The state Department of Ecology (DOE) plans to announce a new “carbon cap” rule proposal next month—the same rule Jay Inslee ordered them to write in September, and the same rule he thinks he can impose on the state using his executive authority.
Inslee is choosing that dubious route because the Legislature, led by the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, refused to even bring his job-killing idea up for a vote earlier this year. That Inslee believes he can impose the rule without legislative approval is our 5th most underreported story of the year.
Republicans had the opportunity to question Ecology over the rule
The rules are scheduled by Ecology for adoption next summer in order to take effect in 2017. The DOE says it “would cover 37 facilities run by 31 companies, including petroleum refineries and importers, natural gas distributors, power plants, industrial plants and landfills.”
Last week, state lawmakers had their first opportunity to question the DOE over the proposal, which would be based on a credit system. Responding to a question about the credits from GOP state Senator Doug Ericksen, an Ecology official gave the example of Alcoa and said the company could “generate and sell credits as part of a recently announced plan to shut down aluminum smelters in Wenatchee and Ericksen’s hometown of Ferndale.” Ericksen wasn’t pleased with the response for more than one reason. Via the Olympian:
“Ericksen said that would give companies incentive to move production to other places where energy isn’t as green as in Washington, with its cheap and abundant hydropower, driving up global emissions. The Republican criticized Inslee, a Democrat, for bypassing the legislative branch through administrative action, much as Obama did at the federal level.
“‘You’re seeing executives who can’t get their way through the legislative process trying to do it all by rule,’” Ericksen said after the hearing in the Senate Energy, Environment and Telecommunications Committee that he leads.”
Democrats could not respond to questions rationally
Democrats responded to Ericksen’s rational argument the only way they could, irrationally. Liberal state Sen. Kevin Ranker decided it was relevant to defend Inslee’s overreach of power by comparing the situation to the Legislature moving to implement the Affordable Care Act, while former Attorney General Rob McKenna joined in a lawsuit to block the federal law.
The comparison, of course, doesn’t make any sense. McKenna was well within his authority as the state’s Attorney General to challenge the constitutionality of a federal law. Inslee, on the other hand, is attempting to completely bypass the state legislature in order to implement new bureaucratic regulations that he may not have the ability to impose.
Inslee’s carbon rule will face legal challenges
In order to justify his ridiculous carbon rule, Inslee is relying on a statute that state Attorney General Bob Ferguson—notably, a Democrat—deemed has no teeth. Inslee often points to a 2008 statute (RCW 70.235.020) which says that Washington State “shall limit” greenhouse gas emissions and reduce them to “1990 levels by 2020 and to half that level by 2050.” An in-depth analysis conducted by the Attorney General’s office found the statute to be “non-binding.”
Republican state Senator Doug Ericksen does not believe Inslee has the authority “to pursue those regulations without the Legislature’s approval.” He plans to pursue a legal challenge once Ecology introduces its carbon rule.
Inslee’s move to force his extreme “green” agenda through using highly questionable legal means does not make him a leader. It just makes him pathetic.
We must transition away from fossil fuels. Transitions need to take place gradually. Is this a front group for big oil?
Could be but in any case we’re not going to get there with wind and solar. I am getting more excited about the progress on the fusion reactor front though.
we’ll never transition away from oil – keep on dreaming we have plrnty of oil whether Leftist Morons like it or not – Why don’t you cease to emit CO2 and do everyone a favor.
Inslee is using WA as the testing grounds for the money machine of carbon credit taxes. The whole idea of carbon credits is equivalent to snake oil with the promise it will help the planet. But who is going to decide how many so called credits are available? How much they cost? Who is going to collect the money? What will it be used for? What will it do to/cost the average American worker?
Before anyone decides to yell about how we need to start taxing evil corporations:
1. Remember it always rolls downhill and it will eventually move to individuals.
2. Look at the studies done on “green” solar power and the effect from it on “global warming”.
3. Consider the “green” wind power. When you want to cool something you put a fan on it. Power generated from wind reduces the cooling power naturally produced by wind. Just a thought for contemplation.
4. Pollution produced by carbon fuels is used by the trees to produce oxygen. Maybe, instead of pointing fingers at businesses that are already heavily regulated we should focus on trying to save what is left of the rain forests of the world.
Yes, these points and ideas are inconvenient to the carbon credit money making machine but maybe, just maybe, that is the biggest reason to consider them. Start asking, who is going to gather the $ from these so called carbon credits, who started this idea and what is in it for them, what agenda is truly being served by this…..
Soooooooooooooooooooooo if one has 40 acres of carbon storage (and consuming) units does that mean one will be COMPENSATED for not logging them?????Fat chance of that eh!