Legislative losses disappoint environmentalists

It was a tough legislative session for environmentalists in Washington.

They won some victories, such as getting a permanent tug stationed at Neah Bay to help prevent oil spills. They also fended off proposed changes to a citizens’ initiative requiring utilities to seek new clean energy sources such as wind and solar power.

But environmental groups passed only one of their priority bills, a measure requiring new buildings to drastically reduce energy use by 2031.

Other priorities didn’t fare as well.

A climate change bill backed by Gov. Chris Gregoire was watered down before it failed in the final days of the 105-day session, and a bill to levy a fee on oil for stormwater cleanup passed the House late in the session but didn’t get a Senate vote.

“This really was a year when we needed to take some big steps forward,” said a disappointed Becky Kelley, campaign director for the Washington Environment Council.

Environmentalists, along with other groups, faced challenges as lawmakers struggled to deal with a $9 billion deficit over the next two-year budget cycle.

Environmental groups did secure tax credits for renewable energy projects and $70 million in the capital budget for parks, wildlife habitat and farmland preservation projects.

“We could have and should have done better,” said Rep. Dave Upthegrove, D-Des Moines. “Every year that goes by is a missed opportunity to take the steps we’re going to have to take. It doesn’t get easier by waiting.”

Upthegrove sponsored the governor’s bill to cap the amount of pollution that large industries could emit, starting in 2012. It also set up a regional market system for polluters to buy or sell credits if they pollute more or less than their limit.

But legislators were cool to the idea.

“The economic climate we’re in and the budget made it difficult for people to dive in,” said Upthegrove, who supported a cap.

With businesses against it, similar plans in the region fizzling out and President Barack Obama pushing a federal cap-and-trade program, supporters shifted to a more modest proposal.

The House passed a grab-bag of measures aimed at reducing the effects of global warming, including requiring TransAlta’s coal plant in Centralia to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least half by 2025. It also required planning groups in the largest counties to come up with plans to cut back on vehicle miles driven.

That House version didn’t get a Senate vote, in part because the House and Senate differed over how to treat TransAlta.

“It was personally very disappointing because the votes were there,” Gregoire said. She made a rare appearance before legislators mid-session to lobby for the bill, saying it would create jobs and pave the way for the state to be a leader in clean energy.

Grant Nelson, governmental affairs director of the Association of Washington Business, said the bill in its original form would have created hardships for businesses. Though the group had concerns on the transportation issue, his group was OK with the latest version, he said.

Environmentalists fended off a bill they said would have gutted Initiative 937, which requires some utilities to get some of their power from alternative sources such as wind or solar. Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, and others wanted to give utilities more leeway to meet I-937’s clean energy mandates.

“There was a lot in that bill that would have benefited several of our member utilities and their ratepayers,” said Dean Boyer with the Washington Public Utility Districts Association.

Another environmental priority – requiring municipalities to consider climate change in land use and transportation planning – didn’t get traction this session either.

Kelley said the Legislature had been on a roll in dealing with climate change in recent years, but “this year everything came to a screeching halt.”

“We need to lay the foundation for a clean energy economy as we come out of the recession,” she said. “There was certainly a great deal of unfinished business.”