Inslee’s fuel mandate relies on “sketchy science”

Jay Inslee’s fuel mandate announcement—and the assertions he made concerning its economic impact—did not impress the ranking Republican on the House Environment Committee, Rep. Shelly Short. After revealing his extreme environmental agenda this week, Inslee claimed that his fuel mandate scheme would cost 2 cents per gallon of gas and his cap-and-tax program 12 cents per gallon.

Short insisted that Inslee’s fuel mandate plan “relied on sketchy science, limited studies, broad assumptions and would drastically impact low and middle income families in Washington state.” She warned,

“Families and individuals will bear the brunt of the burden of his proposals as industries pass these new costs on to consumers. Those feeling the financial pinch the most will be low income families who pay a higher percentage of their limited incomes on nondiscretionary expenses like fuel for their cars and energy to heat their homes. His policies show a serious disconnect from the free market system and basic economics 101.”

Dismissing Inslee’s suggestions that his fuel mandate is revenue neutral, Short offered a piece of reality instead. She said, “But what’s troubling is the fact we have no idea – and neither does the governor – how much his policies will cost; how much money will make it back into the state’s economy; and who will be on the hook if his numbers don’t pencil out.”

In the end, our green governor’s “two-fer” of a climate plan—his cap-and-tax shell game and his fuel mandate scheme — are just more examples of a liberal progressive’s fondness for bigger government policies. Unfortunately, it’s at the expense of working families.