Rulemaking - Chapter 173-446 WAC, Climate Commitment Act Program
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 engage and consult with federally recognized tribes proactively. In particular, it is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, and designed to facilitate tribal nations' participation 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).
or 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 is 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 landowners 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 number 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
Thank you for accommodating additional public comments on this rulemaking process described in Revised Preliminary Regulatory Analyses, May 2022, Publication 22-02-019. The League of Women Voters of Washington considers the opportunity for citizens t...↓o express their views in making laws an essential feature of our democracy.
Rule making on Chapter 173-446 WAC should maintain transparent processes and policies for assessing progress, making adjustments, and prioritizing investments in carbon reducing investments and reducing health disparities in frontline and overburdened communities. These communities need both healthier air and reasonable utility rates. Priorities should also include weatherization, decarbonization, conservation, and efficiency improvements as the opportunities for these benefits are not always available to them.
While policy stability and consistency is important for efficient policy implementation and compliance, policy adjustments will be required as the markets respond and technologies emerge and mature. The adopted rules should not hinder adjustments needed over time.
We agree with other organizations that accurate forecasting is required and should be integrated with other policies, such as the Clean Energy Transformation Act, to ensure efficiency of oversight and compliance.
Please also consider this specific concern.
RCW 70A.65.230 Investments—Legislative intent—Evaluation stipulates that a minimum of not less than 35 percent and a goal of 40 percent of total investments that provide direct and meaningful benefits to vulnerable populations within the boundaries of overburdened communities [and] a minimum of not less than 10 percent of total investments that are used for programs, activities, or projects formally supported by a resolution of an Indian tribe. RCW 70A.65.280 stipulates that not less than $20,000,000 per biennium be dedicated to the air quality and health disparities improvement account.
Ensure that the language and chronology in section 2.4.1 Use of auction revenues ensures this minimum level of investment is met or exceeded.
The League of Women Voters of Washington believes:
• The quality of the environment should be a prime consideration when making economic decisions. The environment should not be permitted to degrade.
• Climate change is a serious threat facing our nation and our planet.
• An interrelated approach to combating climate change—including through energy conservation, air pollution controls, building resilience, and promotion of renewable resources—is necessary to protect public health and defend the overall integrity of the global ecosystem.
• The League supports climate goals and policies that are consistent with the best available climate science and that will ensure a stable climate system for future generations.
• Individuals, communities, and governments must continue to address this issue, while considering the ramifications of their decision, at all levels—local, state, regional, national, and global.
Martin Gibbins
Climate Change & Energy Issues Chair
League of Women Voters of Washington
↓
Attachments:
Attachments:
Please see uploaded letter.
Attachments:
Dear Mr. Grice,
My name is Nina Sarmiento and I am a naturalist and wilderness tour guide, small business owner of a tourism company called Magic Forest Tours out of Port Angeles, and I also work at the teen center at the Boys and Girls Club. I care d...↓eeply about future generations and the future of our home planet.
I have many concerns related to the following areas of the draft program rule that I would like addressed.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
You have an extremely important job, please do not disappoint future generations by allowing these flaws and industry loopholes in this plan to persist.
Thank you,
Nina Sarmiento
↓
No attachments
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 female healthcare worker of color, 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
Dear Mr. Grice,
If we go on as we are, then decades from now--or maybe even just a decade from now--everyone who is currently an adult will be held morally accountable for many failures, but none are likely to be greater than the profound failure to p...↓reserve our legacy forests and thus greatly mitigate our carbon emissions (as well as provide a host of other benefits to our local ecologies). Use of CARB-US Forestry standards for offsets in the Climate Commitment Act is a major mistake: among other failures, it encourages short-rotation industrial forestry and clear cuts that devastate forest soil carbon; it fails to account adequately for leakage; it vastly overstates the carbon stored in wood products; and it utilizes inadequate buffer pools.
The use of CARB-US Forestry is the most carbon-impactful mistake in the current rules, but there are others that are failures of equity. For one, 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, and define when and how they will provide the EJC details about the CCA program. For another, 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. For yet another, 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.
Finally, for the health of our rural communities, any Washington State forestry offset protocol 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. 2.88 million acres of forestland in Washington State were owned by small forest landowners in 2019.
As ever, the devil is in the details. Passage of the Climate Commitment Act was viewed as a breakthrough, but if we aren't careful to maximize both equity and emissions reductions in its protocols, it will have been worse than nothing at all. Please take this opportunity to maximize our mitigation of previous decades' mistakes and our failures of understanding. If these problems are fixed, the Climate Commitment Act could yet be something we're justifiably proud of.
Many thanks for your consideration.
Emily Johnston
*I have sources for all of these statements and am happy to provide them on request.
↓
No attachments
Dear Mr. Grice,
I want and future generations must see a substantial reduction in climate pollution, improved air quality, investments in clean transportation and clean energy. For the CCA to be transformative, it is critical that the proposed rule d...↓o the following:
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 the air quality especially in overburdened communities.
CCA's implementation process must collaborate with the Environmental Justice (EJ) Council and with overburdened communities.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely, Frank Marre DO MS FAOCOPM
↓
No attachments
Dear Mr. Grice,
My name is Frances, and I'm an undergraduate student at the University of Washington. I was also born and raised in the greater Seattle area. Recently, I've become more and more concerned about and afraid the state of my sister and my ...↓family's dissolving future. It's highly important to me, and to all of us living in the next twenty years, that we act now. 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,
Frances
↓
No attachments
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 wanted to share my suggestions for improving...↓ 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 allowing polluters to continue polluting are inherently flawed,. 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., biochar (from forest slash, young stand thinning, and Scotch broom), agriculture, and blue carbon.
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 clearcut forests to return to a natural state that adequately supports diverse habitats, especially in the face of exploding non-native flammable Scotch broom. And so-called short rotation "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, require prevention and control of Scotch broom using the most effective protocols to avoid seed production, integrate biochar production on site with Conservation Corps crews, 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.
Finally, as a small forest landowner under 20 acres, the Designated Forest Land program managed by counties has no option for NOT cutting my forest, for preserving the mature to old forest in a carbon sequestering condition. That needs to change!
Thank you for considering my suggestions and concerns, and for working to provide a viable platform for a climate program.
↓
Attachments:
Please see the attached letter.
Attachments:
As a long-time resident of heavily-forested Port Angeles, Washington, I am extremely concerned about the Climate Commitment Act, especially its impact on logging and forestry. The proposed adoption of California's forestry protocol is premature. Ac...↓cording to a 2019 study, 82% of the credits issued under CARB-US Forestry fail to represent true emissions reductions. Logging is estimated to be the 3rd highest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Washington, and it is underestimated by about 25% here in Washington (even higher errors in Oregon). These emissions were not at all reported in state greenhouse gas reporting guidelines. Thank you for considering my concerns.
↓
No attachments
Attachments:
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, improved air quality...↓, investments in clean transportation and clean energy, community benefits with investments in overburdened communities, and much more. In order for the CCA to be truly transformational for Washington and act as a model for other states, it is critical that the proposed rule do the following.
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.
Also, to regulate the State's largest emitters, please list who they are. As time goes on, the changes in who the largest emitters must be tracked & updated. And, please make this information public.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Arthur Levine
↓
No attachments
Attachments:
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...↓ing areas of the draft program rule.
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(3) 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.
(4) 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.
(5) 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.
(6) 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."
(7) 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.
(8) 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
Dear Mr. Grice,
I am a pediatrician practicing in Seattle and have become very involved in climate policy due to the anticipated effect on my patients. I have seen already the negative impacts that our changing climate is having on our children's heal...↓th and view it as my responsibility to advocate on their behalf.
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,
Jonathan Berry
↓
No attachments
Dear Mr. Grice,
I am a white parent in WA State and care deeply about the next decades and how our policies will influence our childrens' lives, especially those most impacted - people of color. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446,...↓ Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule.
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 your hard work and for considering my concerns,
Cause
↓
No attachments
City of Ellensburg rule-making comments - Chapter 173-446 WAC, Climate Commitment Act Program
Attachments:
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...↓ing 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
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...↓ing 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
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 want to ensure that the act incent...↓ives the preservation of our state's forests and biodiversity.
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.
Thank you for considering my concerns,
Emily Turner
↓
No attachments
My foremost concern is that the 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 ex...↓ceed the cap is critical. When designing program details, maintaining the cap should be one of the primary goals. We must get moving in this critically important work. Thank you for your hard work in making this a reality and helping Washington to lead the nation.
↓
No attachments
Dear Mr. Grice,
If we want the Climate Commitment Act to be effective--and we do!--it is very important to include the following.
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: deep reductions in climate pollution, improved air quality, investments in clean transportation and clean energy, community benefits with investments in overburdened communities, and much more. In order for the CCA to be truly transformational for Washington and act as a model for other states, it is critical that the proposed rule do the following.
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 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,
ERIKA DAVIS
↓
No attachments
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...↓ved air quality, investments in clean transportation and clean energy, community benefits with investments in overburdened communities, and much more. In order for the CCA to be truly transformational for Washington and act as a model for other states, it is critical that the proposed rule do the following.
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, Matt Grosser
↓
No attachments
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 a concern related to the following area of th...↓e draft program rule.
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
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 a concern related to the following area of th...↓e draft program rule.
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.
Thank you for considering my concerns.
↓
No attachments
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 a concern related to the following area of th...↓e draft program rule.
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."
Thank you for considering my concerns.
↓
No attachments
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 a concern related to the following area of th...↓e draft program rule.
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. 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.
Thank you for considering my concerns.
↓
No attachments
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 a concern related to the following area of th...↓e draft program rule.
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.
Thank you for considering my concerns.
↓
No attachments
Attachments:
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 a concern related to the following area of th...↓e draft program rule.
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.
Thank you for considering my concerns.
↓
No attachments
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 a concern related to the following area of th...↓e draft program rule.
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.
Thank you for considering my concerns.
↓
No attachments
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 a concern related to the following area of th...↓e draft program rule.
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.
Thank you for considering my concerns.
↓
No attachments
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 a concern related to the following area of th...↓e 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
* Method for 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.
Thank you for considering my concerns.
↓
No attachments
Dear Mr. Grice,
I am writing to you as a concerned citizen who follows the climate and ecological emergency we are facing closely and is extremely worried about how close to tipping points we are.
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.
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.
Also, 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.
On the subject of offsets, they are awful. Offsets allow 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
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...↓ing 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 the 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 is 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 landowners 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 number 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.
Kevin Gallagher
↓
No attachments
In review of the proposed rulemaking, it is not specifically stated that facilities new to the state that are defined by WAC 173-446A-030 as Emissions-Intensive and Trade Exposed will be considered an EITE under the Climate Commitment Act Program. Wh...↓ile this may be the intention, it is recommended that the definition of EITE be expanded to specifically state both new and existing facilities in Washington State are defined as an EITE through the specified NAICS classification system.
It also does not appear to be defined how baselines will be established for EITEs new to the state, which will not have location-specific historic emissions data; some facilities may have historic data from other locations, while some may not have any similar operating facilities. It is recommended that a distribution of allowances that is comparable to what is outlined in WAC 173-446-220 be specified. This may be achieved by using historic data of a comparable facility within the locating company's portfolio, or by using modeled emissions in the case of a new facility without a comparable operating location outside of Washington. It is recommended that the process of setting baselines and determining allowances be fair and comparable to the methodology to determine existing EITE allowances, as this will facilitate continued competitiveness to recruit new manufacturing businesses into the state.
↓
No attachments
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...↓ing 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,
Laura Gibbons
↓
No attachments
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...↓ing 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,
Jeanne
↓
No attachments
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...↓ing 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,
Lynne Hyerle
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to implement the Climate Commitment Act. Please make sure that the rule is strengthened to ensure benefits to overburdened communities are actualized; the states' tribal consultation obligations are met; the carbon market fun...↓ctions with transparency and integrity; and there is adequate information to guide adaptive management of the program. I am especially concerned that cap-and-invest program avoids negative impacts to overburdened communities.
Please clarify Ecology's role in evaluating impacts of all Emission-Intensive Trade-Exposed facilities (EITEs) on overburdened communities.
Provide guidance and establish reporting requirements for consumer-owned utilities on the use of the value of no cost allowances and engage with the UTC on its regulation of investor-owned utilities' use of the value of no cost allowances, regardless of when each facility becomes a covered entity.
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 each facility. The rule should be clear that if the facility is found to create excessive environmental impacts, upward adjustments should be denied.
Please ensure that offsets are adaptable and actually decrease carbon emissions. I support strong implementation. Thank you for this important work.
↓
No attachments
Please find the attached comments of the American Forest Resource Council. Thank you.
Attachments:
Dear Department of Ecology,
THANK YOU for leading this important change - the Climate Commitment Act (CCA). As a resident of the state, (Vancouver) I am eager to see the benefits including deep reductions in climate pollution, improved air quality, in...↓vestments in clean transportation and clean energy, community benefits with investments in overburdened communities, and much more. In order for the CCA to be truly transformational for Washington and act as a model for other states, it is critical that the proposed rule do the following.
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.
Respectfully,
Andra
↓
No attachments
I am glad that the bill limits the use of offsets, since a great deal of research shows they are very difficult to implement effectively. In particular, the California forest rules have led to significant problems about leakage and additionality. I a...↓m opposed to our adopting them wholesale, and would like to see our program emphasize lengthening rotations, supporting the rapid replanting of burned areas, and planting new forest on suitable land.
↓
No attachments
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...↓ing 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
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 and the public engagement that Ecology has been doing to launch the CCA.
However, I have concerns related to ...↓the following areas of the draft program rule:
[1] 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.
[2] CCA's implementation process must collaborate with the Environmental Justice Council (EJC) and with overburdened communities.
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.
[3] Honor 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.
[4] Address 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. Overall, you must make sure these allowances do not undermine the integrity of the cap and undermine the entire goal of reducing carbon pollution.
[5] Evaluate Implementation of Flawed 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.
[6] Re-evaluate Forestry Protocols and Linking with California.
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.
[7] Address 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.
[8] Address 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."
[9] Support 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.
[10] Protect WA from 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 your hard work and your consideration of these comments! Warmly,
-Brandon Bowersox-Johnson (former Urbana, Illinois city council member), Seattle, WA
↓
No attachments
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 CC...↓A 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.
↓
No attachments
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.
Fundamentally a Cap and Trade program is much ...↓worse than just directly restricting emissions due to the increased complexity in rulemaking, monitoring, and enforcement inherent in such a program. However, since that is already the direction things are going here are some concerns I have with the draft rules.
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,
John Schleicher
↓
No attachments
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...↓ing areas of the draft program rule.
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.
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.
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 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), and 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.
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.
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."
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.
Washington State should not adopt the CARB - US Forestry protocol until these shortcomings are addressed.
Thank you for your time.
↓
No attachments
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...↓ing areas of the draft program rule.
General
Carbon-offset programs do NOT lead to true pollution reduction. It just shuffles it around, and gives room for false claims. And, polluters are not receiving an incentive/push to begin a true shift towards doing things differently - to help with climate cooling. Large commercial and other special interests have hindered, purposely and quietly undermined climate cooling efforts. That needs to stop. The current legislation does not accomplish it. With that said and in the absence of removing the deep and systemic corruption in politics, democratic and republican, in WA and outside of WA alike, I will comment on more specific points below.
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
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...↓ved air quality, investments in clean transportation and clean energy, community benefits with investments in overburdened communities, and much more. In order for the CCA to be truly transformational for Washington and act as a model for other states, it is critical that the proposed rule do the following.
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, Marieke Lacasse
↓
No attachments
I love the CCA, and I applaud the legislature for passing it. I live in a rural area on one of the islands in Puget Sound, and I note that transportation options here are quite limited. While many residents have exercised the option to purchase an ...↓electric car, most of us don't have the wherewithal to go that route quite yet. Buses are few and far between, and bicycles share the road in 50 mph zones. Additionally, while sound transit provides commute-time trains that meet the ferry, they don't run the rest of the day.
I would support evaluation and planning around increasing transportation options for the islands s part of the push to get away from fossil-fuel based transportation. Please consider this in your planning.
↓
No attachments
Please see attached comments from Cowlitz Public Utility District No. 1 regarding the proposed Climate Commitment Act Program Rule (Chapter 173-446 WAC).
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Steve Taylor
Director of Regulatory and Regional Affairs
C...↓owlitz PUD
↓
Attachments:
Dear Mr. Grice,
Washington made history by passing the country's strongest law capping carbon pollution, the Climate Commitment Act (CCA). As an environmental education organization of the state, we at the Garry Oak Coalition are eager to see the bene...↓fits including deep reductions in climate pollution, improved air quality, investments in clean transportation and clean energy, community benefits with investments in overburdened communities, and much more. In order for the CCA to be truly transformational for Washington and act as a model for other states, it is critical that the proposed rule do the following.
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,
Christina Manetti
President, The Garry Oak Coalition
↓
No attachments
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...↓ing 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.
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,
Miranda Marti
↓
No attachments
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...↓ing 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,
Lara Gaasland-Tatro MS, MeD
↓
No attachments
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...↓ing areas of the draft program rule. Also as a Washington parent, I am especially concerned about the impact of the excessive logging on our climate.
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,
Kit Kittredge
↓
No attachments
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 deeply worried about the future my...↓ daughter will inherit in light of Climate Change, 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 reviewing my concerns,
Nate
↓
No attachments
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: deep reductions in climate pollution, improved air q...↓uality, investments in clean transportation and clean energy, community benefits with investments in overburdened communities, and much more. In order for the CCA to be truly transformational for Washington and act as a model for other states, it is critical that the proposed rule do the following.
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 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,
Sam
↓
No attachments
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...↓ing 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
I support the Climate Solutions recommendations for regulations that will take into account poor and minority communities. Also, I would prefer an increased benefit for communities and individuals to implement solar and to keep up with technology adv...↓ances in photovoltaic efficiency and storage.
↓
No attachments
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...↓ing 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
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...↓ved air quality, investments in clean transportation and clean energy, community benefits with investments in overburdened communities, and much more. In order for the CCA to be truly transformational for Washington and act as a model for other states, it is critical that the proposed rule do the following.
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.
Sincerely
↓
No attachments
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...↓ing 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,
Elle Gasperini
↓
No attachments
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 Washington state, I am deeply...↓ concerned about the impact of pollution on our environment and the next generations.
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
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...↓ved air quality, investments in clean transportation and clean energy, community benefits with investments in overburdened communities, and much more. In order for the CCA to be truly transformational for Washington and act as a model for other states, it is critical that the proposed rule do the following.
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, Brooks Lockard
↓
No attachments
While I have copied an advocacy group's boilerplate below to show my support and emphasis for their points, it shouldn't detract from their sound proposals and message.
My particular concerns are the blistering urgency of climate collapse (the norther...↓n hemisphere has ALREADY WARMED by at least 1.78�C, as of March 2022), and the timidity of government responses. All your work must be guided by the science, which is readily available. It will suggest that tinkering around the edges of our current socioeconomic system is wholly inadequate. If you can accomplish anything, at least work to cancel the ridiculous road expansion projects that the legislature has approved.
Thank you,
Derek Dexheimer - Seattle
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.
↓
No attachments
Dear Mr. Grice,
The ultimate goal of this law is to achieve greenhouse gas limitations and improve air quality, especially in overburdened communities. Ensuring that emissions do not exceed the cap is critical. The CCA requires that a minimum of 35% o...↓f overall investments directly benefit historically vulnerable communities. These include the tribes, African-Americans, People of Color, and groups affected by economic injustice such as those with disabilities and chronic health conditions. These investments must be designed with community input to ensure benefits are meaningful for all concerned. Ecology must work to determine the most responsive processes for collaboration. Economic incentives for reducing emissions and investment in renewable energy infrastructure and clean transportation can support access for everyone and provide employment equitably.
Thank you.
↓
No attachments
Dear Mr. Grice,
We are at an amazing threshold and Washington made an important step by passing the country's strongest law capping carbon pollution, the Climate Commitment Act (CCA). This legislation is not only important to me as a resident of this ...↓beautiful state, but as a person eager to see steps toward working to heal our climate crisis to benefit the world. I truly believe these steps forward will create a better living economy for all as well as deep reductions in pollution. However, for the CCA to be truly transformational for Washington and act as a model for other states and nations, it must:
1) maintain the integrity of the cap in order to achieve our greenhouse gas limits and improve air quality, especially in overburdened communities. We must ensure that emissions do not exceed the cap. When designing program details, maintaining the cap should be one of the primary goals.
2) 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.
3)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 your time and your full commitment to the intent of the CCA.
Sincerely, Denise Attwood
↓
No attachments
Dear WA State Dept. of Ecology,
Please see the attached comments from the Friends of Toppenish Creek regarding implementation of the Climate Commitment Act.
Thank you for reading these concerns carefully and taking appropriate action.
Jean Mendoza
Attachments:
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...↓ing 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,
Laura
↓
No attachments
Comment on Chapter 173-446 WAC, Climate Commitment Act Program
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 im...↓plement the CCA. I grew up on the shore of the Salish Sea, roamed the forests as a child, and have spent my life here. I have seen the changes over decades and am deeply disturbed about how much we are already impacted, and the losses we are suffering because of our disregard for our impacts.
I have concerns that I urge you to address in the following areas of the draft program rule.
1. 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. 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.
2. Honoring Tribal Sovereignty
The program rule must include Ecology's existing obligation to proactively engage and consult with federally recognized tribes. It is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty.
3. Pollution Allowances
Ecology's responsibility to provide oversight and review of the allocation of allowances for Emission Intensive Trade-Exposed polluters should be stronger and clearly 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.
4. Offsets
Offsets allow polluters to continue polluting. The program rule must establishe 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.
5. 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 that 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 must 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 all you do, and please consider my concerns,
Nancy Shimeall
↓
No attachments
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...↓ved air quality, investments in clean transportation and clean energy, community benefits with investments in overburdened communities, and much more. In order for the CCA to be truly transformational for Washington and act as a model for other states, it is critical that the proposed rule do the following.
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 Caffrey
↓
No attachments
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...↓ing areas of the draft program rule. As a Washington parent, I am especially concerned about the impacts of logging on our climate goals
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,
Elena Rumiantseva
↓
No attachments
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. I am the parent of a five-year-old and aunt to a 25 year-old both currently living in Washington. I am deeply concerned about the impacts of logging ...↓and industry on their futures. I also hope that we will look to the original stewards of these lands as our key leaders.
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,
Stephanie Lewis
↓
No attachments
Dear Mr. Grice,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule. As a father and grandfather, I'm deeply concerned about the future we're leaving for our children. As a citizen of the state and a resi...↓dent of the planet it's important to me that Washington's forests work, and that the health of mature and old growth forests is the primary motivator in deciding how forestry offsets are going to be applied. I still have doubts about the efficacy of a market based climate approach, but it's the law, so it behooves us to get it right.
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
Attachments:
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 Washington parent, I am especially conce...↓rned about the impacts of logging on our climate goals.
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.
Sincerely,
Jared Howe
↓
No attachments
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...↓ing 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
Dear Mr. Grice,
As a Seattle resident and nutrition educator around issues of sustainability in our food system, I am deeply concerned about the current climate crisis. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (C...↓CA) Program Rule. I appreciate the hard work the Department of Ecology has been doing to implement the CCA.
The following areas of the draft program rule are ones that have qualms about.
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, Mary Purdy
↓
No attachments
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...↓ing 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
Dear Mr. Grice,
I am writing as a graduate from UC Berkeley, BS in Conservation of Natural Resources, class of 1975. I have been a Family Physician (practicing Human Ecology) since 1988, and living in N. California, Mendocino County. I am also a new...↓ grandparent, and as you can imagine, care more than ever that we keep the world as livable as possible for all future generations.
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
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...↓ing areas of the draft program rule. Especially with Logging. It is ridiculous to consider wood products, the cut forests, as carbon storing. We need our old growth and mature Pacific Northwest Forests intact. 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."
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.
Thank you for considering my concerns.
↓
No attachments
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...↓ing 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
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...↓ing 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,
David Camp
↓
No attachments
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...↓ved air quality, investments in clean transportation and clean energy, community benefits with investments in overburdened communities, and much more. In order for the CCA to be truly transformational for Washington and act as a model for other states, it is critical that the proposed rule do the following.
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,
David Winans
↓
No attachments
Comments on WAC-173-446, Climate Commitment Act (CCA) Program Rule:
Environmental Justice Council
The timeline for implementing the CCA does not allow the Governor's newly formed Equity and Justice Council (EJC) sufficient time to understand the CCA pr...↓ogram, 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. It is critical that offset protocols are guided by feedback from Tribal Nations, designed to facilitate participation of tribal nations, and support tribal sovereignty. They have been caretakers of the land for generations.
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.
↓
No attachments
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...↓ing 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,
Carrie Hawthorne
↓
No attachments
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...↓ing 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
[
Previous Page
/
Next Page
]