Why Washington State's "Climate Commitment Act" Should Worry the Rest of the Country.

The state's budget is so bad that state parks will can't open due to an inability to pay needed maintenance -- but if you want to grow food in a Seattle roof-top garden, NGOs have millions to help.

This story out of Washington state caught my eye yesterday. The following comments drew my attention with the summer soon to be upon us:

Washington’s Department of Natural Resources is closing multiple campgrounds and scaling back recreation services statewide after another round of budget cuts, predicted to result in negative side effects that include the closure of trailhead bathrooms, increased trash on trails, uncleared storm damage, and more….

DNR’s Recreation Program provides rustic recreation experiences across millions of acres of state-managed lands. The agency said maintenance work, such as clearing trails, cleaning restrooms, addressing public abuse, and clearing storm damage, has been underfunded for years….

Even where sites remain open, DNR said visitors should expect impacts statewide. The agency said reduced maintenance funding can slow storm recovery, leave trailhead bathrooms unstocked, increase trash on trails and reduce overall maintenance and staffing….

The agency said an additional $580,000 in critical maintenance funding was cut during the 2026 legislative session, totaling more than $8 million in cuts to DNR’s recreation program in less than two years.

Wow — I fear Washington State will next begin to make cuts that affect public safety and maybe even education.

This is shocking considering the fact that just a few years ago the state created a new stream of revenue estimated to be in the billions of dollars over the next several years when it passed the “Climate Commitment Act” — the CCA — in 2021.

I’m decently confident that most people living outside Washington have any idea what the CCA is, what it is supposed to do, how it is supposed to work, but what it really does in practice. Here are short answers:

1. It is a program of financial coercion to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by companies in Washington.

2. It measures and then reduces slowly over time the amount of greenhouse emissions that are allowed using a permitting system called “allowances.”

3. It directs the money raised from the auction of these “allowances” into four categories of spending that are intended to collectively promote green energy policies that will come to replace the services being regulated out of existence as allowances are reduced and the “polluters” are put out of business.

4. In reality, it pumps funds from the auction of these allowances into NGOs all around the state, with at least 35% — a minimum — of all money going to “environmental justice projects” that serve “overburdened communities” made up of “vulnerable populations.”

Yes, that is everything that it sounds like — a giant sucking sound that takes money from industry and gives it to Marxist/Liberal/Progressive NGOs to use in “environmental justice projects.”

Just as an example, here are names of just a handful of NGO’s that received CCA funds this past year from Washington State:

• African Community Housing & Development

• Latino Community Fund of Washington

• Young Women Empowered

• Asians for Collective Liberation

• Empowering Latina Leadership and Action

• Khmer Community of Seattle King County

• Mother Africa

• Pacific Islander Health Board of Washington

• Serve Ethiopians Washington

• Washington State Coalition of African Community Leaders

You get the idea.

So how does the CCA work?

In very basic terms the CCA took a baseline measurement of the amount of “greenhouse gases” emitted by various industrial “polluters” in the State of Washington, matched that total to a number of “allowances” to be issued by the State in an auction process. Those businesses now purchase allowances on an annual basis that permit them to emitted greenhouse gases up to the limit of their purchased allowances.

Each allowance has a measure of value in terms of the amount of greenhouse gases it allows the holder to release into the atmosphere — 1 allowance = 1 metric ton of C02 gas. If a company subject to the CCA wants to expand, it must buy additional allowances each year in the auction.

But the number of allowances does not expand to meet the expansion plans of the companies being regulated. In fact, just the opposite. The CCA provides for a gradual reduction over time in the number of allowances up for auction each year. This reduction is intended to bring about a reduction in greenhouse emissions by the regulated companies. The reduction is allowances without a reduction in demand for them will cause the price of each allowance to rise, eventually exceeding the financial ability of some companies, and simply being cost ineffective for others.

The law creates dedicated accounts where auction proceeds are deposited. Each account has statutorily defined eligible uses focused on climate, clean energy, transportation, ecosystem resilience, and air quality improvements. Revenue cannot be used for general government spending or unrelated purposes.

The Legislature ESTIMATED that revenue from the first year’s auction in 2023 would be approximately $450 million. The estimate was that each allowance would be sold at a cost of $20.60.

Instead, the revenue generated from the auctions was $1.8 billion — taken right from the pockets of domestic industries in Washington state — with each allowance being sold for $48.50.

So it cost industry in Washington State nearly 4x more than the Legislature expected.

Oops.

Revenue from the auctions is intended for clean energy, transportation, environmental justice projects, and other climate-related initiatives. The accounts from which funds are dispersed are identified as follows:

1. Carbon Emissions Reduction Account — Primarily for transportation-related emissions reductions — active transportation, rail transit, alternative fuels/electrification, ferries, etc.

2. Climate Investment Account — Clean energy transition, renewable energy, energy storage, conservation, agricultural emissions reductions, building electrification, decarbonization, and worker transition to clean energy jobs. A portion flows to the Natural Climate Solutions Account for forests, estuaries, oceans, fisheries, carbon sequestration, and ecosystem resilience.

3. Air Quality and Health Disparities Improvement Account — Projects reducing air pollutants and health disparities in “overburdened communities.”

4. Additional transportation-specific accounts — Climate Transit Programs Account and Climate Active Transportation Account.

An “environmental justice project” is defined in the statute as one that provides “direct and meaningful benefits” to “vulnerable populations” within the boundaries of “overburdened communities.”

The CCA requires state agencies to conduct environmental justice assessments when allocating funds and mandates that at least 35% — a minimum with no maximum — of total investments meet this standard.

• “Overburdened communities” -- Geographic areas that experience disproportionate environmental and health burdens, such as higher exposure to air pollution, toxic sites, or climate impacts.

• “Vulnerable populations” -- Groups including low-income residents, communities of color, Tribes, limited English proficiency populations, children, elderly, or others facing heightened risks.

The generally accepted definition of an “environmental justice project” in federal or state programs means any initiative that targets benefits to disadvantaged, low-income, minority, or historically marginalized communities.

At least 35% of total investments must provide direct and meaningful benefits to vulnerable populations in overburdened communities.

Keep in mind, the foundational goal of the CCA — as defined by the Washington Legislature — is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. I’ll get into more detail on this issue in future articles, but in the first year of grant funding with CCA revenue — $472 million in total — $53 million (11%) went to projects with a readily calculable methodology for reducing greenhouse emissions. But nearly $290 million — 61% — went to fund NGO proposals for “environmental justice projects.” The floor is 35% — there is no maximum spending limit for such projects.

Benefits are defined through pathways such as reducing environmental burdens, lowering disproportionate health/climate risks, supporting community-led projects, or meeting identified community needs.

“Community led projects” are those run by dozens if not hundreds of NGOs across Washington State. The CCA is an NGO operators dream — a never-ending source of funds extracted from productive industries in the state.

Next — the industries in Washington State that are most heavily impacted by the CCA.

Captain’s Note: The articles on this subject are being produced as part of a joint-venture project with the America First Policy Institute, and @A1Policy on X.