It’s no secret that climate change is already here and impacting the beautiful landscapes, waters, and communities of human and non-human species in Washington state. With extreme temperature shifts in both the summer and winter months, increased intensity and frequency of heatwaves, wildfires, and drought, there are clear signs that climate change is affecting the way we live our lives. The degree to which we may adapt to and be impacted by climate change varies depending on our existing relationship with social, political, and economic systems. Inequities in income, access to resources, and social-political power existed long before climate change, and yet climate change highlights and can exacerbate these inequities. For example, low income homes may not be equipped with air conditioning and families may experience increased risks during heat waves. Additionally, policies aiming to address climate change impacts sometimes overlook the impacts on already burdened and vulnerable communities, thereby ignoring them at best and compounding harms at worst.

The intersection between climate change and equity is an important piece of the climate policy puzzle, but this is an emerging issue. Climate legislation aiming to incorporate equity and justice is often fraught with uncertainty and vague language. Even still, there is an effort within Washington to not only address and mitigate the impacts of climate change on communities, but also to do so equitably, with an awareness that historic harms contribute to climate vulnerability of many groups. Environmental justice is the framework by which the link between equity, social justice, and climate change policy can be achieved and understood. The Washington State Environmental Justice Task Force defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies”. When it comes to creating and implementing climate change policy through an environmental justice framework, it is crucial to use an intersectional lens to understand and effectively address unequal environmental and health impacts exacerbated by climate change. 

“Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.” 

Washington has begun to incorporate environmental justice into climate change policy on state, county, and city levels. It is impossible to discuss all the ways Washington State has demonstrated its commitment to environmental justice in this short article, but there are three pieces of state legislation that highlight this: the Clean Energy Transformation Act, Climate Commitment Act, and Healthy Environment for All Act. All are distinct and individual pieces of legislation, yet they complement each other well.

Clean Energy Transformation Act

Signed into law by Governor Jay Inslee in 2019, the Clean Energy Transformation Act (CETA) provides a pathway to achieving a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions-free electricity supply for Washington State by 2045. This piece of legislation applies to all electricity providers in the state, including public, consumer-owned, and investor-owned utilities and outlines three energy milestones. First, utilities must eliminate coal from their energy portfolio by 2025. Coal-fired power accounts for less than 500 megawatts hours (MWh) of the state’s total electricity generation source as of 2023. For Washington State, the shift away from coal-fired electricity is in sight as most of the state’s electricity generation comes from hydroelectric dams and natural gas. Second, CETA requires that all electric utility portfolios must be GHG-neutral by 2030. This can be achieved by combining power generation from renewable energy sources with carbon offsets. Finally, by 2045, all electricity generation must adhere to the clean standard of GHG emission-free, meaning all electricity provided to consumers must be generated through sources like renewable energy.

Unique in energy legislation, equity is fundamental to CETA and requires utilities to consider vulnerable populations and highly impacted communities as part of their planning process. The bill defines vulnerable populations as “communities that experience a disproportionate cumulative risk from environmental burdens due to adverse socioeconomic factors […] and sensitivity factors, such as low birth weight and higher rates of hospitalization”. A highly impacted community, on the other hand, is a community that resides in the same geographic location that experiences higher rates of impacts from climate change and fossil fuels. Distinguishing between these two groups may seem trivial, but the bill requires utilities to consider impacts on groups not just based on location, but also based on socio-economic factors that influence and exacerbate impacts of climate change and fossil fuel exposure. Another new requirement for utilities is the incorporation of a public comment and feedback plan. The incorporation of public comments provides a mechanism of accountability and allows impacted communities to monitor progress and participate in planning. Further, the bill explicitly states that utilities must provide programs that reduce the energy and cost burden of low-income households. 

“The CETA acknowledges that groups in the margins of society cannot and should not bear the burden of the energy transition.” 

The link between GHG emission reduction, renewable energy implementation, and environmental justice in CETA is unique. The passage of CETA is not only a commitment to clean energy and climate change mitigation—it is also an acknowledgement that groups in the margins of society cannot and should not bear the burden of the energy transition. However, the outcomes and benefits of CETA remain to be seen. Every four years starting January of this year, the Department of Commerce is mandated to conduct an interim assessment of CETA’s impacts. The first assessment came out prior to any of the act’s milestones being met and as a result, the impacts are difficult to determine. The interim assessment does report on the public comment process, incorporation of public comment, and the cost to consumers providing early insight into who is being engaged and how consumers are impacted. However, the assessment makes no mention of vulnerable populations nor highly impacted communities. Though CETA is a step in the right direction for GHG emission reduction and environmental justice, it has yet to fully be implemented and it is unclear what the environmental justice impacts are.

Climate Commitment Act

The Climate Commitment Act (CCA) is another piece of legislation that aims to cut GHG emissions in Washington State, and is currently receiving a great deal of public backlash. Passed in 2021, the CCA established the state’s cap-and-invest program. The program effectively created a carbon market where the state’s highest polluters purchase allowances for pollution emissions. These allowances set a cap, or a limit, on how much carbon high polluters can put in the atmosphere. At present, the milestones for this are a 45% reduction by 2030, a 70% reduction by 2040, and a 95% reduction by 2050. These milestones are set with the goal of reducing emissions to lower than those of 1990. The CCA went into effect last year when the Department of Ecology held the state’s first cap-and-invest auction starting in February and ending in December. The funds raised by the auction totaled $2 billion, with $376 million dedicated to utilities to assist low-income ratepayers and $1.82 billion supporting environmental investment.

The bill explicitly aims to incorporate environmental justice principles by examining impacts of policies and funding projects that benefit vulnerable communities. Every two years the Department of Ecology is required to conduct a cap-and-invest environmental justice review to ensure the program reduces GHG emissions in overburdened and highly impacted communities. Additionally, once funds from the program have been raised, the environmental justice assessment is required to determine how the money is allocated. The assessment establishes a minimum of 35% and a goal of 40% of funds to be allocated to benefit overburdened and highly impacted communities, with another 10% of funds allocated to support projects proposed by federally recognized tribes. However, after a partial veto, the Senate removed a section of the bill that required tribal consultation on how the funds would be spent. The bill does require that the environmental justice council (established by the HEAL Act, discussed below) provide recommendations on how the cap-and-invest program is developed and implemented.

Similar to CETA, the CCA is an intentional blend of climate mitigation with an emphasis on environmental justice and equity, yet its future remains unclear. Earlier this year, a petition to overturn the CCA was submitted to the Washington Secretary of State. The petition came at a time when gas prices in Washington were some of the highest in the nation, which some claim is an outcome of the cap-and-invest program. This highlights a gap in the policy’s equity goal: big polluters pay, but costs get passed on to consumers. Because of this, we are likely to see CCA appear on the ballot in November. At present, it is unclear if voters will repeal the CCA or not. 

Healthy Environment for All Act

Also passed in 2021, the Healthy Environment for All Act, or HEAL Act, is the state’s only comprehensive EJ legislation. The bill was developed in accordance with the Environmental Justice Task Force’s policy recommendations for integrating environmental justice principles into Washington’s state agencies. The HEAL Act calls upon the various state departments such as Ecology, Agriculture, Commerce, Health, Transportation, and Natural Resources as well as the Puget Sound Partnership to actively address environmental health disparities in vulnerable and highly impacted communities and implement environmental justice solutions in their strategic planning. Though the act only names these agencies to abide by these requirements, other departments and agencies are encouraged to opt in at any time.

The HEAL Act requires named agencies to incorporate environmental justice principles into their decision-making in four major ways. The first is that agencies must design and implement community engagement plans. For new plans and programs, the named agencies are required to outline how they will engage with overburdened communities and vulnerable populations. This obligates participating agencies to meaningfully engage with the communities and populations that may be affected by future policy decisions. Similarly, agencies are tasked to develop a tribal consultation and engagement framework by engaging with the federally recognized tribes that may be impacted by policies. Third, agencies must consider and incorporate environmental justice into budgeting and funding decisions. Funding and expenditures related to an agency’s program must be “equitably distributed [to address] environmental harms or provide environmental benefits towards overburdened communities and vulnerable populations” (RCW 70A.02.080). Finally, prior to implementing new agency action initiatives, agencies must conduct an environmental justice assessment. Similar to CCA, the environmental justice assessment is meant to survey and understand potential impacts of new agency action initiatives on vulnerable populations and overburdened communities. 

The HEAL Act is a powerful policy that calls on state agencies to interrogate their impact on historically overburdened communities and vulnerable populations. It also holds agencies to reporting standards beyond updating strategic planning. Each agency must update the environmental justice council on the implementation of their environmental justice goals. Not only does the HEAL Act compel agencies to incorporate environmental justice principles, it also has agency transparency built in. Though this policy mandates only named state agencies to comply, it also sets a precedent for environmental justice inclusion at the state level and empowers county and city agencies to participate.

These three laws are by no means perfect nor extensive, but it’s a great and important start to the challenging climate and equity work we have ahead of us. Each of these laws explicitly require the state’s highest polluters and state agencies to fund overburdened communities. And while these laws demonstrate our state’s commitment to climate change mitigation and environmental justice, we must not take them for granted.

The awareness voters have on these issues is growing, and legislators are developing policies in response to their constituents’ demands. The Clean Energy Transition Act, Climate Commitment Act, and the HEAL Act are all concrete examples of what happens when voters prioritize climate and environmental justice policies. This is a big election year for both presidential and state elections. This year, Washington state voters will vote for a new governor, state Senate and House seats, and municipal government seats as well as a repeal for the CCA. I hope that this article has helped guide you on key climate policies on the ballot this year as well as highlighted climate achievements made in past legislative sessions. Regardless of  how you decide to vote this election season, I encourage you to exercise your right and make your voice heard. If you need to register to vote in Washington, it is very easy to do so here.