OLYMPIA, WA – The 2021 Climate Commitment Act enacted by the state Legislature places a cap on the amount of allowable carbon emissions and generates revenue through carbon auctions that are used to fund environmental projects throughout the state. However, almost 90% of project spending does not impact carbon emissions.
The Carbon Emissions Reduction Account is one of three accounts where CCA carbon auction revenue is deposited; the others are the Climate Investment Account and the Air Quality Health Disparities Improvement Account. Within those three accounts are four subaccounts. The revenue is held in those accounts until the money is appropriated by the state Legislature.
Although emitters directly pay into the carbon auctions, some organizations have argued that drivers are the ones who also pay at the pump in the form of increased gas prices.
While CCA’s direct effect is to have emitters either reduce their emissions to allowable levels or participate in the state’s carbon auctions, the state program also aims to achieve other environmental goals. According to Ecology’s website, along with emission reductions they also include “a wide range of climate-related environmental goals and community benefits.”
For example, the CCA requires that at least 35% of auction revenue is invested in projects that “directly benefit vulnerable populations within overburdened communities,” with the Environmental Justice Council offering project recommendations to the Legislature. Agencies that receive CCA funding must also report to the council progress made on environmental justice goals.
According to the latest report from the state Department of Ecology, during the 2024 fiscal year 37 state agencies received $3.2 billion, with $472.5 million spent, while the four quarterly auctions held by Ecology generated $1.3 billion.
CCA-funded projects during that time frame are expected to reduce the state’s carbon emissions by 335,171 metric tons, roughly .3% of annual state emissions, albeit the Ecology report notes that the reductions are “over time.”
According to Ecology, the carbon emission reductions are calculated using agency-approved tools, including some developed by the California Air Resources Board, that estimate the reductions “resulting over the lifetime of a project compared to a business-as-usual scenario where these investments were not made.”
Nearly all the emission reductions are through transportation-related projects; more than half of all CCA spending in fiscal year 2024 was on transportation. However, Ecology’s report noted that just $53 million or 11% of total CCA spending went toward projects “with readily calculable emissions reductions,” while 63% of CCA spending was on projects concerning “vulnerable populations within the boundaries of overburdened communities.”
Todd Myers, vice president for research at the Washington Policy Center, wrote in an email to The Center Square that it’s “crazy” most spending doesn’t concern carbon emissions.
“The whole justification for the tax is to spend money on projects that reduce CO2 emissions,” he wrote. “Their own report indicates that isn’t happening. Just an incredible amount of waste.”
He later said in an interview with The Center Square that “the money they spend didn’t add to CO2 reductions. It simply prioritizes some methods of CO2 reduction over others,” adding that “we would achieve those goals” without those projects.
An initiative on the November ballot would have repealed the CCA, but it was rejected by voters.
When The Center Square reached out to the Department of Ecology for comment, an agency communications manager wrote in an email that Ecology does not have any control over how CCA funds are spent and all appropriations are done by the Legislature.
Originally published by The Center Square on March 4, 2025. Read the full article here.
