This election season, Washington voters overwhelmingly rejected an initiative that sought to repeal the state’s landmark climate law.
In a landslide victory, 62% of voters elected to save the Climate Commitment Act. The 2021 law established Washington’s cap-and-trade program, the state’s primary tool to slash carbon emissions to 95% below 1990 levels by 2050 and thereby prevent the worst impacts of climate chaos. In addition to placing a hard limit on the amount of CO2 that companies in the state can release, the act forces Washington’s top polluters to buy permits for their emissions.
And that has raised a lot of money: over $2 billion since January 2023. Washington is using it to fund thousands of projects to kickstart the state’s clean energy transition. The projects range from building solar infrastructure and electrifying transportation to preventing wildfires, improving air quality, funding conservation and supporting community-based initiatives, including youth transit passes and other programs.
“It shows that it’s possible to run a campaign on the belief that we should have clean air, clean water and innovative climate action, and win big,” said Kelsey Nyland, deputy communications director of No on 2117. The election results showcase the widespread support for climate legislation in Washington, encouraging other states that might be considering similar legislation.
“It’s possible to run a campaign on the belief that we should have clean air, clean water and innovative climate action, and win big.”
The campaign’s success speaks to the positive impacts climate act funds are already having, said David Mendoza, director of policy and government relations with The Nature Conservancy in Washington, one of the 600 organizations that joined the No on 2117 campaign. Mendoza also serves in his personal capacity as a member of Washington’s Environmental Justice Council. “The challenge with climate legislation is that it has a global impact,” he said. “So how do we localize that concern by showing the benefit that these kinds of programs can have in communities?”
Only some of the funds have been allocated so far, with various projects set to receive money next year. Here are a few community-focused projects funded by the Climate Commitment Act already in the works:
Conservation districts are improving forest health and wildfire resilience across the state. Using climate act funds, the Whatcom County Conservation District, a nonregulatory body focused on natural resource conservation in northern Washington, is offering landowners free wildfire home-risk assessments. In forested areas, the district is helping landowners assess the health of their trees and advising them on how to sustainably manage their land. And in its first year of climate act funding, the district planted trees along 60 acres of streamside areas to restore habitat for salmon and other species. “Now, I can really start to plan these things, and I know that I would have community support in order to do it,” said Aneka Sweeney, outreach and education manager for the Whatcom Conservation District.
Ryan Williams, executive director of the Cascadia Conservation District in eastern Washington, which includes seven of the state’s top 25 most at-risk communities for wildfire, said that voters’ decision to retain the law left him more hopeful that he’ll be able to continue his work long-term. “Long-term, consistent funding is key,” he said. Williams’ district has been able to provide forest-treatment cost-sharing for private landowners across 250 acres of forested habitat and thinning and pruning assistance for low-income homeowners. The district is also planting fire-resistant grasses after blazes. “It’s a marathon, not a race.”
A total of 10% of the act’s revenue is meant to go toward helping tribes build climate resilience. So far, a total of $238 million of CCA funds are set to go to nearly every tribal nation in Washington, funding appliance rebates, clean energy infrastructure, clean transportation and ecosystem restoration. The Tulalip Tribes, for example, received $4.2 million, part of which is going to reconnecting waterways along the Snohomish River watershed, improving fish habitat and mitigating flooding risk. “We can’t stop and start these projects on a dime,” said Brett Shattuck, restoration, acquisition and stewardship senior scientist with the Tulalip Tribes. “Knowing that this repeal failed allows us to look into the future.”
Roughly $20 million in climate act funds are going to remove fish barriers outside of state-owned lands. These grants are administered by the Brian Abbott Fish Barrier removal board, established to help Washington comply with an injunction that ordered increased culvert-removal efforts, following a steep decline of salmon. The funds will go toward dredging and replacing some of Washington’s culverts, many of which are so narrow that they concentrate water flow, making it difficult for fish to swim upriver.
Labor leaders, firefighters, nurses, doctors, tribal leaders & advocates for clean air & clean water all ask you to vote #NoOn2117 @No_on_2117 @psr_washington @VinGuptaMD pic.twitter.com/EP4bjXNZ6t
— Mark Vossler, MD ☮️👨⚕️🌎🏳️🌈 (@vosslerm1) October 29, 2024
THE HEAL ACT, which Washington also passed in 2021, requires the state to use a minimum of 35% of Climate Commitment Act funds to address environmental health disparities in Washington. So far, the climate act has funded projects targeted toward overburdened communities, like energy rebates for low-income families. But many of these projects, including grants to community organizations seeking to improve air pollution in overburdened communities, were put on hold due to the climate act’s uncertain future.
Davin Diaz, the Environmental Justice Program manager for Front and Centered, a nonprofit that advocates for overburdened populations, said that repealing the climate act would have had “huge ramifications across the state,” and negatively impacted frontline communities who have only just started to reap its benefits.
However, a recent analysis by Front and Centered looked at the specific language in the state’s 2024 budget and estimated that just 14.6% of the climate act funds released this year have been explicitly earmarked for frontline populations. Although state agencies in charge of doling out the funds could choose to fund more projects benefiting frontline communities, the state itself has yet to release detailed data on how the money is being spent.
Regardless, there’s clearly room for more. Looking forward, Diaz said that he’d like to see more examples of co-governance, wherein frontline communities work with state agencies to develop just and equitable solutions. “These are new ideas for state agencies,” he said. “There’s this cultural shift, where they’re recognizing and understanding the power of the community.”
