A 2008 law setting greenhouse-gas limits for Washington is toothless, a new analysis says. But that won’t halt Gov. Jay Inslee’s efforts to cut emissions using the state Clean Air Act.
A 2008 state law seeking big cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions is toothless and does not require the Legislature or other officials to meet its targets, according to a new legal analysis by Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s office.
But aides to Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee say that won’t stop him from using his executive authority to set a statewide cap on carbon emissions through the Department of Ecology.
Citing the governor’s authority under the state Clean Air Act — a separate law — they rejected calls by Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale, to suspend Ecology’s work.
“This doesn’t change our course at all,” said Chris Davis, an Inslee adviser on climate policy.
Most Read Local Stories
- They relied on Chinese COVID vaccines. Now they’re battling outbreaks.
- New maps of King County, Seattle show how some communities are harder hit by heat waves
- Fatal stabbing prompts proposed legislation to condemn Seattle's City Hall Park
- Ahead of Pride festivities in Seattle, group faces backlash over complaints about 'reparations fees'
- Coronavirus daily news updates, June 23: What to know today about COVID-19 in the Seattle area, Washington state and the world
Ferguson’s office backed Inslee on that point. Its analysis of the 2008 law “has no impact on the Governor’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions,” which derives separately from the state Clean Air Act, said Peter Lavallee, an attorney general’s office spokesman.
Ericksen, a leading critic of Inslee’s climate agenda, had requested the attorney general’s opinion on the 2008 law, which says the state “shall limit” greenhouse emissions, to reduce them to 1990 levels by 2020 and to half that level by 2050.
Despite that language, the law creates “no specific requirement” for lawmakers or state officials to actually achieve or enforce the emissions limits, wrote assistant attorney general Christopher Lanese in the informal legal opinion issued this week.
Ericksen said he was glad to see that clarification because he’s been frustrated by Inslee talking as if the limits were binding instead of aspirational.
“It’s one of those goals like ‘end homelessness’ or ‘every child should learn,’ ” said Ericksen.
Inslee, who has made promotion of clean energy and combating global climate change signature issues since his days in Congress, found his climate agenda largely stymied this year by the Legislature.
His signature proposal to create a California-like cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions faced staunch Republican opposition and failed to pass even in the Democratic controlled state House.
That led Inslee to announce in July his administration intends to sidestep the Legislature and take executive action. He directed Ecology to start a lengthy rule-making process to create enforceable carbon limits.
While the legal analysis released this week won’t halt those plans, Ericksen said he does not believe Inslee has the authority, even under the Clean Air Act, to pursue those regulations without the Legislature’s approval.
Once Ecology proposes its carbon rule, Ericksen said, he’ll pursue another legal challenge.