PORT TOWNSEND — The Port Townsend City Council passed a motion directing city manager John Mauro to draft a resolution to oppose Initiative 2117, which would repeal the Climate Commitment Act.
The resolution should appear before the council at its next business meeting.
The Climate Commitment Act (CCA) is a cap-and-invest program which dictates that heavy polluters must purchase carbon allowances above a set cap.
There are a limited number of allowances to be purchased, and that number is planned to be reduced incrementally until carbon emissions reach 95 percent below 1990 levels in 2050.
Funds raised through carbon allocations are to be spent on projects aimed at the reduction of carbon emissions, such as conservation, clean building and clean transportation projects.
The Legislature appropriated $3.2 billion from the CCA for the 2023-2025 biennium following the sale of $2.15 billion at the first allowances auction in February 2023.
In his introduction to the agenda item Monday, Mauro said city staff members could not appear to either oppose or support the initiative.
“The reason why we’re bringing this very high-level summary to you is because we don’t want to stray into territory of advocating or presenting a lopsided view of which way you should go on this,” Mauro said. “I heard from council. This is an initiative that you wanted weigh in on, and it’s really up to staff to bring you information so you can make a decision.”
Mayor David Faber made his opposition to the initiative clear.
“Externalities of choosing to live remotely, or choosing to use polluting heat systems shouldn’t just have to be borne by the rest of us,” he said. “The Climate Commitment Act is an attempt to address those externalities and in fact use economic pressure to encourage people to choose less destructive methods of behavior. We already in our energy code and building code require newcomers and young people to bear the cost of avoiding or mitigating climate change, but we have very few tools to actually encourage those who are incumbent homeowners, or have existing vehicles and so forth to make different choices.”
“I’m very much in favor of opposing Initiative 2117, which, I think, if passed, would be destructive not just in our state, but the entire world,” Faber said.
Council member Ben Thomas said he was wary to put his thumb on the scale in recommending what the citizens would vote for.
Thomas is the chair of the Jefferson Transit Authority board, which he said will likely benefit from the initiative failing. Also, he cares personally about the topic, noting he rode his bike to Monday’s council meeting, but he felt that supporting the motion did not fit his idea of his role as a council member.
“I agree with a lot of what you say,” Thomas said. “I just would want to point out that, unfortunately, the way it works out is a lot of people that don’t have the income are dealing with old furnaces in their houses, without the means to upgrade, and driving cars that have worse mileage, and having to drive to work, especially now that it’s harder to choose the housing you might want to choose.”
Faber said he agreed with Thomas’ points. Council member Neil Nelson also affirmed Thomas’ points, but they were not sufficient to sway either from taking action in favor of retaining the CCA.
“I kind of agree with what Ben just had to say,” Nelson said. “But this is important. I get it, for those who need to use fuel, but nonetheless, it’s a tax on using that and it works in our favor all the way around. We should oppose this, period.”
The motion passed, with Thomas opposing.
Thomas later said his decision to vote against the the motion would have been the same if council had voted to recommend drafting a resolution in support of I-2117.
“I feel like I am here to amplify (local) voices upwards, not amplify the government to the people,” Thomas said. “I can communicate what’s going on in government, but I am not gonna tell them what to think or what to do.”
________
Reporter Elijah Sussman can be reached by email at elijah.sussman@sequimgazette.com.
