Big oil defeats Washington State carbon emissions fee measure
Opponents to what would have been a first-in-the-nation carbon tax on emissions celebrated defeat of the measure when Washington State voters on Nov. 6 rejected Initiative 1631 during the general election.
The Washington Carbon Emissions Fee and Revenue Allocation Initiative, also known as I-1631, lost with 56.4 percent voting ‘No’ versus 43.6 percent voting ‘Yes,’ according to the Washington Office of the Secretary of State’s official tally.
“The NO on 1631 Coalition is tremendously grateful that a majority of Washington voters looked at the facts about Initiative 1631 and overwhelmingly rejected this poorly written, costly and unfair measure,” the group posted Wednesday on its Facebook page.
The No on 1631 campaign, sponsored by the Western States Petroleum Association, is among two committees registered in opposition to the measure along with I-1631, sponsored by the Association of Washington Business.
Together, the committees raised more than $31 million and spent almost $30 million to defeat I-1631. The top donor opposing the initiative was BP America, which provided upwards of $13 million to oppose I-1631. Also among the top opposing donors were Phillips 66, Andeavor LLC (now owned by Marathon Petroleum Corp.), American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, and Valero Energy Corp., according to No on 1631.
“Our success would not have been possible without the steadfast support of our coalition,” posted No on 1631. “Whether putting up lawn signs, talking with family and friends, sharing facts on social media, or encouraging others to join the coalition, the efforts of those opposing I-1631 made a huge difference throughout the campaign and particularly on Election Day.”
I-1631 proposed funding a rolling series of investments in clean air, water and land use programs via a rising fee on carbon emissions.
Specifically, I-1631 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, according to the text of the measure.
The fee would have been $15 per metric ton of carbon beginning on Jan. 1, 2020 and then increased annually by $2 per metric ton until the state’s 2035 greenhouse gas reduction goals were met and the state’s 2050 goals were on track to be met.
The expected revenue generated by the fee would have been placed into three funds: one for air quality and energy programs and projects; another for water quality and forest health projects; and a third fund for community investments, according to the text of I-1631.
Under Washington law, I-1631 was considered a fee, not a tax because the revenue would have been dedicated to climate and environmental projects rather than to paying for government expenses or public programs.
Tuesday’s election results are a “clear victory for working families, consumers, small businesses and family farmers across our state,” said Dana Bieber, spokeswoman for No on 1631.
BP America, in fact, employs more than 9,000 people in Washington State. And the nonprofit Washington Policy Center (WPC) noted earlier this year that I-1631, which WPC called a carbon tax, would cost each state household $530 in 2029.
The result of the initiative’s “broad exemptions is that the burden of the tax falls on families and the commercial industry,” Todd Myers, director of the WPC’s Center for the Environment, wrote in a Feb. 5 blog.
“Families will pay in three ways: at the gas pump, to heat their home, and for electricity,” Myers wrote. “An average home in Seattle will pay about $170 per year to begin, increasing to about $510 per household in 2029. Spokane’s average is higher due to the different energy mix, beginning at about $177 per household and going to more than $532 annually in 2029.”
Likewise, Kris Johnson, president of the Association of Washington Business, said I-1631 isn’t the correct way for the state to try and 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,” Johnson said in a statement. “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.”
I-1631 is the second defeated carbon tax initiative in Washington State after the 2016 measure, Initiative 732, which proposed a carbon tax and a cut in the state sales tax toward remaining revenue-neutral.
Thus far, no state in the nation yet has implemented a tax nor a fee on carbon emissions, though several other states like Washington have proposals on the books, including in New York, Vermont, Maine and Hawaii, among others.
