A hearing Thursday before the Senate Transportation Committee offered Republicans a chance to sound off on Gov. Jay Inslee’s potential carbon policy proposals, and Chairman Curtis King of Yakima didn’t leave the opportunity to waste.

King criticized a report earlier this week from an Inslee-appointed task force that examined a cap-and-trade or a carbon tax program, and reported that either could work for Washington state under the right scenarios.

King didn’t buy it, saying it included no input from trade groups from the industries that would be hardest hit under the programs — the Washington Trucking Association and the oil industry, which also represent major sources of emissions.

“They weren’t at the table they were on the table,” King said at the hearing. “They’re the ones that have to pay this. You’re picking winners and losers.”

Inslee’s policy lead on carbon emissions reductions, Chris Davis, spent the first portion of the hearing going over the report and other analysis on the programs. They would have to be tailored to Washington, but economic analysis from the Office of Financial Management says, by 2035, it would result in 10 percent to 37.5 percent increase in fuel costs, which would be on top of a 21 percent increase predicted to happen anyway.

Yet, the OFM analysis contends the economic impacts would be minimal because people will drive fewer miles and consume less gasoline, with only a .6 percent to 1.3 percent impact to personal income, a .3 to .8 percent change in employment, and a .4 to 1.3 percent impact to gross state product.

The reason for this, explained Davis, is that petroleum and coal only account for 4.8 percent of the state’s industrial outlet across the economy, according to the OFM analysis.

Davis admitted that rural areas that rely on sectors of the economy that have higher emissions would be hit harder under a cap-and-trade or carbon tax, such as farming or industrial manufacturing. The OFM analysis takes an aggregate in calculating the 4.8 percent output figure.

King balked at that, too, saying they should try and gauge what the impact of a cap-and-trade or carbon tax would mean to his district in Eastern Washington, which is heavily reliant on agricultural production.

“Come over to my district and tell me it’s going to be 4.8 percent,” King said.

Davis also brought forth statistics from two frequently used comparisons, British Columbia, which has a revenue-neutral carbon tax (meaning the government returns revenue back to residents and other entities through rebates or grant programs), and California, which has a cap-and-trade program.

He said fuel consumption in British Columbia has dropped 16 percent despite a nationwide increase of 3 percent, and B.C. has seen job growth mirror the national trend. California has had 3.6 percent growth compared to a 2.8 percent trend in the U.S., while $9 billion has been invested in clean energy since 2006, according to Davis’ report.

Neither King nor other Republican members of the committee offered arguments that quantified how badly a cap-and-trade or a carbon tax program would impact Washington, either in jobs lost or in businesses moving out-of-state.

Davis mentioned briefly that both California and British Columbia did experience “leakage” — jobs or industries leaving town — but he said Washington could protect against that with the right policy designs.

Sen Steve Hobbs, D-Lake Stevens, asked why the state was pursuing such a policy at all, saying it only accounts for slightly more than 1 percent of U.S. carbon emissions. Davis responded that the state has a statutory duty to reduce its carbon emissions thanks to a 2008 law, which it currently isn’t meeting, according to state consultants.

Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale, asked when the governor was planning to issue a policy proposal, so other groups could begin doing economic analysis on it. But Davis could only say it would be forthcoming in conjunction with other elements of the executive order he issued this spring. Inslee plans to produce a “report card” on the executive order prior to the legislative session, Davis said.

Ericksen and King expressed frustration in a letter to Inslee last week, saying the believed the Legislature had been frozen out of an evaluation process for a possible complementary policy, a low-carbon fuels standard.

“Our most pressing concern is that your administration continues to move forward on LCFS policy with little regard for the legislature’s constitutional role as the chief policymaking branch of state government,” they wrote. “Adopting LCFS would represent a monumental policy shift for the people of Washington.”

Inslee fired back in a letter Thursday, saying they and industry representatives had been briefed and participated during the evaluation process. Most importantly, he emphasized “Let me be very clear, yet again — there has been no decision on a specific proposal.”

Your support matters.

Public service journalism is important today as ever. If you get something from our coverage, please consider making a donation to support our work. Thanks for reading our stuff.