Rulemaking - Chapter 173-446 WAC, Climate Commitment Act Program

1401 Results

Sort:

Comment From: Tim Gould

7/15/22 @ 11:13 PM
Among my chief concerns regarding the program rule are:
1. The directives and timelines of the CCA statute set in motion concurrent and parallel
development of Department of Ecology's rulemaking program and the formation of the Governor's Equity and Ju...↓
collaborative work of defining roles and processes that will structure and support their
work together.
2. There are a number of areas within the draft rule that lack specificity and clarity in
program design as well as information gathering and dissemination. The rules should be revised to resolve the issues specified below.

Ecology and the EJC: The state legislature intentionally integrated environmental justice, tribal sovereignty, and tools to hold corporate polluters accountable into the structure of the law. The draft program rules do not provide adequate information to support this role or clarify Ecology's responsibilities for engaging with the EJC. The EJC has the authority to determine its process for engagement with, and recommendations to, Ecology pertaining to this rule.
Changes to strengthen the rule:
● Include explicit language on how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the
development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.
● Specify what information, and on what schedule, Ecology is committed to provide to the
EJC about aspects of the program including, but not limited to:
○ Air-quality monitoring program data, including the implementation of additional
monitoring funded by the CCA's air quality and health disparities improvement
account. Data should call out tracking of air-quality monitoring in
emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities
and resulting environmental and health impacts of same;
○ Administration of allowances and the function thereof to ensure overall declining
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of
revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of
the cap and invest program;
○ Criteria for selection of offset protocols and the merits and concerns related to
this selection;
○ Programmatic design and operation decisions made to facilitate linkage, as well
as predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.
● Specify how, and on what schedule, Ecology will respond to recommendations made by
the EJC, including disclosure of how and why such recommendations have or have not
been followed in agency decision-making and actions.

Program design with respect to overburdened communities: The statute is clear that the
program should benefit overburdened communities and not cause environmental harm. Yet, the
program rules do not clearly articulate how this will be achieved. It seems out of character that Ecology is not explicitly using the definition of overburdened that is set forth in the HEAL Act.
Ecology needs to address the following areas:
● Clarify Ecology's role in evaluating impacts of all EITEs, regardless of when they
become a covered entity, on overburdened communities;
● Establish an explicit review process for how the program is impacting overburdened
communities and ensure Ecology has information required to conduct that review;
● Clarify Ecology's role in evaluating impact of linkage on overburdened communities and
for achieving environmental benefits of the program.

Information to build in review and accountability:
● Information to guide evaluation of impacts: Ecology should require all covered entities to
provide information about their impacts to overburdened communities and to tribal lands
and treaty rights, the chemicals and pollutants they process and/or manage, and if there
are any violations under any permits they hold.
● Information to guide program review: Ecology should require gas and electric utilities to
provide information on how they spend any revenue from the sale of no cost allowances.
● Best available technology: Ecology should require EITEs applying for an upward
adjustment of no cost allowances to submit information on any excessive environmental
impacts of the fuels, processes, and equipment used by the facility. The rule should be
clear that if the facility is found to create excessive environmental impacts, upward
adjustments will be denied.
● Publicly disclose and document: Ecology should publicly share and document data being
used to establish baseline information, subtotal baselines, and allocations.
Offsets: It is important that the rule establish a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and
the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.
● Ecology should establish a process for future modification of offset protocols, including:
○ Adaptation of existing carbon offset protocols in response to lessons learned in
California and Washington. For example, updating the existing Urban Forestry
Protocol, which is not currently implementable, to provide benefits in urban
communities hardest hit by facilities and pollution, and
○ Creation of new protocols to harness the climate mitigation potential of other
ecosystems and land uses, such as blue carbon or agriculture.
● Provide mechanisms for aggregation of landowners who would otherwise face barriers
to participation in carbon offsets—particularly Tribal Nations and small forest
landowners— in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land
owners of all sizes.
● Clarify the process for reducing offset limits in response to cumulative air pollution
burden in overburdened communities, including how data will be gathered and shared.
● Provide additional clarity and rigor around the concept and meaning of "additionality,"
particularly addressing the possibility that the use of offsets that are not truly additional
may result in emissions that actually exceed the cap.
I am concerned that linkage with California's program would allow its oversupply of banked allowances to flood Washington's market and diminish the efficacy of our program. Ecology should address these risks in the draft -446 rule.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important rulemaking.
No attachments

Comment From: Nicole Capizzi

7/15/22 @ 10:58 PM
Joshua Grice
Department of Ecology
Air Quality Program
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600

RE: Rule Development Phase � Public Comment Period (informal) on Chapter 173-446 WAC, Climate Commitment Act Program
SUBMITTED BY: Nicole Jain Capizzi

To best incen...↓

As an inspector for the Washington State Department of Agriculture's Organic Program for ten years and a small-scale farmer and cooperative extension farm educator for Washington State University and University of Wisconsin during the preceding ten years, I have served as an advisor and auditor to over five hundred small farm enterprises.

Even in the best of times, profit margins are incredibly thin for farmers, making it difficult to prioritize longer-term stewardship of soil and water over short-term production increases achieved from synthetic fertilizer use, heavy tillage, and other practices that deplete soil health. In contrast, practices like planting cover crops, reducing tillage, and applying compost build long term soil health but include additional upfront costs. The payoff from healthier soils, however, is more efficient use of water and nutrients; more resilience to drought, flood, and erosion; and more resistance to pest and disease issues. Building soil health also benefits the environment broadly by sequestering more carbon and protecting water quality.

Farmers are also interested in improving soil health. A 2022 study conducted by the Soil Health Institute, for example, showed that 66% of farmers surveyed were interested in the impact of agricultural inputs on soil health and indicated an interest in prioritizing practices that help them rely less on purchased fertilizer and pesticides and improve their underlying soil health.

However, farmers are hesitant to adopt these practices because of additional costs and risks inherent in transitioning to new farming methods. Access to emerging soil carbon offset projects can lower the risk of making that transition by offering an additional revenue stream.

Agriculture makes up approximately 14% of Washington state's economy, and the addition of a soil carbon offset to the Climate Commitment Act Program would provide more incentives for Washington's robust agriculture sector to transition to soil health practices that increase soil carbon sequestration and ultimately increase resilience to climate extremes.

Thank you for considering my recommendation to expand the carbon credit protocols included in the Climate Commitment Act Program to include soil carbon offset projects.

Sincerely,

Nicole Jain Capizzi
No attachments

Comment From: Sarah Askey

7/15/22 @ 10:57 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

My name is Sarah Askey and I'm a 26-year-old resident of Washington State. I'm really concerned about the climate crisis & the horrific impacts it will have on the future of my generation & all upcoming generations.

First of all, I real...↓

This legislation is so crucial � since the federal government has repeatedly failed to take any meaningful action on climate, it appears that state-level policy is our best chance at mitigating this rapidly developing emergency.

With the stakes being so high, it's really important that we get this legislation right. With that in mind, I would like to express a few concerns about the following areas of the draft program rule.

Environmental Justice Council

The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.�

Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
* Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
* How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
* Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
* What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.

Honoring Tribal Sovereignty

The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.

Pollution Allowances

Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.��

Offsets

Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.

The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
* Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
* Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.�

The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).

A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.�

The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.

Industrial forestry

Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.

Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.

Wood products

CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.

As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."�

Aggregation

2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.

California's buffer pools

Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.

Thank you for considering my concerns,
Sarah Askey
No attachments

Comment From: Samuel Askey

7/15/22 @ 10:49 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA.

However, as an enjoyer of Washington's outdoor...↓

Environmental Justice Council

The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.

Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
- Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
- How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
- Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
- What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.

Honoring Tribal Sovereignty

The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.
Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.

Offsets

Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.

The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
- Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
- Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).

A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.

Industrial forestry

Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.

Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.

Wood products

CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.

As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."

Aggregation

2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.

California's buffer pools

Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.

Thank you for considering my concerns,

Sincerely,
Samuel Askey
No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

7/15/22 @ 10:46 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA.

However, I have concerns related to the follow...↓

Environmental Justice Council

The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.

Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.

Honoring Tribal Sovereignty

The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.
Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.

Offsets

Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.

The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).

A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.

Industrial forestry

Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.

Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.

Wood products

CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.

As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."

Aggregation

2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.

California's buffer pools

Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.

Thank you for considering my concerns
No attachments

Comment From: Jonathan Askey

7/15/22 @ 10:41 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

My name is Jonathan Askey, I'm a Washington State resident. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to impl...↓

However, I have concerns related to the following areas of the draft program rule. As a young person, it's important to me that we are doing everything we can to preserve the planet for the future.

Environmental Justice Council

The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.

Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.

Honoring Tribal Sovereignty

The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.
Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.

Offsets

Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.

The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).

A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.

Industrial forestry

Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.

Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.

Wood products

CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.

As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."

Aggregation

2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.

California's buffer pools

Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.

Thank you for considering my concerns.
No attachments

Comment From: elyette weinstein

7/15/22 @ 10:30 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA.

However, I have concerns related to the follow...↓

Environmental Justice Council

The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.

Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.

Honoring Tribal Sovereignty

The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.
Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.

Offsets

Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.

The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).

A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.

Industrial forestry

Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.

Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.

Wood products

CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.

As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."

Aggregation

2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.

California's buffer pools

Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.

Thank you for considering my concerns,
No attachments

Comment From: Isaac Olson

7/15/22 @ 10:09 PM
I fully support implementing a cap-and-invest system in Washington state as it would allow for direct mitigative and adaptive actions to be taken in a way that continues to stimulate the economy, in addition to ensuring all money received is diverted...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Rebecca Cate

7/15/22 @ 10:09 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA.
However, as a long time Washington resident I ...↓
Environmental Justice Council
The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.
Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.
Honoring Tribal Sovereignty
The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.
Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.
Offsets
Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.
The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.
Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.
The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).
A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.
The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.
Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.
Industrial forestry
Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.
Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.
Wood products
CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.
As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."
Aggregation
2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.
California's buffer pools
Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.
Thank you for considering my concerns,
No attachments

Comment From: Mary Minton

7/15/22 @ 9:44 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

I endorse the following paper submitted with assist from 350 Seattle, but I would amend it to be five times more passionate and demanding. I live on the Olympic Peninsula with the complex conflicting values of logging needed for jobs ...↓

I endorse any and all responsible actions contained herein toward mitigating climate change. It is already too late for many concerns...PLEASE take the opportunity to step forward so we can have leaders to help us steer what is needed most the will to change. People are willing, people don't understand, but value Nature above most anything when asked. Do you? We need Leaders willing to Lead, the rest will be relieved to follow, because there are very few that are not worried about our climate. Think of our young people who border on hopelessness, with mental health issues multiplying exponentially. I know, as a Medical Social Worker, our population is becoming more and more fragile, in large part due to living in this growing angst. Please, be a Leader.
Enough. Thank you for listening
Respectfully,
Mary Minton, MSW, LICSW
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA.

However, I have concerns related to the following areas of the draft program rule.

Environmental Justice Council

The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.

Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.

Honoring Tribal Sovereignty

The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.
Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.

Offsets

Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.

The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).

A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.

Industrial forestry

Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.

Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.

Wood products

CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.

As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."

Aggregation

2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.

California's buffer pools

Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.

Thank you for considering my concerns,
No attachments

Comment From: Denny Evans

7/15/22 @ 9:34 PM
As a transplant to Port Angeles, and having lived for many years between the East Entrance of Yellowstone Park and Cody, Wyoming, I had been shocked and quite concerned by the lack of any local land management requirements regarding being able to fre...↓

I had the opportunity to partake in the recent Olympic Climate Action Meeting online, and was impressed with their dedication towards sharing skills and experience while also helping promote healthier habits towards strengthening climate and weakened ecosystems.

350 Seattle joined the meeting, proposing common sense stewardship goals meant to address healthy improvements after centuries of gross mismanagement policies to our land, sea, and natural resources. Inclusion of missing details is a benefit to all, therefore adopting all of 350 Seattle's research will certainly strengthen the Climate Commitment Act Rules.
No attachments

Comment From: Nicholas Geisse

7/15/22 @ 9:20 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA.
However, I have concerns related to the follow...↓
Environmental Justice Council
The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.
Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.
Honoring Tribal Sovereignty
The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.
Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.
Offsets
Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.
The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.
Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.
The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).
A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.
The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.
Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.
Industrial forestry
Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.
Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.
Wood products
CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.
As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."
Aggregation
2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.
California's buffer pools
Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.
Thank you for considering my concerns,
No attachments

Comment From: Michelle Geisse

7/15/22 @ 9:17 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA.
However, I have concerns related to the follow...↓
Environmental Justice Council
The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.
Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.
Honoring Tribal Sovereignty
The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.
Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.
Offsets
Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.
The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.
Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.
The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).
A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.
The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.
Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.
Industrial forestry
Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.
Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.
Wood products
CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.
As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."
Aggregation
2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.
California's buffer pools
Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.
Thank you for considering my concerns,

Michelle Onstot Geisse
No attachments

Comment From: Washington Trucking Associatio... (Sheri Call)

7/15/22 @ 9:13 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Cigdem Capan

7/15/22 @ 8:57 PM
I am a parent, an educator and a scientist worried about the decline in biodiversity and the accelerating pace of climate change. I appreciate the Department of Ecology's hard work to implement the CCA rule-making. I am very worried about the forest ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: CarbonPlan (Danny Cullenward)

7/15/22 @ 8:57 PM
Please find CarbonPlan's comments on the proposed adoption of California's forest carbon offset protocols in the attached PDF.
No attachments

Comment From: Mary Lou Johnson

7/15/22 @ 8:46 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

I am a mother, a grandmother and a person of faith. I am so pleased that Washington made history by passing the country's strongest law capping carbon pollution, the Climate Commitment Act (CCA). As a resident of the state, I am eager...↓

CCA rules must maintain the integrity of the cap. The ultimate goal of this law is to achieve our greenhouse gas limits and improve air quality, especially in overburdened communities. Ensuring that emissions do not exceed the cap is critical. When designing program details, maintaining the cap should be one of the primary goals.

CCA investments must prioritize significant improvements in air quality of overburdened communities, especially Black, Indigenous and communities of color. For too long, these communities have borne the brunt of air pollution and climate impacts. The CCA requires that a minimum of 35% of overall investments directly benefit these communities. These investments must be thoughtfully designed with community input to ensure benefits are meaningful.

CCA's implementation process must collaborate with the Environmental Justice (EJ) Council and with overburdened communities. The rule should provide more clarity on how the Council and communities will be engaged in the development and implementation of the full program. Ecology should work with the EJ Council to determine the best processes for collaboration.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Best Regards, Mary Lou Johnson
No attachments

Comment From: Janice Hedstrom

7/15/22 @ 8:45 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

Washington made history by passing the country's strongest law capping carbon pollution, the Climate Commitment Act (CCA). As a resident of the state, I am eager to see the benefits including deep reductions in climate pollution, impro...↓

CCA rules must maintain the integrity of the cap. The ultimate goal of this law is to achieve our greenhouse gas limits and improve air quality, especially in overburdened communities. Ensuring that emissions do not exceed the cap is critical. When designing program details, maintaining the cap should be one of the primary goals.

CCA investments must prioritize significant improvements in air quality of overburdened communities, especially Black, Indigenous and communities of color. For too long, these communities have borne the brunt of air pollution and climate impacts. The CCA requires that a minimum of 35% of overall investments directly benefit these communities. These investments must be thoughtfully designed with community input to ensure benefits are meaningful.

CCA's implementation process must collaborate with the Environmental Justice (EJ) Council and with overburdened communities. The rule should provide more clarity on how the Council and communities will be engaged in the development and implementation of the full program. Ecology should work with the EJ Council to determine the best processes for collaboration.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Sincerely, Janice Hedstrom
No attachments

Comment From: Don Hedstrom

7/15/22 @ 8:44 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

Washington made history by passing the country's strongest law capping carbon pollution, the Climate Commitment Act (CCA). As a resident of the state, I am eager to see the benefits including deep reductions in climate pollution, impro...↓

CCA rules must maintain the integrity of the cap. The ultimate goal of this law is to achieve our greenhouse gas limits and improve air quality, especially in overburdened communities. Ensuring that emissions do not exceed the cap is critical. When designing program details, maintaining the cap should be one of the primary goals.

CCA investments must prioritize significant improvements in air quality of overburdened communities, especially Black, Indigenous and communities of color. For too long, these communities have borne the brunt of air pollution and climate impacts. The CCA requires that a minimum of 35% of overall investments directly benefit these communities. These investments must be thoughtfully designed with community input to ensure benefits are meaningful.

CCA's implementation process must collaborate with the Environmental Justice (EJ) Council and with overburdened communities. The rule should provide more clarity on how the Council and communities will be engaged in the development and implementation of the full program. Ecology should work with the EJ Council to determine the best processes for collaboration.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Sincerely, Don Hedstrom
No attachments

Comment From: Jeffrey Watson

7/15/22 @ 8:44 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA.

However, as a lifelong resident I have concern...↓

Environmental Justice Council

The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.

Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.

Honoring Tribal Sovereignty

The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.
Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.

Offsets

Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.

The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).

A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.

Industrial forestry

Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.

Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.

Wood products

CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.

As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."

Aggregation

2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.

California's buffer pools

Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.

Thank you for considering my concerns,
No attachments

Comment From: John Evans

7/15/22 @ 8:35 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

I am a scientist who has worked as an environmental chemist, among other things, as the Chief Scientist for the Hanford Groundwater Monitoring Program in Washington State.

I have concerns about the extremely high level of emissions that...↓

Furthermore, the ratcheting downward by 3% is trivial over the specified future time periods, according to a study conducted by Community Energy reSource as documented in their report entitled Exposing False Solutions: How Washington's Cap and Trade Program Gives Industrial Polluters a Free Pass.

I also concur with the comments submitted by Seattle's 350.org.

I appreciate your consideration of my comments. We have experienced just last year, the deaths of hundreds of people and billions of marine fauna due to the heat dome (Heat Dome? When was that a thing?). Do you think that all these emerging catastrophes will be one-offs?
No attachments

Comment From: Emily Simmons

7/15/22 @ 8:07 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA.

However, I have concerns related to the follow...↓

Environmental Justice Council

The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.

Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.

Honoring Tribal Sovereignty

The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.

Pollution Allowances

Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.

Offsets

Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.

The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).

A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.

Industrial forestry

Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.

Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.

Wood products

CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.

As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."

Aggregation

2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.

California's buffer pools

Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.

Thank you for considering my concerns,
Emily Simmons
No attachments

Comment From: Alex Fay

7/15/22 @ 7:51 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA.

However, I have concerns related to the follow...↓

Environmental Justice Council

The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.

Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.

Honoring Tribal Sovereignty

The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.
Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.

Offsets

Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.

The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).

A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.

Industrial forestry

Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.

Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.

Wood products

CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.

As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."

Aggregation

2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.

California's buffer pools

Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.

Thank you for considering my concerns,
Alex Fay
No attachments

Comment From: Ann Dorsey

7/15/22 @ 7:50 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA.

However, I have concerns related to the follow...↓

Environmental Justice Council

The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.

Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.

Honoring Tribal Sovereignty

The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.
Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.

Offsets

Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.

The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).

A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.

Industrial forestry

Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.

Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.

Wood products

CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.

As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."

Aggregation

2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.

California's buffer pools

Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.

Thank you for considering my concerns,

Ann Dorsey
No attachments

Comment From: Maradel Gale

7/15/22 @ 7:45 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: International Emissions Tradin... (Clayton Munnings)

7/15/22 @ 7:41 PM
Comment letter from IETA and report from IETA-EDF attached.
Attachments:
Download
Download

Comment From: Beatrice Pogin

7/15/22 @ 7:26 PM
more publicity and encouragement for public transportation and other buses. And $ raise, rewards for drivers of. (as contrasted and discouragement for one person riding around by self as default) Encouragement, funding of all schools, schooling sci...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Grays Harbor Energy, LLC (Orijit Ghoshal)

7/15/22 @ 7:14 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Alliance of Western Energy Con... (Brandon Houskeeper)

7/15/22 @ 7:07 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: John Frasca

7/15/22 @ 7:04 PM
The climate crisis is also a health crisis
No attachments

Comment From: Puget Sound Energy, Avista Cor... (Scott Novak)

7/15/22 @ 7:01 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Puget Sound Energy, Avista Cor... (Scott Novak)

7/15/22 @ 6:58 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: AdaMarie Marrs

7/15/22 @ 6:58 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA.

I was born and raised in the logging country o...↓

In that spirit, I have concerns related to the following areas of the draft program rule.

Environmental Justice Council

The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.

Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.

Honoring Tribal Sovereignty

The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.
Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.

Offsets

Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.

The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).

A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.

Industrial forestry

Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.

Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.

Wood products

CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.

As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."

Aggregation

2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.

California's buffer pools

Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.

Thank you for considering my concerns,
No attachments

Comment From: M. Canny

7/15/22 @ 6:06 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

Washington made history by passing the country's strongest law capping carbon pollution, the Climate Commitment Act (CCA). As a resident of the state, I am eager to see the benefits including deep reductions in climate pollution, impro...↓

CCA rules must maintain the integrity of the cap. The ultimate goal of this law is to achieve our greenhouse gas limits and improve air quality, especially in overburdened communities. Ensuring that emissions do not exceed the cap is critical. When designing program details, maintaining the cap should be one of the primary goals.

CCA investments must prioritize significant improvements in air quality of overburdened communities, especially Black, Indigenous and communities of color. For too long, these communities have borne the brunt of air pollution and climate impacts. The CCA requires that a minimum of 35% of overall investments directly benefit these communities. These investments must be thoughtfully designed with community input to ensure benefits are meaningful.

CCA's implementation process must collaborate with the Environmental Justice (EJ) Council and with overburdened communities. The rule should provide more clarity on how the Council and communities will be engaged in the development and implementation of the full program. Ecology should work with the EJ Council to determine the best processes for collaboration.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Sincerely, M. Canny
No attachments

Comment From: Wildlife Forever Fund

7/15/22 @ 5:39 PM
Joshua Grice
Washington State Department of Ecology – Air Quality Program
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600

Dear Mr. Grice,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. We appreciate the hard work...↓

As funders of Washington State environmental preservation and conservation efforts for decades, and as inhabitants of Washington for even more years, we care deeply about the trajectory towards a shared clean and healthy future, for local and regional people and all other species. "Sustainability" may be interpreted as giving to the future from the past, or perhaps not taking from the future for today, and this rulemaking process here today is our opportunity to see that we in our State, can accomplish this goal.

In that vein, we humbly request that the CCA rule implementation consider the following precepts to fully enact our responsibility to the future, planning for 7 generations to come:

Environmental Justice Council

Allow adequate time for the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) to construct the draft program rules to define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.

Examples would be:

Collect air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to remediating and protecting emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
Facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions;
Ensure the cap-and-invest program avoids negative impacts to overburdened communities and describe and publicize how information will be gathered and used to fulfill that responsibility.

Honoring Tribal Sovereignty

Incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.

Pollution Allowances

Strict pollution allowances should be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program.

Oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. The Utilities and Transportation Commission should report and be responsible for adhering to the new rule, for its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.

Offsets

Offsets and allowances, even if declining, still allow polluters to continue polluting. The program rule should establish a process to evaluate the impact of offsets for those communities who do not directly benefit from the offset activity and how pollution impacts can be mitigated and reduced for all areas and residents of our State.

Criteria should be set for the selection of offset protocols, including clearly defining risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm".

Questions to ask: Is there leakage in the offset protocol system? Are credits being falsely issued? Are they being overestimated? Are incentives being created that do not reflect climate and other pollution-reduction benefits?

Adequate Forestry Protocol

The proposed forestry standard, as we understand, are the California's ARB Urban Forest Protocols from 2011, and should be replaced with the strong protocol of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification, which should be required for all State forests and forestry, and when possible, on privately owned and harvested forests, as well.

Additionally, any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets, to aggregate their offset offerings—particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners—in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.

Thank you for considering our requests,

Anne Kroeker and Richard Leeds
Co-presidents Wildlife Forever Fund
No attachments

Comment From: E Welch

7/15/22 @ 5:36 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

I am using the template below because it is a sufficient representation of my sentiments. I am the mother of 3 children and want our country and our state to do better with regards to actions surrounding the urgency of climate change a...↓

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA.
However, I have concerns related to the following areas of the draft program rule.
Environmental Justice Council
The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.
Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.
Honoring Tribal Sovereignty
The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.
Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.
Offsets
Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.
The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.
Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.
The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).
A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.
The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.
Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.
Industrial forestry
Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.
Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.
Wood products
CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.
As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."
Aggregation
2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.
California's buffer pools
Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.
Thank you for considering my concerns,
No attachments

Comment From: Carmen Germain

7/15/22 @ 5:35 PM
The Foundation of the Climate Act is a viable starting point, but the Act needs attention to details that comprise tribal input in a meaningful way.
No attachments

Comment From: Leslie Kreher

7/15/22 @ 5:29 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA.

However, I have concerns related to the follow...↓

Environmental Justice Council

The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.

Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.

Honoring Tribal Sovereignty

The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.
Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.

Offsets

Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.

The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).

A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.

Industrial forestry

Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.

Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.

Wood products

CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.

As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."

Aggregation

2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.

California's buffer pools

Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.

Thank you for considering my concerns
No attachments

Comment From: Leo Kucewicz

7/15/22 @ 5:23 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA.

However, as a concerned citizen and American, ...↓

Environmental Justice Council

The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.

Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.

Honoring Tribal Sovereignty

The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.
Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.

Offsets

Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.

The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).

A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.

Industrial forestry

Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.

Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so-called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.

Wood products

CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However, some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.

As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."

Aggregation

2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.

California's buffer pools

Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.

Thank you for considering my concerns,


Leo Kucewicz
No attachments

Comment From: M Aufrecht

7/15/22 @ 5:05 PM
Regarding: Rulemaking - Chapter 173-446 WAC, Climate Commitment Act Program

Thank you for moving forward on reducing emissions and stabilizing our climate. Proper action now can save money in the long-run by reducing the harmful effects of extreme cli...↓

I am sure you are getting lots of great feedback on the details of CCA and I hope you will take it into consideration.

In particular, be sure to include representatives from diverse communities, front-line communities, and tribal councils.

And take steps to ensure transparency and oversight so that the important goals of the CCA are realized.

Thank you!

-M. Aufrecht

*For example, I'm currently paying to remove a tree above my home that has perished because of extreme heat and lack of rain. Under historic climate conditions in the Pacific Northwest, this tree could have lived and thrived for another hundred years or more.

Rising food prices are due, in part, to droughts reaching historic levels around the world. ("Drought's Toll on U.S. Agriculture Points to Even-Higher Food Prices" Wall Street Journal). CCA is an essential move forward to temper future droughts, save the trees we still have, and reduce overall costs in the long-term.
Attachments:

Comment From: Robert Sappington

7/15/22 @ 4:43 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Lucinda Stroud

7/15/22 @ 4:36 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA.

However, I have concerns related to the follow...↓

Environmental Justice Council

The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.

Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.

Honoring Tribal Sovereignty

The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.
Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.

Offsets

Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.

The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).

A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.

Industrial forestry

Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.

Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.

Wood products

CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.

As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."

Aggregation

2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.

California's buffer pools

Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.

Thank you for considering my concerns,

Lucinda Stroud
No attachments

Comment From: Puyallup Tribe of Indians (Dawn Vyvyan)

7/15/22 @ 4:36 PM
In the definition of "Overburdened community," after the words "treaty rights," the words "in ceded areas" should be deleted as unnecessary and potentially confusing or under-inclusive:

Overburdened community" includes, but is not limited to:

(a) Highl...↓

(b) Communities located in census tracts that are fully or partially on "Indian country" as defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1151; and

(c) Populations, including Native Americans or immigrant populations, who may be exposed to environmental contaminants and pollutants outside of the geographic area in which they reside based on the population's use of traditional or cultural foods and practices, such as the use of resources, access to which is protected under treaty rights DELETE "in ceded areas", when those exposures in conjunction with other exposures may result in disproportionately greater risks, including risks of certain cancers or other adverse health effects and outcomes.

(d) Overburdened communities identified by ecology shall include the same communities as those identified by ecology through its process for identifying overburdened communities under RCW 70A.02.010.
No attachments

Comment From: Camille Baldwin-Bonney

7/15/22 @ 4:32 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I am a Washington resident and mother of two and very proud to be in a state where we take the climate crisis seriously. I appreciate ...↓

However, I have concerns related to the following areas of the draft program rule.

I am concerned that the timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) time to fully evaluate disparate impacts of climate on communities of color.

The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.

I am wary of offsets. They are often heavily influenced by industry. There is a lot to be learned from the mistakes California made in regard to offsets. We should adopt new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions.

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is. A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods. It is imperative that credits are issued for natural forests (not industry forests) because it is imperative that credits are issued for forests where carbon sequestration is happening.

Thank you,

Camille
No attachments

Comment From: Derek Benedict

7/15/22 @ 4:32 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

As a parent of children who enjoy the great outdoors and all of the wonders that it provides us, I want to thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work t...↓

However, I have concerns related to the following areas of the draft program rule.

Environmental Justice Council

The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.

Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.

Honoring Tribal Sovereignty

The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.
Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.

Offsets

Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.

The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).

A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.

Industrial forestry

Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.

Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.

Wood products

CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.

As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."

Aggregation

2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.

California's buffer pools

Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.

Thank you for considering my concerns,

Derek Benedict
No attachments

Comment From: Jeanne Poirier

7/15/22 @ 4:20 PM
While I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA. I have concerns related to the following areas of the draft program rule.

Environmental Justice Council
The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow...↓

Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.

Honoring Tribal Sovereignty
The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.

Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.��

Offsets
Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.

The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.�

The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).

A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.�

The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuineness. Credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.

Industrial forestry
Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.

Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.

Wood products
CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.

As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."�

Aggregation
2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.

California's buffer pools
Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule.
No attachments

Comment From: Global Ocean Health/NFCC, join... (Brad Warren)

7/15/22 @ 3:58 PM
This comment is joined by Erling Skaar, Owner of FV North American and Gentech Global, Seattle; and Nikolai Sivertson of Sivertstol Consulting, Seattle.
No attachments

Comment From: Sally Bartow

7/15/22 @ 3:55 PM
Policymakers, please consider that your present decisions potentially impact many generations. Think of the people, the plants, and the animals your decisions will impact. While prioritizing our current climate emergency, plan for many generations fr...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Washington State Attorney Gene... (Brice Hartman)

7/15/22 @ 3:50 PM
The Washington State Attorney General's Office, Public Counsel Unit files Comments on the Rulemaking - Chapter 173-446 WAC, Climate Commitment Act Program. Please see the attached letter.
Attachments:

Comment From: Cynthia Jatul

7/15/22 @ 3:45 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA. As a parent of young adults and a recently r...↓

I have concerns related to the following areas of the draft program rule.

Environmental Justice Council

The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.

Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.

Honoring Tribal Sovereignty

The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.
Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.

Offsets

Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.

The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).

A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.

Industrial forestry

Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.

Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.

Wood products

CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.

As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."

Aggregation

2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.

California's buffer pools

Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.

Thank you for considering my concerns,
Cynthia Jatul
Seattle
No attachments

Comment From: Arvia Morris

7/15/22 @ 3:44 PM
Comments from Arvia E. Morris see attached file
Attachments:

Comment From: Tracy Banaszynski

7/15/22 @ 3:33 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA.

However, as a parent to a 10 year old who will...↓

Environmental Justice Council

The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.

Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.

Honoring Tribal Sovereignty

The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.
Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.

Offsets

Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.

The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).

A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.

Industrial forestry

Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.

Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.

Wood products

CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.

As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."

Aggregation

2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.

California's buffer pools

Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.

Thank you for considering my concerns,
Tracy Banaszynski
No attachments

Comment From: Dolores Kueffler

7/15/22 @ 3:29 PM
I am strongly in support of this ruling. We cannot continue "business as usual". Our climate is in crisis!
I am particularly concerned with how pollution affects peoples of color, who always seem to get the worst end of the deal. Please create the str...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Jesse Wiley

7/15/22 @ 3:26 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA.

However, I have concerns related to the follow...↓

Environmental Justice Council

The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.

Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.

Honoring Tribal Sovereignty

The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.
Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.

Offsets

Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.

The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).

A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.

Industrial forestry

Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.

Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.

Wood products

CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.

As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."

Aggregation

2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.

California's buffer pools

Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.

Thank you for considering my concerns,
Jesse Wiley
No attachments

Comment From: Association of Washington Busi... (Peter Godlewski )

7/15/22 @ 3:20 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: AAA Washington (Laura Ray)

7/15/22 @ 3:10 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

Washington made history by passing the country's strongest law capping carbon pollution, the Climate Commitment Act (CCA). AAA Washington is eager to see the benefits: deep reductions in climate pollution, improved air quality, investm...↓

AAA Washington supports reasonable, fair and effective means of preserving our environment, including those designed to reduce motor vehicle-caused pollution. We are backing the CCA as truly transformational for Washington and a model for other states, so long as the proposed rules do the following:

1. Incentivize cutting pollution: AAA supports electric vehicle government policies and programs that both achieve climate change goals and preserve and enhance equitable access to clean, safe, reliable and affordable personal passenger vehicles or other transportation options that meet diverse mobility needs. AAA would like to see the government encourage carpools and public transportation by making them more accessible and convenient and by providing incentives for drivers.

2. Invest in clean energy and clean transportation: AAA urges a focus on efforts to reduce the emissions of heavy-duty vehicles such as trucks and buses. Such efforts might include improving fuels and technology, warranties on emission systems, and inspection/maintenance programs if they are shown to be effective in reducing emissions.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Sincerely,

Laura Ray
Vice President, Corporate Affairs, Environmental and Social and Governance
AAA Washington
No attachments

Comment From: Finite Carbon (Sarah Wescott)

7/15/22 @ 3:03 PM
July 15, 2022

Joshua Grice
Department of Ecology
Air Quality Program
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600

Submitted online

RE: Rulemaking - Chapter 173-446 WAC, Climate Commitment Act Program


Dear Washington Department of Ecology,
Thank you for the opportun...↓

1. Direct environmental benefits to the state.
The current proposed rule requires all credits to provide direct environmental benefits to the state ("DEBS") unless the state establishes a linkage with another program. The rules pertaining to DEBS clarify that projects located outside the geographic boundaries of the state may apply for DEBS consideration with the submission of the first offset project data report (OPDR). However, in the absence of a linkage there seems to be no market for non-DEBS credits, so applying for DEBS consideration at the time of OPDR submittal introduces significant risk to project development. At this stage, a forest project will have already undergone a feasibility assessment, full inventory, and significant development work to generate the project listing documents and OPDR. If this rule remains as written, we believe the uncertainty of the application process coupled with the mandate for 100% DEBS credits would drive any out-of-state projects toward California's compliance program, where there is a potential market for non-DEBS credits. We request that Ecology consider an application process that would allow for a DEBS determination to be made earlier in the project development process, such as prior to or during listing of the project.

2. Participation of tribes.
The offset usage limits described in WAC 173-446-600 specify separate limits for projects taking place on tribal and non-tribal lands. For instance, during the first compliance period, 5% of an entity's compliance obligation may be satisfied with credits from projects on non-tribal lands, and an additional 3% may be satisfied using credits from projects on tribal lands. Does this mean that an entity could not choose to source all of their offset credits from projects on tribal lands (or, in other words, that in doing so they would be limited to 3% of their obligation, rather than 8%)? Our understanding was that the intent here was to provide entities an additional incentive to use tribal credits, by expanding the offset usage limit in those cases. However, a strict read of the language here seems to indicate that this rule could in fact constrain the use of offset credits from tribal projects. If we are correctly understanding the intent, perhaps the language can be amended to state X% of a compliance obligation may be satisfied with any credits (from projects on tribal or non-tribal land), while an additional Y% may come exclusively from projects on tribal land. We also note that this section of the rule specifically refers to federally-recognized tribes. We request that Ecology consider expanding this to include any tribal lands.
Lastly, pertaining to tribal participation, WAC 173-446-505 strikes and modifies language from various California compliance protocols to make the protocols relevant to Washington's program. This includes striking references to the waiver of sovereign immunity requirement used in California's program for the livestock, ozone depleting substances (ODS), and urban forest protocols. However, this language is not modified in reference to the US forest protocol (WAC 173-446-505 (3)(b)). Does Ecology intend to utilize a waiver of sovereign immunity for forest projects? There does not appear to be reference to this anywhere else in the rule, so it seems like a potential oversight requiring clarification: will tribes be required to include a limited waiver of sovereign immunity as part of any offset project within the cap and invest program? For some tribes, this type of agreement is a dealbreaker for participating in an offset project. We would caution Ecology from adopting a similar waiver, if possible, as this has created a barrier to entry in California's program.

3. Adopted offset protocols and barriers to entry.
The draft rule for the cap-and-invest program currently proposes minimum standards for offset protocols, while specifically adopting the livestock, US forest, ODS, and urban forest protocols from California's compliance offset program. It appears that Ecology is considering adopting all versions of these protocols (for instance, US forest has 2011, 2014, and 2015 published versions). Will the earlier (2011 and 2014) versions simply be adopted to provide projects the opportunity to transfer into Washington's program, or will project proponents have the option to select their version of choice from any of the three?
In the time since the 2015 US forest protocol was adopted, a number of advancements have been made in the carbon market, particularly around the use of remote sensing to support project monitoring, reporting, and verification. The nature of the California program � which relies on ground-based inventories for forest projects, extensive on-site verification requirements with little room for variation, and a lengthy audit process by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) � has driven up the cost of project development in the compliance market. This has led to the exclusion of smaller landowners in the market, who typically cannot achieve the scale required to develop a financially feasible project. We applaud Ecology for the inclusion of aggregation, as described in WAC 173-446-020, as this will go a long way toward improving the feasibility of small-landowner projects. However, we encourage Ecology to consider making further adjustments to this US forest offset protocol to improve usability. For instance, California's offset protocol task force detailed a number of recommendations that may be useful to consider for improving the efficiency of MRV under the forest offset protocol without sacrificing quality of projects .
California's US forest offset protocol, proposed for adoption under Washington's cap-and-invest program, includes harvest restrictions that may serve as an additional barrier to entry for Washington landowners. Based on the protocol's California origins, limitations around even-aged management in the protocol were heavily influenced by the California Forest Practice Rules. The protocol requires that even-aged harvest units not exceed 40 acres in total area (Section 3.1(a)(4)(A)). This policy may be incompatible with the forest management plans for certain Washington landowners. We suggest Ecology consider an alternative approach that is more tailored to forest management practices in Washington.
Lastly, we note that in WAC 173-446-510, Ecology has taken care to apply definitions and requirements for offset protocols that are consistent with California's cap-and-trade regulation. We support this consistency to ensure the rigor of any future adopted protocols. Of particular importance is the definition and application of any additionality requirements. The draft program rule refers to GHG emission reductions and removal enhancements that "would not otherwise occur in a conservative business-as-usual scenario." "Conservative" and "business-as-usual scenario" are both defined terms under the California cap-and-trade regulation. We recommend Ecology further define these terms to reduce the potential for misinterpretation and to ensure consistency with California's terms. We believe consistency in these key principles for high-quality offsets (real, quantifiable, permanent, verifiable, enforceable, and additional) will help pave the way for a compatible linkage between the two jurisdictions, which would be a valuable step forward for both programs.

4. Participation of public lands.
As written, California's US forest protocol currently is not functional for public landowners wishing to undertake IFM projects. If Washington is interested in allowing for projects to take place on state and municipal public lands, we recommend revising that section of the US forest protocol, or to consider adopting a separate protocol pertaining specifically to public lands.

5. Project review timing and transparency.
Washington's proposed offset program is modeled on California's program, with a similar process for having Ecology review projects following verification by an accredited verification body, as well as review by an approved offset project registry (OPR). In California's program, the final step in which the CARB reviews project documents prior to issuance of credits has created significant delays in the program. These reviews often amount to a full audit of the project and in some cases, projects have waited well over a year between issuance of registry offset credits and issuance of ARB offset credits. While we recognize the benefit in having parity between the two programs, particularly if Washington intends to link with California's program at some point in the future, we urge Ecology to seek to improve efficiencies in these final reviews conducted by Ecology staff. It is important that all projects be carefully reviewed and subjected to the same level of scrutiny, but this can be done within reasonable timelines to prevent severe backlogs in credit issuances.
Another challenge that has arisen in California's program is related to the distribution of guidance. The policies in cap-and-invest rule, as well as the various offset protocols, will be subject to some level of interpretation. In the California compliance offset program, requests for guidance are typically provided to OPR staff. If OPR staff are not able to directly respond to the request based on past guidance from CARB, then the issue is elevated to a discussion with CARB. CARB staff respond verbally to OPR staff, who then disseminate the guidance back to project developers or verifiers. This process has been incredibly inefficient and has led to a lack of transparency in the program. There have been instances in which CARB staff have revised guidance over time, which has led to confusion among project developers, since the verbal nature of the guidance means there is little � if any � paper trail. This has also created some inequities in the market, as project developers sometimes only learn of relevant guidance if they think to ask the right question, and other market participants often learn of the relevant guidance at a later date. We strongly encourage Ecology to consider sharing guidance in writing to improve transparency and equity in the market.

6. More natured based solutions (NBS) will make the program stronger.
Enhancing and leveraging offsets outside Washington's capped sector will allow regulated entities more flexibility while making the transition to non-carbon energy sources. The multiple benefits of NBS are not limited to sequestering carbon, particularly when located near frontline communities. Offset projects can create numerous co-benefits, including air and water quality enhancement, job creation, and direct investment in disenfranchised communities. When considering additional offset protocols, we urge Ecology to consider other NBS project types, such as grassland conservation, soil organic carbon enhancement, and biochar.
There are also numerous new protocols adopted by voluntary registries that if adopted by Ecology would increase access for Washington citizens and landowners to generate nature-based carbon offsets and participate in the cap-and-invest program. Some of these cater to specific landowner classes (like the American Carbon Registry's methodology for Improved Forest Management on Small Non-Industrial Private Forestlands), while others seek to improve upon project types that are underrepresented in the market (like Climate Forward's Reforestation Forecast Methodology and Verra's new pending Methodology for Afforestation, Reforestation, and Revegetation Projects). We encourage Ecology to review some of these protocols available in the voluntary market for potential adoption into the Washington compliance offset program, for the benefit of Washington's citizens.
We thank you for your consideration and would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Sincerely,

Sarah Wescott
Director of Methodologies
Finite Carbon Corporation
Sarah.wescott@finitecarbon.com
Attachments:

Comment From: The Tulalip Tribes (Steve Hinton )

7/15/22 @ 3:01 PM
No attachments

Comment From: CenTrio Energy (Clarence Clipper)

7/15/22 @ 3:00 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Elizabeth Nelson

7/15/22 @ 2:59 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA.

However, I share many of 350 Seattle's concern...↓

--Environmental Justice Council--
The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.

Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:

- Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;

- How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;

- Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";

- What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.

--Honoring Tribal Sovereignty--
The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.

--Pollution Allowances--
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.

--Offsets--
Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.

The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:

- Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).

- Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).

A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.

--Industrial forestry--
Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.

Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so-called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.

To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.

Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.

--Wood products--
CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.

As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."

--Aggregation--
2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.

--California's buffer pools--
Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.

Thank you for considering my concerns.
No attachments

Comment From: The Energy Project (Yochanan Zakai)

7/15/22 @ 2:58 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Clean and Prosperous Institute (Kevin Tempest)

7/15/22 @ 2:57 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Northwest Pipeline (Scott Peters)

7/15/22 @ 2:55 PM
Williams Northwest Pipeline, an interstate natural gas transmission pipeline company whose system extends from the San Juan Basin in northwestern New Mexico to the Canadian border in Washington, respectfully offers these comments and questions regard...↓

1. The covered emissions calculation and reporting obligation for interstate pipelines in the draft rule is unclear. Covered emissions calculation methodology for suppliers in WAC 173-446-040 references the reportable GHG emission calculation methodology under WAC 173-441-122. This methodology is based on EPA GHG Reporting Program 40 CFR Part 98 Subpart NN for NGL fractionators and local natural gas distribution companies. The volume balance calculation approach in WAC 173-441-122 (4)(b)(viii) adopted from Subpart NN does not include inputs nor specific methodologies for interstate pipelines. Additionally, the reporting requirements for interstate pipelines under 173-441-122 (4)(d) only require interstate pipeline operators to report deliveries to "each customer." Is the intention of the draft rule for interstate pipelines to only report natural gas delivered in Washington as covered emissions?

2. Williams is concerned that total program baseline emissions as determined under WAC 173-446-200 and allocation of baselines for suppliers of natural gas under WAC 173-446-240 have not considered covered emissions from interstate pipelines. As conversations with Ecology regarding interstate pipeline emissions began after the proposed reporting deadline of March 31, 2022, Williams requests the reporting deadline be extended so that emissions from interstate pipelines can be further evaluated by Williams and Ecology for inclusion in the program baseline.

3. Allocation of no cost allowances to suppliers of natural gas in WAC 173-446-240 appears to only apply to "natural gas utilities". Are interstate pipelines intentionally excluded from no cost allowance allocations in the draft rule?
No attachments

Comment From: Joint Comments- Grant, Cowlitz... (Melissa Lyons)

7/15/22 @ 2:49 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Washington Environmental Counc... (Rachel Baker)

7/15/22 @ 2:47 PM
Please see the attached PDF for WEC and TNC Washington's comments on the aspects of rulemaking related to offsets.
Attachments:

Comment From: PacifiCorp

7/15/22 @ 2:44 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: City of Enumclaw (Ed Hawthorne)

7/15/22 @ 2:42 PM
Attachments:
Download
Download

Comment From: California Independent System ... (Sarah Kozal)

7/15/22 @ 2:38 PM
Comments of the California ISO on Rulemaking - Chapter 173-446 WAC, Climate Commitment Act Program
Attachments:

Comment From: Peter Lennon

7/15/22 @ 2:35 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA.

However, I have concerns related to the follow...↓

Environmental Justice Council

The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.

Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.

Honoring Tribal Sovereignty

The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.
Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.

Offsets

Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.

The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).

A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.

Industrial forestry

Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.

Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.

Wood products

CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.

As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."

Aggregation

2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.

California's buffer pools

Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.

Thank you for considering my concerns,
Peter Lennon
No attachments

Comment From: Climate Solutions (Kelly Hall)

7/15/22 @ 2:35 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Pamela Ng

7/15/22 @ 2:30 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA.

However, I have concerns related to the follow...↓

Environmental Justice Council

The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.

Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.

Honoring Tribal Sovereignty

The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.
Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.

Offsets

Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.

The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).

A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.

Industrial forestry

Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.

Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.

Wood products

CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.

As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."

Aggregation

2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.

California's buffer pools

Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.

The people are rather dependent on your decisions.

Thanks for considering my concerns,
Pamela Ng
No attachments

Comment From: Jennifer Valentine

7/15/22 @ 2:30 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA.

However, I have concerns related to the follow...↓

Environmental Justice Council

The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.

Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.

Honoring Tribal Sovereignty

The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.
Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.

Offsets

Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.

The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).

A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.

Industrial forestry

Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.

Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.

Wood products

CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.

As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."

Aggregation

2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.

California's buffer pools

Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.

Thank you for considering my concerns,
No attachments

Comment From: The Boeing Company (Steven Shestag)

7/15/22 @ 2:19 PM
Please see attached comments on behalf of The Boeing Company.
Attachments:

Comment From: Heather Bergey

7/15/22 @ 2:18 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

I am writing to comment on the CCA Program Rule WAC-173-446 and look forward to what positive environmental effects can come from certain changes to it following passage.

My concerns regard Tribal Sovereignty, offset programs, and the a...↓

Knowing that Dept of Ecology has an obligation to collaborate and consult Tribal Nations, I think the program rule should make this extremely clear. I worked in the Cedar River Watershed and learned about the relationship City of Seattle has with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe; it is good that this good relationship exists but I strongly believe they need to have more authority in decisions regarding the watershed. I expect this increased involvement for the new CCA and to be explicit in the rule.

My issue with offsets is this: they move the pollution elsewhere and allow organizations to continue polluting while appearing to be off the hook for their emissions. Strict oversight is required to ensure this program does not allow polluters off the hook for their emissions and I believe the rule should allow for possibility of new guidance on offsets including measures to counter issues similar to those raised in CA with their tree offset program.

This brings me to my final concern that I'll highlight in this comment: the adoption of the CA forestry protocol. I think there are very serious issues with the program in how it allows loggers to still log the same amount just in different areas, similar to how offset programs tend to just move the issue. Even worse, as is, sneaky 'book keeping' is allowed so that sites that would have *never* been logged are marketed as 'saved sites' which again allows logging companies leverage to create a new offset site elsewhere. This is a SERIOUS issue with the program. Please investigate the efficacy of this program before fully adopting it; it is not one I wish for the state that I love and reside in. I hope that you take this concern seriously, and implement measures to accurately record the emissions of logging practices.

I work in construction and so I understand the need for logging; I am not asking logging practices to stop but to ensure the sustainability of this state's wonderful forests, including its old growth forests which are dwindling. These forests sequester so much carbon and provide necessary habitat for the states native plants and animals.


Thank you for your time and work,


Heather Bergey
No attachments

Comment From: Western States Petroleum Assoc... (Tanya DeRivi)

7/15/22 @ 2:09 PM
Please see attached comment letter from the Western States Petroleum Association.
Attachments:

Comment From: Washington Refuse & Recycling ... (Rod Whittaker)

7/15/22 @ 1:58 PM
Attachments:
Download
Download

Comment From: Washington Policy Center (Todd Myers)

7/15/22 @ 1:50 PM
Our comments on the proposed rule to implement the Climate Commitment Act (CCA) are attached. If there is any problem with the file or if anything is unclear, please let us know by emailing Todd Myers at tmyers@washingtonpolicy.org.

Thank you.
Attachments:

Comment From: Municipality (Marlene Feist)

7/15/22 @ 1:47 PM
Please see attached comments.
Attachments:

Comment From: Environmental Defense Fund (Kjellen Belcher)

7/15/22 @ 1:37 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Western Power Trading Forum (Clare Breidenich)

7/15/22 @ 1:35 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Daniel Zizza

7/15/22 @ 1:35 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA.

However, I have concerns related to the follow...↓

Environmental Justice Council

The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.

Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.

Honoring Tribal Sovereignty

The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.
Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.

Offsets

Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.

The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).

A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.

Industrial forestry

Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.

Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.

Wood products

CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.

As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."

Aggregation

2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.

California's buffer pools

Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.

Thank you for considering my concerns,
No attachments

Comment From: WaferTech LLC (Sally Hurst)

7/15/22 @ 1:34 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Julia Smith

7/15/22 @ 1:31 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA.

As a resident of the North Olympic Peninsula, ...↓

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.�

The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).

A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.�

The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.

Industrial forestry

Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.

Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.

Wood products

CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.

As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."�


Environmental Justice Council

The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.�

Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;(
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;(
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";(
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.(


Honoring Tribal Sovereignty

The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.


Pollution Allowances

Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.��


Offsets

Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.

The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).(
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.(
No attachments

Comment From: Yale University Carbon Contain...

7/15/22 @ 1:27 PM
The Yale Carbon Containment Lab (CC Lab) commends Washington State's leadership under the Climate Commitment Act, Chapter 70A.65 RCW, in addressing the climate crisis and prioritizing the needs of overburdened communities. The CC Lab appreciates this...↓
Attachments:

Comment From: NW Energy Coalition (Annabel Drayton)

7/15/22 @ 1:22 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Northwest & Intermountain Powe... (Carl Fink)

7/15/22 @ 1:14 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Amy Donnelly

7/15/22 @ 1:11 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA.

However, I do have concerns related to the fol...↓

Environmental Justice Council

The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.

Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.

Honoring Tribal Sovereignty

The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.
Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.

Offsets

Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.

The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).

A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.

Industrial forestry

Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.

Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.

Wood products

CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.

As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."

Aggregation

2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.

California's buffer pools

Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.

Thank you for considering my concerns,

-Amy Donnelly
No attachments

Comment From: Pacific Propane Gas Associatio... (Matt Solak)

7/15/22 @ 1:09 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Iris Antman

7/15/22 @ 1:07 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA. As a long time WA resident and a senior with ...↓

I do have concerns related to the following areas of the draft program rule.

Environmental Justice Council

The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.

Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.

Honoring Tribal Sovereignty

The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.
Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.

Offsets

Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.

The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).

A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.

Industrial forestry

Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.

Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.

Wood products

CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.

As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."

Aggregation

2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.

California's buffer pools

Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.

Thank you for considering my concerns,
Iris Antman
No attachments

Comment From: Claudia Eberly

7/15/22 @ 1:06 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA.

As a older person in Washington, air quality i...↓

However, I have concerns related to the following areas of the draft program rule.

Environmental Justice Council

The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.

Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.

Honoring Tribal Sovereignty

The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.
Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.

Offsets

Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.

The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).

A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.

Industrial forestry

Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.

Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.

Wood products

CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.

As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."

Aggregation

2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.

California's buffer pools

Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.

Thank you for considering my concerns,
No attachments

Comment From: John Oda

7/15/22 @ 12:56 PM
Dear Mr. Grice,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA.
However, I have concerns related to the follow...↓
Environmental Justice Council
The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) adequate time to understand the CCA program, or its social and environmental context. The draft program rules should define how Ecology will engage with and support the EJC in the development, implementation, and evaluation of the full program.
Ecology needs to define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program, including:
Air-quality monitoring program data, especially data related to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE)-adjacent, overburdened communities;
How pollution allowances will be administered to ensure overall declining greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the cap, the appropriate amount of revenue generation from auction activity, and the overall health and integrity of the cap and invest program;
Criteria for the selection of offset protocols, including risks and benefits, and how the definition of adverse impacts relates to the rule definition of "environmental harm";
What decisions will be needed to facilitate linkage with other pollution reduction programs, as well as the predicted or possible downstream consequences of those decisions.
Honoring Tribal Sovereignty
The program rule must explicitly incorporate Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.
Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no-cost allowances. Ecology should engage with the Utilities and Transportation Commission on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances.
Offsets
Offsets are inherently flawed, allowing polluters to continue polluting. It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.
The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.
Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.
The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for leakage (logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset).
A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods.
The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.
Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.
Industrial forestry
Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines.
Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.
Wood products
CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.
As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution."
Aggregation
2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019. Any forestry offset protocol implemented under the Climate Commitment Act should provide mechanisms to enable landowners who would otherwise face barriers to participation in carbon offsets to aggregate their offset offerings�particularly Tribal Nations and small forest landowners�in order to maximize benefits to local communities, tribes, and land owners of all sizes.
California's buffer pools
Forest offset protocols call for "buffer pools" to attempt to account for the fact that some of the carbon presumed stored in the forest will end up being released by wildfire. Recent analysis has indicated that the quantity of trees that California has set aside may be inadequate compared to the risks the state faces from increased mega fires. California's "buffer pool" must be evaluated before Washington State links with California's cap and trade program.
Thank you for considering my concerns,
No attachments

Comment From: Ports of Longview, Kalama, Woo...

7/15/22 @ 12:55 PM
Please see the attached comment letter from the Ports of Longview, Kalama, Woodland, and Vancouver.
Attachments:

Comment From: Kaiser Aluminum (Brent Downey)

7/15/22 @ 12:53 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Bernedine Lund

7/15/22 @ 12:52 PM
Thank you for the chance to comment on the proposed Climate Commitment Act (CCA).

I became interested in the environment in college when I watched the moon landing and saw the picture of the small blue ball hanging in the sky. I realized then that th...↓

Here are a few suggestions to make the Act more clear to everyone:

1. To regulate the State's largest emitters, please list what they are. As time goes on, the leading emitters will likely change, and it would be helpful to know who are included in the CCA, and if they will change over time.

2. What are the plans for industries that pollute over an area larger than the State. For example, aviation currently pollutes Washington as much as a large coal burning plant. However, many flights originate outside of the state and/or country. Airports in Washington also pump fuel that is partly burned in Washington and also in the rest of the country and world. It would be useful for the CCA to describe how to deal with situations like these. See too an earlier comment about the same issue with maritime ships and ports.

3. Offsets need to be more closely monitored than described in the current draft bill. They also neded to have a direct impact within the state. The offset should also do no harm to the area receiving the offset. Currently offsets are often used by wealthy companies or people at the promise of a future offset provided by poor areas (such as offsets for flying).
No attachments

Comment From: The Nature Conservancy - Washi... (David Mendoza)

7/15/22 @ 12:48 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Washington Environmental Counc... (Rebecca Ponzio)

7/15/22 @ 12:47 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Joint Utilities (Avista, NRU, ... (Nikkole Hughes)

7/15/22 @ 12:41 PM
Attachments:
Download
Download

Comment From: Kim Drury

7/15/22 @ 12:36 PM
Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be strengthened and clarified to provide guidance and establish reporting requirements ...↓

Offsets

It is important that the program rule establishes a process to evaluate the impact of offsets and the effectiveness of the offsets program over time.

The rule should include language allowing for adaptation and adoption of new protocols moving forward, post-rulemaking, including:
-Updating existing offset protocols based on lessons learned in California, such as evolving California's urban forestry offset protocol (which has never been feasible to use).
-Adopting new offset protocols to harness other natural climate solutions in Washington state, e.g., blue carbon and agriculture.

Ecology's proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. CARB - US Forestry should not be adopted as-is.

The CARB - US Forestry protocol doesn't adequately account for logging occurring elsewhere because of avoided logging prompted by a protocol offset.

A 2019 study found that 82% of the credits issued under CARB - US Forestry likely do not represent true emissions reductions due to the protocol's use of lenient leakage accounting methods. The CARB - US Forestry protocol also lacks genuine additionality, that is, credits are being issued for forests that were not actually going to be harvested, or that the carbon sequestration benefits of specific offsets were overestimated. A 2021 study showed that ecological and statistical flaws in California's offsets program create incentives to generate credits that do not reflect real climate benefits.

Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.

Industrial forestry

- Logging is the number one source of emissions in OR, and estimated to be third in WA. Emissions have been underestimated by up to 55% in Oregon and 25% in Washington, and as of 2019, these emissions were not reported in state GHG reporting guidelines. Yet CARB - US Forestry favors industrial logging practices. Such practices produce significant carbon emissions, from soil compaction as well as machinery operations. It takes decades for clear cut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats. And so called plantation "working forests" do not provide anything close to natural habitat or biodiversity.
To be most effective, any forestry offset protocol used by Washington State should reward the avoidance of industrial forest practices, incentivize longer harvest rotations, and prioritize the protection of old growth and mature forests.
Washington should also avoid decoupling carbon storage from overall forest health. In New Zealand, high carbon prices have incentivized dense plantations of non-native, short-lived trees such as radiata pine that offer poor habitat and can displace native forests.


Wood products
CARB - US Forestry credits the storage of carbon in wood products, even though they store far less carbon than forests. However some estimates have only 15% of a log's carbon ending up in a wood product; the rest becomes carbon emissions. Crediting carbon storage in wood products encourages increased harvests and shorter rotations, both of which are counterproductive to Washington's climate goals.

As 200 forest and climate scientists told Congress in June 2020: "We find no scientific evidence to support increased logging to store more carbon in wood products, such as dimensional lumber or cross-laminated timber (CLT) for tall buildings, as a natural climate solution." If Washington claims to "follow the science" - then Ecology's rules need to follow the science.


Thank you for considering my views.
No attachments

Comment From: J.R. Simplot Company (Dedra Williams)

7/15/22 @ 12:35 PM
The attached comments are on behalf of the J.R. Simplot Company regarding Chapter 173-446, Washington Department of Ecology proposed rule to implement the Climate Commitment Act Program.
Attachments:

Comment From: Rosemary Sweeney

7/15/22 @ 12:24 PM
Attachments:

[ Previous Page / Next Page ]