mess of pollution by putting a fee on the largest corporate polluters and invest in clean energy, transportation and protecting our state’s natural resources. This is a major step to improving public health and reducing the climate change impacts. The big oil companies like Exxon, Shell, and BP have already started mobilizing against us. But we know when we stand together we are infinitely stronger than their money."

• Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy field director Ahmed Gaya said, "One of the reasons we’re seeing such excitement and hunger around this initiative is that people in the environmental community have spent so much time saying no to the projects they don’t want. This is one of the first opportunities we have to say yes.”

• Washington Governor Jay Inslee said, "The health of our children is at risk. What these children represent is an effort in the state of Washington to give them what they deserve, which is clean air. They deserve better than a smoky future. They deserve lungs that breathe clean Washington air, not smoke from hundreds of forest fires. Today, this smoke be opaque. But when it comes to children’s health, it has made something very clear, and that is the state of Washington needs to pass this clean air initiative, so these children can breathe clean air. They deserve that. The significance of this is profound."

Official arguments

Following are the official arguments in support of Initiative 1631 included in the Washington Voters' Guide for the 2018 general election.

The arguments were prepared by Carrie Nyssen of the American Lung Association; Leonard Forsman, President of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians; Ann Murphy, President of the League of Women Voters of Washington; Tony Lee, Co-Chair of the Asian Pacific Islander Coalition; Bonnie Frye Hemphill of the Solar Installers of Washington; and Cenetra Pickens, a registered nurse and union member of SEIU Healthcare.

Building a Cleaner Healthier Future for Our Kids We have a responsibility to future generations to pass on a healthier place to live. Initiative 1631 is a sensible step that puts a fee on large polluters like big oil companies, making them pay when they pollute our air and water and invests in affordable clean energy and healthier communities. Holding Big Polluters Accountable to Protect our Air and Water When big oil companies pollute they leave the rest of us to pay the price with our health and environment. Initiative 1631 will make clean energy like wind and solar more affordable for more people, reduce over 25 million tons of pollution annually, and build new clean energy projects creating 41,000 good paying jobs across the state. Public Accountability and Transparency All investments are overseen by a public board of experts in science, business, health, and trusted community leaders so that big oil companies and their lobbyists aren’t making decisions about our future. Regular audits will ensure we’re reducing pollution and expanding clean energy. Washington vs. Big Oil Initiative 1631 is backed by the largest initiative coalition in state history, including over 200 organizations and businesses like The Nature Conservancy, American Lung Association, Union of Concerned Scientists, REI, Children’s Alliance, Sierra Club, MomsRising, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Tulalip Tribes, Washington Conservation Voters, OneAmerica, UFCW 21, and Latino Community Fund. By voting Yes we will build clean energy, create thousands of jobs, and pass on a healthier future for our kids. Rebuttal of argument against: Five out-of-state oil companies are funding 99.9% of the opposition campaign. They will say anything to protect their billion-dollar profits. 1631 is a sensible step to reduce pollution today and leave a better future for our kids, by making big oil companies pay for the pollution they create. It makes clean energy more affordable, creating over 41,000 good paying jobs here in Washington. Let’s build our future on our terms.

Opposition

Vote No on 1631 led the campaign in opposition to the measure.

Opponents

• Western States Petroleum Association
• Association of Washington Business (AWB)

Arguments

Vote no on 1631 featured the following argument on its website:

“

The risks posed by climate change are real, but I-1631’s new, unfair energy tax is a deeply flawed approach to climate policy for our state. It would force Washington families, farmers, small businesses and consumers to pay billions in higher energy costs – while exempting many of our state’s largest polluters, and providing no specific plan or accountability for spending billions in taxpayer dollars.

”

• The Association of Washington Business (AWB) President Kris Johnson said, "After careful consideration, our members concluded I-1631 is not the right way to reduce emissions. We share the goal of protecting the environment, but this initiative will raise the cost of energy for families and employers while offering little assurance it will result in a meaningful reduction of carbon emissions. Washington businesses are already among the greenest in the world and they continue to look for new ways to reduce their carbon footprint. This initiative will do little to reduce global carbon emissions while placing Washington employers, especially small businesses, at a competitive disadvantage with other states and regions that won’t have to pay the higher energy costs. There’s also concern that this establishes an unelected body of decision-makers. We believe there are better ways to reduce carbon emissions while also protecting jobs and family budgets."

• Todd Myers, director of the Center for the Environment at the Washington Policy Center, wrote, "The result of these broad exemptions is that the burden of the tax falls on families and commercial industry. The assumption is that while industry will leave the state due to high costs, commercial business and families are less likely to do so and will simply endure the costs. Ultimately, the increased costs are borne by families who can’t avoid them and must find a way to fit them into an ever-increasing burden of taxes in Washington."

• Robert Allendorfer, manager of BP's Cherry Point refinery, wrote the following in a letter to state lawmakers: "We believe a well-designed carbon pricing framework is the most comprehensive and economically efficient policy that incentivizes both energy efficiency and new lower-carbon technologies and businesses. In fact, BP has a strong record of working to advance carbon pricing in tandem with policymakers, environmental groups, and academics... [Initiative 1631] would exempt six of the ten largest stationary source emitters in the state, including a coal-fired power plant, an aluminum smelter, and a number of pulp and paper plants. This would undermine the goal of reducing emissions, while effectively subsidizing certain companies at the expense of others."

Official arguments

Following are the official arguments in opposition to Initiative 1631 included in the Washington Voters' Guide for the 2018 general election.

The arguments were prepared by Dean Maxwell, Mayor of Anacortes 1993 – 2013; Anne Lawrence, Board Member of the Washington Farm Bureau; Brian Sonntag, Washington State Auditor 1993 – 2013; Sabrina Jones, a small business owner; Mark Riker, Executive Secretary of the Washington State Building Trades; and Cliff Mass, a professor of atmospheric sciences.

I-1631’s deeply flawed, unfair energy tax would force Washington families, small businesses and consumers to pay billions in higher costs for gasoline, electricity, heating and natural gas – while exempting the state’s largest polluters, and providing little accountability for spending. $2.3 Billion Energy Tax, Increases Every Year The state’s analysis shows 1631 would cost consumers over $2.3 billion in the first five years alone. Higher electricity and natural gas bills would add hundreds of millions more in consumer costs, and 1631’s escalating taxes would automatically increase every year – with no cap. Largest Polluters Exempt 1631 would exempt many of the state’s largest polluters, including a coal-fired power plant, pulp and paper mills, aircraft manufacturers and other large corporate emitters. Six of the state’s top 10 carbon emitters would be exempt from 1631, while consumers and small businesses would pay billions. Gasoline, Energy Prices Increase Annually With No Cap Independent estimates show 1631 would increase gasoline prices by up to fourteen cents more per gallon at first, increasing annually, and quadrupling within 15 years, with no cap. Families, small businesses and farmers would also pay higher costs for natural gas, heating fuel, electricity and transportation, costing households hundreds more per year, especially hurting those who could least afford it. Lack of Accountability, No Guarantee 1631’s unelected board would have broad authority to disperse billions with little accountability and no specific plan, no requirements to spend funds specifically to reduce greenhouse gases, and no guarantee of effectiveness. 1631 deserves a no vote. Rebuttal of argument for: I-1631’s deeply flawed approach to climate policy exempts Washington’s largest polluters, imposes a permanently escalating tax on Washington families, and disproportionately burdens those who can least afford it. I-1631 has no clear guidelines for how its unelected board of political appointees would spend billions in taxpayer dollars, and no real accountability or likelihood of significantly reducing greenhouse gases. Cliff Mass, Ph.D., atmospheric sciences expert, represents his own opinions – not those of the University of Washington.

Media editorials

See also: 2018 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

• New York Times said: "If the proposal, Initiative 1631, wins — as we hope it does — the result could ripple beyond Washington’s boundaries. No state can match California’s impressively broad suite of clean-energy programs, but the initiative, if successful, could catapult Jay Inslee, Washington’s governor, into the climate leadership role long occupied by the outgoing California governor, Jerry Brown. More important, it could provide a template, or at least valuable lessons, for other states to follow; and (let’s dream for a moment) it might even encourage Congress to take action on a national program. ... A yes vote in Washington State would add further momentum — and possibly focus a few minds in the other Washington."

• The Olympian said: "If approved by voters, our state would join California, which has a successful cap-and-trade pollution credits program, and New England states that use a pollution-credits scheme to encourage utilities to reduce their power-plant emissions. The real question for Washington voters is: If not now, then when? That is why we urge passage of I-1631, while recognizing the initiative may need state legislators to give it strong oversight. Washington Governor Jay Inslee (D) joined environmentalists and labor groups to oppose a carbon tax initiative, which didn’t do enough, they claimed, in 2016. Initiative 1631 is a second chance to get it right. Waiting a few more years to impose such a carbon fee is like putting off surgery for gangrene in one’s ankle. Waiting ensures only that the knife cuts later and higher on the leg."

• Herald Net said: "Even with its flaws and uncertainties, Initiative 1631 could have positive effects for the state, the nation and the globe: As the first such carbon-reduction program in the nation, it could foster similar efforts in other states. And, after years of rejected proposals to address carbon emissions, I-1631 will begin to make an honest effort at reducing carbon emissions and taking seriously the threat of climate change. We are past the point where we can wait for perfect; Washington voters should put us on the path toward good.

• The News Tribune said: "Taxing polluters under Initiative 1631 is a desperate move. Should voters support it? Perhaps our endorsement is best described as 'Yes, but...' The carbon-fee program, if not monitored carefully, could turn into a messy grab bag of pet projects. Voters are left with Initiative 1631, imperfect as it is. A 'yes' vote will show the country we’re leaders in combating a climate collapse in the next two decades. A 'yes' vote will show our grandkids we won’t gamble with their futures.

• The Everett Herald said: "Initiative 1631 would impose a fee on carbon emissions. A yes vote recommended: “After years of rejected proposals to address carbon emissions, I-1631 will begin to make an honest effort at reducing carbon emissions and taking seriously the threat of climate change.”"

Opposition

• The Daily News said: "In the long term, a carbon tax might be the future of energy regulation in America, or even the world. The concept has a core quality of basic fairness. But a much more serious, more universal approach is needed to bring that fairness out in a way that is free of favoritism. Washington voters strongly rejected a less expensive carbon tax initiative in 2016, and they should reject I-1631 as well."

• The Tri-City Herald said: "Like prior efforts to reduce carbon emissions in our state, Initiative 1631 has an important, worthwhile goal – to cut pollution and combat climate change. The problem is that, if approved, it will cost people more at the gas pump and more when they pay their power bills. And what will they get in return? Right now, we can’t say for sure. The public is supposed to trust a yet-to-be formed, unelected 15-member oversight board to dole out the money for clean energy efforts. We can’t encourage such blind faith in government, especially when we are talking about divvying up billions of dollars. We are recommending a “no” vote on I-1631."

• The Chronicle said: "Washington is already one of the greenest states in the nation — we must find another way to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions than unfairly burdening individuals and families. We recommend Lewis County voters check the 'no' box when their ballots arrive. If you need further convincing, public power providers, including the Lewis County PUD, have predicted that carbon fees will result in increased power costs — another way rural Washington will be unfairly burdened by this tax."

• The Yakima Herald-Republic said: "The measure would put a fee on carbon polluters, most notably large, multi-national oil companies that do business in Washington state. And while there is no doubt that measures to combat climate change are needed, this particular attempt to curb greenhouse gas emitters is a flawed initiative with what we fear will be unintended consequences that will negatively impact the citizenry — namely, an estimated 14-cent per gallon increase that oil companies most assuredly would pass down to consumers, and a significant rise in utility costs"

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Washington ballot measures

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$16,398,381.52
Opposition:	$31,591,364.54

Two committees were registered in support of the measure: Clean Air Clean Energy WA and Fuse Voters (also known as Fuse Washington). Fuse Voters reported $2,605 in contributions from Fuse Washington and had not reported any expenditures. The Clean Air Clean Energy WA committee reported a total of $16.4 million in contributions and $16.4 million in expenditures. The largest donor was the Nature Conservancy, which provided $3.4 million in cash and in-kind contributions. The Nature Conservancy is a charitable organization with a mission of "conserving the lands and waters on which all life depends." Other top donors included Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg, who each gave $1 million.

Two committees were registered in opposition to the measure: No on 1631 sponsored by the Western States Petroleum Association and I-1631 sponsored by the Association of Washington Business. Together, the committees raised $31.6 million and spent $31.5 million. The top donor in opposition to the initiative was BP America, which provided $13.15 million to oppose the initiative.

Support

Committees in support of Initiative 1631 Supporting committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures Clean Air Clean Energy WA $15,316,688.31 $1,079,088.21 $15,316,439.28 Fuse Voters $2,605.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total $15,316,688.31 $1,081,693.21 $15,316,439.28

Totals in support Total raised: $16,398,381.52 Total spent: $16,398,132.49

Top donors

Following are donors who had given $500,000 or more to the support campaign.

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
The Nature Conservancy	$3,250,000.00	$325,771.27	$3,575,771.27
League of Conservation Voters	$1,400,000.00	$0.00	$1,400,000.00
Bill Gates	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00
Michael Bloomberg	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00
Craig McKibben	$501,000.00	$0.00	$501,000.00
Sarah Merner	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00
Chris Stolte	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00
Action Now Initiative	$500,000.00	$0.00	$500,000.00

Opposition

Committees in opposition to Initiative 1631 Opposing committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures No on 1631 (Sponsored by Western States Petroleum Association) $31,245,664.73 $331,199.81 $31,142,744.23 I-1631 sponsored by the Association of Washington Business $14,000.00 $500.00 $0.00 Total $31,259,664.73 $331,699.81 $31,142,744.23

Totals in opposition Total raised: $31,591,364.54 Total spent: $31,474,444.04

Top donors

Together, the top five donors provided 88.96 percent of the total contributions.

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
BP America	$12,896,031.40	$252,484.76	$13,148,516.16
Phillips 66	$7,201,186.54	$263.79	$7,201,450.33
Andeavor	$6,062,827.17	$0.00	$6,062,827.17
American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers	$1,250,000.00	$0.00	$1,250,000.00
U.S. Oil and Refining Company	$558,531.31	$0.00	$558,531.31

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls and 2018 ballot measure polls

The following poll by Crosscut/Elway showed support for measure 1631 leading at 50 percent while 36 percent of respondents opposed the measure with another 14 percent undecided. Among Democrats, 77 percent of respondents supported the measure, 11 percent opposed it, and 12 percent were undecided. Among Republicans, 18 percent of respondents supported the measure, 65 percent opposed it, and 17 percent were undecided.

Washington Initiative 1631 (2018)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Crosscut/Elway Poll 10/5/2018 - 10/9/2018	50.0%	36.0%	14.0%	+/-5.0	400
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Fee vs Tax

Under Washington State law, this measure is a fee and not a tax because the revenue cannot be spent on government expenses or public program, but rather is dedicated to specific accounts related to investing in climate and environmental projects.

Hugh D. Spitzer, University of Washington School of Law Professor and public finance lawyer with Foster Pepper & Shefelman PLLC, in Seattle, Washington, wrote the following about taxes and fees in the Gonzaga Law Review:

About taxes: "Tax revenue may be used for any governmental function that lawmakers reasonably determine is a public purpose. Such governmental functions include public safety, regulatory activities, public facilities... For accounting purposes, tax revenue may be placed in any fund; either the general fund for any use designated by the legislative authority or in an earmarked fund. Taxes, then, are vehicles to raise money for allocation to any proper governmental purpose. There is no connection between the property or activities taxed and the use of the proceeds"

About fees: "[Fees] are imposed on specific persons, activities, or properties that receive a service or benefit, or that cause negative externalities (public bads) that burden the rest of the population. [Fees] come with a distinct set of legal protections to ensure that the level of each charge does not exceed the cost of the service, benefit, or mitigation of the public bad allocated to the person charged and to ensure that the proceeds of the charge are used solely for the provision of services, benefits, or mitigation and not used for general governmental purposes."

Carbon emissions in Washington

The graph below shows estimated annual energy-related carbon emissions (in million metric tons of carbon dioxide) from 1990 to 2015. The data, released in October 2017, was collected by the U.S. Energy Information Administration which analyzed emissions from coal, petroleum products, and natural gas in the residential, commercial, industrial, electric power, fuel, and transportation sectors.

Energy policy and climate change action in Washington

See also: Energy policy in Washington

The State of Washington Department of Ecology featured the following on its website regarding greenhouse gas (carbon pollution) limits in the state:

“

Climate change is one of the most significant issues facing Washington today. Tackling climate change is a priority for us and we are working hard to protect fish, farms, and waters from the damage that rising temperatures and shifting precipitation patterns will cause in Washington. That’s why we adopted one of the nation’s most progressive regulations to cap and reduce greenhouse gases, and also why we recently provided a report to the Legislature that recommends lower greenhouse gas limits for the state.

”

In 2008, the Washington State Legislature adopted greenhouse gas (carbon pollution) reduction targets. As of July 2018, Washington's greenhouse gas reduction targets were as follows:

• By 2020: reduce overall emissions of greenhouse gases in the state to 1990 levels.
• By 2035: reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in the state to 25 percent below 1990 levels.
• By 2050: reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in the state to 50 percent below 1990 levels.

In 2009, the Legislature approved the State Agency Climate Leadership Act, which established greenhouse gas emission limits for state government. The act requires state agencies to track, report, and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

In 2014, Washington Governor Jay Inslee, who supports this initiative, created the Carbon Emissions Reduction Taskforce (CERT) which was composed of 21 leaders from business, labor, health and public interest organizations and tasked with providing recommendations to the governor on design and implementation of a market-based carbon pollution program. The taskforce's final report can be read here.

Carbon tax/fee proposals in other states

As of February 2018, carbon tax bills had been proposed in the legislatures of seven states: Maryland, Washington, New York, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Maine. Additionally, proposals to study carbon taxes had been introduced in New Mexico and New Hampshire. Some examples of carbon tax proposals in the U.S. are summarized below:

• In 2018, House Bill 1991 was proposed in the Hawaii Legislature to establish a tax of $10 for every ton of carbon dioxide emitted from the use of fossil fuel and require that 20% of the tax revenues collected to be dedicated to the Environmental Response Revolving Fund.
• Massachusetts Rep. Michael Barrett sponsored a bill in 2017 to create a carbon fee and instructs the governor to create carbon pricing for the transportation sector by the end of 2020, for commercial buildings and industrial processes by 2021, and for residential buildings by the end of 2022.
• In 2015, Democratic New York legislators Rep. Kevin Cahill of Dutchess County and Sen. Kevin Parker sponsored a bill to establish a tax on carbon-based fuels to reduce the state's carbon dioxide emissions by 80% of 1990 levels by 2050. In March 2018, local officials in New York authored a letter to Governor Andrew Cuomo calling for a corporate fee on pollution for oil, gas, and coal companies.
• In 2016, Rhode Island Rep. J. Aaron Regunberg (D-Providence) sponsored a bill to create a carbon fee of $15 per ton of carbon dioxide with 70 percent of revenues to be issued as refunds to Rhode Island residents and business while 25 percent would fund renewable energy and efficiency programs.

Initiative 732 of 2016, Washington carbon tax initiative

See also: Washington Carbon Emission Tax and Sales Tax Reduction, Initiative 732 (2016)

Washington voters defeated a carbon tax initiative—Initiative 732—in 2016, with 59.25 percent of voters rejecting it. I-732 was backed by Carbon Washington and would have established a tax on carbon emissions at $15 per metric ton of emissions in July 2017, $25 in July 2018, and then increased by 3.5 percent plus inflation each year until the tax reached $100 per metric ton. The tax would have been phased in more slowly for farmers and nonprofit transportation providers. The designers of Initiative 732 sought to neither increase nor decrease state revenues. Rather, the general goal behind the tax was to encourage families and firms to reduce fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. To meet this goal of remaining "revenue neutral," Initiative 732 would have lowered the state sales tax from 6.5 to 5.5 percent, increased the Working Families Tax Credit for low-income families, and reduced the business and occupation tax rate from 0.484 to 0.001 percent.

Differences between Initiative 732 and Initiative 1631 are briefly summarized in the table below:

Question	I-732 (2016)	I-1631 (2018)
Who sponsored the initiatives?	Carbon Washington	Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy
Who are the opponents?	No on 732 Sponsored by the Association of Washington Business and Northwest Pulp & Paper Association No on I-732 Campaign	No on 1631 Sponsored by Western States Petroleum Association and I-1631 sponsored by the Association of Washington Business
How much would the carbon tax/fee be?	Starting at $15 per ton and rising to a cap of $100	Starting at $15 per ton, increasing by $2 per year until carbon reduction goals are met.
What would revenue be used for?	To lower the state sales tax from 6.5 to 5.5 percent, increase the Working Families Tax Credit for low-income families, and reduce the business and occupation tax rate from 0.484 to 0.001 percent	To create a pollution fund and use funds for investments related to air quality, energy, water, forests, and vulnerable communities

The state's northern neighbor, British Columbia, implemented a carbon tax in 2008, and this served as a base model for Initiative 732.

British Columbia's carbon tax

Implemented in 2008, British Columbia's carbon tax helped the province reduce its per capita greenhouse gas emissions 12.9 between 2008 to 2013, according to the Carbon Tax Center. The rest of Canada reduced per capita emissions 3.7 percent during the same period. Revenue from the carbon tax is allocated to tax credits aiding low-income households and individual and business tax cuts.

The economic impacts have been negligible according to the Carbon Tax Center and economists at Duke University and the University of Ottawa. According to the New York Times, "British Columbia’s economy did not collapse. In fact, the provincial economy grew faster than its neighbors’ even as its greenhouse gas emissions declined." The province's environmental minister, Mary Polak, said, "It performed better on all fronts than I think any of us expected. To the extent that the people who modeled it predicted this, I’m not sure that those of us on the policy end of it really believed it." Jock A. Finlayson, head of policy at the Business Council of British Columbia, stated, "We were not very happy when it was first announced... [Now,] within the business community there is a sizable constituency saying this is O.K." In 2009, 47 percent opposed the tax. In 2009, 32 percent did. Others claimed the province's carbon tax had little impact on carbon emissions. Marc Lee, Senior Economist for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, said, "... don't believe the hype on B.C.'s carbon tax. The reality is that since 2010, B.C.'s GHG emissions have increased every year; as of 2013 they are up 4.3 percent above 2010 levels." Lee also criticized how the carbon tax mostly decreased corporate income taxes to remain revenue-neutral.

Energy policy ballot measures

See also: Energy on the ballot and List of Washington ballot measures

Ballotpedia has covered 14 ballot measures relating to state and local energy policy in Washington.

1. Washington SJR 120, Energy Conservation Financing Amendment (1979)
2. Washington Referendum 18, Municipal Energy Measure (1934)
3. Washington Initiative 937, Energy Conservation by Electric Utilities Measure (2006)
4. Washington Initiative 52, Municipal Authority Over Electrical Facilities Measure (1924)
5. Washington Referendum 3, Sale of Surplus Municipal Energy Measure (1924)
6. Washington Bonds for Energy Efficiency Projects, Referendum 52 (2010)
7. Washington HJR 10, Public Energy Production and Development Amendment (1936)
8. Washington HJR 4223, Extension of Energy Conservation Amendment (1988)
9. Washington Initiative 394, Voter Approval for Energy Project Bonds Measure (1981)
10. Washington Modifying Tax Exemption Criteria for Alternative Fuel Vehicles, Advisory Vote 15 (2016)
11. Washington Advisory Vote 19, Non-Binding Question on Oil Spill Tax Repeal (2018)
12. Washington Carbon Emission Tax and Sales Tax Reduction, Initiative 732 (2016)
13. Washington Initiative 2117, Prohibit Carbon Tax Credit Trading and Repeal Carbon Cap-and-Invest Program Measure (2024)
14. Washington Prohibit Restrictions on Natural Gas Access Initiative (2024)

Recent legislation

A bill—Senate Bill 6203—to establish a carbon tax was introduced in the legislature in 2018. Senate Bill 6203 was designed to establish a tax of $12 per ton of carbon emissions until 2021 and increase $1.80 per ton each year until the rate reached $30 per ton. The bill never made it out of committee and was never voted on.

The following is a list of recent energy policy bills that have been introduced in or passed by the Washington State Legislature. To learn more about each of these bills, click the bill title. This information is provided by BillTrack50 and LegiScan.

Note: Due to the nature of the sorting process used to generate this list, some results may not be relevant to the topic. If no bills are displayed below, no legislation pertaining to this topic has been introduced in the legislature recently.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Washington

The state process

In Washington, the number of signatures required to qualify a directly initiated state statute—called an Initiative to the People in Washington—for the ballot is equal to 8 percent of the votes cast for the office of governor at the last regular gubernatorial election. Initial filings for direct initiatives cannot be made more than 10 months before the general election at which their proposal would be presented to voters. Signatures must be submitted at least four months prior to the general election.

The requirements to get an Initiative to the People certified for the 2018 ballot:

• Signatures: 259,622 valid signatures were required.
• Deadline: The deadline to submit signatures was July 6, 2018.

The secretary of state verifies the signatures using a random sample method. If the sample indicates that the measure has sufficient signatures, the measure is certified for the ballot. However, if the sample indicates that the measure has insufficient signatures, every signature is checked. Under Washington law, a random sample result may not invalidate a petition.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired AAP Holding Company to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $802,695.60 was spent to collect the 259,622 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $3.09.

Details about this initiative

• Philip Lloyd submitted this initiative on March 2, 2018.
• A ballot title and summary were issued for it on March 20, 2018.
• As of May 6, 2018, proponents of the initiative reported they had gathered 36,000 signatures.
• On July 2, 2018, the Washington Secretary of State reported on Twitter that proponents of the initiative submitted signatures. The Secretary of State's official Twitter account further reported, "Once all of the sheets are checked, they are sent to [the Washington State Archives] for imaging. The physical copies are kept at Archives and digital copies are sent back for signature verification."
• On August 2, 2018, the Washington Secretary of State's office reported on Twitter that the initiative qualified for the ballot. Of the 349,063 signatures proponents filed, a check of 10,507 signatures showed that 82.9 percent were valid.

Challenge to the ballot title

Glen Morgan filed a petition in the Thurston County Superior Court on March 26, 2018, challenging the ballot title of Initiative 1631. Morgan said "The reason I filed this petition is because the original ballot title crafted by the Washington State Attorney General’s office is misleading, inaccurate, and deceptive. The original title "concerns pollution" is just a false label for the Carbon Tax." On April 6, 2018, the court heard oral arguments and ruled that the ballot title and summary must be changed.

Below is the original and revised ballot title and summary:

Ballot title

Initiative 1631 original ballot title	Initiative 1631 revised ballot title
Initiative Measure No. 1631 concerns pollution This measure would charge “pollution fees” on sources of greenhouse gas pollutants and use the revenue to reduce pollution, promote renewable energy, and address climate change impacts, under oversight of a public board. Should this measure be enacted into law?	Initiative Measure No. 1631 concerns pollution This measure would charge pollution fees on sources of greenhouse gas pollutants and use the revenue to reduce pollution, promote clean energy, and address climate impacts, under oversight of a public board. Should this measure be enacted into law?

Ballot summary

Initiative 1631 original ballot summary

Initiative 1631 revised ballot summary

This measure would impose “pollution fees” on certain sources of greenhouse gas pollutants based on rules determining carbon content, starting in 2020. A public board would supervise spending the revenues on reducing pollution, renewable energy, and addressing climate change impacts to the environment and communities. Utilities could receive credits to avoid fees. Indian tribes would have rights to be consulted and object to decisions and projects. There would be periodic reporting on the measure’s effectiveness.

This measure would impose pollution fees on certain large emitters of greenhouse gas pollutants based on rules determining carbon content, starting in 2020. A public board would supervise spending the revenues on reducing pollution, promoting clean energy, and addressing climate impacts to the environment and communities. Utilities could receive credits for approved investments. Indian tribes would consult on projects directly impacting their land. There would be periodic reporting on the measure’s effectiveness.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Washington

Poll times

Washington is an all-mail voting state. Individuals who prefer to vote in person rather than by mail may do so at local voting centers, which are open for 18 days prior to the election. The voting period ends at 8:00 p.m. on Election Day. Contact your county elections department for more information on voting center locations and times.

Registration requirements

Check your voter registration status here.

To vote in Washington, one must be a citizen of the United States, a resident of the state, and at least 18 years of age.

One may register to vote online, by mail, or in-person at a county elections department. Registration must be completed eight days in advance if done by mail or online. In-person registration is available through Election Day.

In 2018, Washington lawmakers enacted legislation providing for same-day voter registration and automatic voter registration.

Automatic registration

Washington automatically registers eligible individuals to vote through the Department of Motor Vehicles, health benefit exchange, and other state agencies approved by the governor.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

Washington has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration

Washington allows same-day voter registration.

Residency requirements

Washington law requires 30 days of residency in the state before a person may vote.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Washington does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration.

Verifying your registration

The site Vote WA, run by the Washington Secretary of State office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online.

Voter ID requirements

Washington is an all-mail voting state and does not require voters to present photo identification (ID). Voters may choose to vote in person at a local voting center. According to state law RCW 29A.40.160, “The county auditor shall require any person desiring to vote at a voting center to either sign a ballot declaration or provide identification.” Accepted forms of ID include driver's licenses, state ID cards, and student ID cards. For a list of all accepted forms of ID, see below.

The following list of accepted ID was current as of April 2023. Click here for the Washington State Legislature's voter ID regulations to ensure you have the most current information.

• Driver's license
• State identification card
• Student identification card
• Tribal identification card
• Employer identification card

See also

2018 measures

• 2018 ballot measures
• Taxes on the ballot
• Environment on the ballot
• 2018 petition deadlines

Washington

• Washington ballot measures
• Washington initiative laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls
• Ballot measure signature costs

External links

• Initiative #1631 Full Text
• Fiscal impact statement
• Washington 2018 Voters' Guide

Support

• Yes on 1631 campaign website
• Yes on 1631 Facebook page
• Yes on 1631 Twitter page

Opposition

• Vote No on 1631 website
• Vote No on 1631 Facebook
• Vote No on 1631 Twitter