Comment Period: Climate Commitment Act Funds Reporting Rulemaking

Submitted By

14 Results

Search Type

Sort:

Sort Results By

Comment From: WA Department of Natural Resou... (Csenka Favorini-Csorba)

6/28/24 @ 4:05 PM

As an amendment to comments previously provided by DNR, the agency would like to highlight that without "climate resiliency projects" on the list of exemptions from the GHG emissions reductions reporting, the staff capacity and expertise required by ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Climate Solutions (Altinay Karasapan)

6/28/24 @ 1:23 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Puget Sound Partnership (Don Gourlie)

6/28/24 @ 11:55 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Front and Centered (Davin Diaz)

6/28/24 @ 11:17 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Washington Conservation Action (Bryan Pelach)

6/28/24 @ 9:39 AM

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the CCA funds reporting rulemaking. Our comments are in the file attached below.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: The Nature Conservancy (Joshua Rubenstein)

6/27/24 @ 4:59 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Department of Transportation (Jonathan Olds)

6/27/24 @ 3:34 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Csenka Favorini-Csorba (Csenka Favorini-Csorba)

6/27/24 @ 2:24 PM

Please accept this as DNR's response compiled across programs. We appreciate the opportunity to comment.

Overall, we feel that the reporting requirements are logical considering what is set out in the statute, and what data would be required to mee...↓t the intent of the statute. However, some additional clarity is needed throughout the draft rule (noted below, and in the attachment). And, perhaps most importantly, it is clear that DNR (and likely other state agencies) currently does not have the capacity, and in some instances expertise, to comply with the rule as proposed. Funding would be required to appropriately staff the agency in order to comply with the reporting requirements as proposed in the draft rule.

Specifically, DNR would require one FTE in our Office of Finance, Budget, and Economics to support the necessary data collection, analysis, and preparation of reports related to CCA account expenditures. In addition, DNR would likely require up to four FTE in our Office of Equity and Environmental Justice to comply with the requirements around identifying and reporting direct benefits to vulnerable populations and those within the boundaries of overburdened communities, including engagement with these populations and communities. One FTE would develop standardized guidelines for the agency to complete this work and serve as a general point of contact for the agency on this process. The remaining three would be embedded each in our largest programs, Wildland Fire Management, Uplands, and Forest Regulation, Resilience, and Aquatic Resources to support programmatic staff as they implement work on the ground from these expenditures. Similarly, DNR would require an FTE within our Tribal Relations team to support the significantly increased Tribal consultation and engagement throughout the agency related to these expenditures.

Additionally, DNR would require at least one FTE as a subject matter expert on GHG emissions reductions calculations and reporting. DNR does not currently have this expertise on staff.
Additional staff may also be required to support the development of a process to embed the requirements into granting and contracting processes and to collect the necessary information from grantees and contractors on an on-going basis.

Ecology may be able to support agencies in completing this work, in such a way that could decrease DNR's staffing requirements to a degree. For instance, ECY could have a centralized team that could provide expertise related to interpreting the protocols for GHG emissions reductions reporting.

Furthermore, how certain terms within the draft rule are defined will also impact the amount of reporting DNR may be required to do. For example, much of DNR's work may fall under "climate resiliency projects" and therefore we would be exempt from reporting whether the funding produced any verifiable reduction in GHG emissions. A clear definition of this term is needed. Additional clarity would also be required around what it means for projects to have "other long-term impacts to emissions."

It is also unclear the general timescale that would be expected when reporting on emissions reductions. Is the reporting happening on emissions reductions in a calendar/fiscal/reporting year? Or over the history of the project to date? Or expected emissions reductions over the lifetime of the project? Particularly for DNR projects that may or may not fall under "climate resiliency projects," it could be challenging to parse out emissions reductions on an annual basis.

Additionally, for the annual report including "a comparison to other greenhouse gas emissions reduction projects" it is unclear what types of projects the comparison should include. Is it compared to other like projects? Or any other type of GHG emissions reductions project? What is the intent of the comparison? Is it to compare results of emissions reductions? Cost effectiveness? More clarity here would be valuable.

Finally, depending on the definition of "climate resiliency projects," DNR may want to propose an additional category of exemptions for the Forestry Riparian Easement Program (FREP) and Rivers and Habitat Open Space Program (RHOSP) – two voluntary programs administered by Forest Regulation Division to support conservation on private timberland. They are primarily non-CCA funded but did receive some supplemental CCA funding in the last biennium. These two programs do not appear to fit neatly within any of the exempted reporting categories (i.e. "climate resiliency projects"), but they are also not designed to produce a "reduction of greenhouse gas emissions that can be quantified using a methodology and calculator tool approved by Ecology" so we either need to add a new category to the list (e.g. ecological resiliency?) that exempts these two programs from GHG reductions calculations or clarify that ECY's definition of "climate resiliency" is broad enough to capture these programs.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Recreation and Conservation Of... (Nicholas Norton)

6/27/24 @ 10:39 AM

See attached letter for comments.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Jack Howard

6/26/24 @ 9:28 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Front and Centered (Davin Diaz)

6/13/24 @ 9:00 AM

Thank you, good morning. Davin Diaz with Front and Centered. Spelled D-A-V-I-N Diaz D-I-A-Z. Front and Centered appreciates the opportunity to provide public comment on the draft rules proposed for the Climate Commitment Act Funds Reporting. Front an...↓d Centered has already provided comments in the initial rule development phase and these comments continue to build on our prior feedback. Front and centered is a diverse and powerful coalition of communities of color-led groups across Washington state whose missions and work come together at the intersection of equity, environmental, and climate justice. As part of this work our coalition seeks government transparency and accountability. Of particular importance is the allocation of funds across the state, a process that reflects the government’s willingness to implement statewide policy while simultaneously demonstrating its willingness to listen to local concerns and how to shape the programs funded. Following the submission of our written comments to Ecology in this matter, Front and Centered has also submitted a document to the Environmental Justice Council detailing how Front and Centered believes direct and meaningful benefits should be defined and operationalized under the CCA. We will also provide that document as part of our written submission later this month. In short, Front and Centered recommends the use of community health indicators to measure whether CCA funds funding allocation have led to direct and meaningful benefits. Direct benefits are those that meet community self-identified needs through self-proposed solutions. In other words, direct benefits derive from program funds and services that have positive environmental solutions and economic effects on members of vulnerable populations within the geographic boundaries of an overburdened community, specifically targeted vulnerable populations within overburdened communities, and are identified in conjunction with the targeted communities. A benefit should be considered meaningful if it achieves the community experience measurable improvement to a stated objective. In the case of CCA, a project, program, or grant provides a meaningful benefit when it reduces greenhouse gas emissions or improves environmental health for vulnerable populations within overburdened communities. Further, meaningful benefits are those that do not replicate or replace other pre-existing non-CCA state funded or privately funded efforts, but rather work independently or in concert with those programs. To determine what benefits result from the CCA funds, agencies must include a description of the project and both a projection pre-project and an assessment during or post-project of the project’s impacts and those are publicly accessible on the dashboard fostered by the Office of Financial Management. The project assessment must also demonstrate the project’s estimated ability to eliminate environmental health disparities and reduce greenhouse gases in overburdened communities. Thank you for your time.

No attachments

Comment From: Dominga Soliz (Dominga Soliz)

5/23/24 @ 4:57 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: WSDOT (Rail, Freight, and Port... (Rebecca Haberkorn)

5/08/24 @ 3:18 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Senator Shelly Short

5/08/24 @ 12:00 AM

April 30, 2024

Harrison Ashby

Department of Ecology

Climate Pollution Reduction Program

PO Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600

Re: Climate Commitment Act Funds Reporting Proposed Rule (WSR 24-10-028)

Dear Harrison Ashby,

Thank you for the opport...↓

The CCA requires Ecology to:

"[P]repare, post on the department website, and submit to the appropriate committees of the legislature an annual report that identifies all distributions of moneys from the [CCA accounts}…. The report must identify, at a minimum, the recipient of the funding, the amount of the funding the purpose of the funding, the actual end result or use of the funding, whether the project that received the funding produced any verifiable reduction in greenhouse gas emissions or other long-term impact to emissions, and if so, the quantity of reduced greenhouse gas emissions, the cost per carbon dioxide equivalent metric ton of reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and a comparison to other greenhouse gas emissions reduction projects in order to facilitate the development of cost-benefit ratios for greenhouse gas emissions reduction projects" (RCW 70A.65.300 (2023) (emphasis added)).

While the stated purpose of the CCA is to reduce emissions, I am concerned that your proposed rule strays from this core goal. For example, proposed WAC 173-446B-040 lists several types of expenditures for which recipients will not have to report emissions reduction:

"(2) Expenditures that are not required to report whether the funding will produce any verifiable reduction in greenhouse gas emissions or other long-term impact to emissions may include, but are not limited to, those that involve only:

(a) Building awareness in or educating a community.

(b) Clean energy workforce development.

(d) Conducting outreach in communities.

(e) Conducting research

(f) Creating plans for future activities.

(g) Enhancing a recipient’s or other entity’s capacity to fulfill its mission.

(h) Enhancing or maintaining emergency response systems or procedures.

(i) Hiring agency staff.

(j) Providing technical assistance.

(k) Training new employees, sharing knowledge among staff, or building employees’ skills" (Proposed WAC 173-446B-040 (WSR 24-20-028) (emphasis added)).

I encourage Ecology to adopt a rule that does require recipients for the above-listed expenditure activities to report their emission reduction, even if reporting shows that emissions reduction did not result from the funding. It should be acceptable for a funding recipient to be required to report “zero” or “none” for emissions reduction in such cases because the legislature will receive and evaluate this information to determine if statutory adjustments to CCA spending priorities should be made. Without comprehensive emissions reporting, the legislature will lack sufficient data to determine whether CCA funds are being spent wisely.

Furthermore, I worry that the department’s proposal to exempt some activities form emissions reporting will be taken as confirmation of the belief, held by some lawmakers, that Ecology is not being diligent about tracking greenhouse gas emissions. As you know, lawmakers have criticized Ecology for failing to keep a current statewide greenhouse gas emissions inventory, as required by law (RCW 70A.45.020). As a result of this failure, lawmakers currently lack access to emissions data beyond calendar year 2019 (Department of Ecology, Washington State Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory: 1990-2019 (Dec. 2022) (Pub. No. 22-02-054)). And despite calls for a new report, Ecology has not produced one.

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the new proposed rule for CCA funding reports. I hope these comments will help the agency consider ways to improve the rule to make emissions reduction he primary purpose of CCA spending.

Cordially,

Shelly Short

State Senator

7th Legislative District↓

Attachments:

Download